If they are referring to on-going manufacture as well as the first batch latency, then this bump is not that significant long term. If the order-to-deliver latency differs by 8-to-10 weeks generally then that can make a massive difference to stock control. If you might be waiting for longer to get new stock you would want to keep more in the warehouse in order to better deal with sudden bumps in demand.
But if you don't use the craft as an RKV, you might after hitting the first target be able to redirect it to a second, third, fourth,... - sing it as an RKV might make it more powerful against a single target but a reusable weapon could be far more efficient in a larger strategy.
We told them we wouldn't start logging that piece of data because we don't need it to provide a good product.
In other words they'd have no problem collecting that data if it were useful to them or their advertisers. All that agency has to do is make a case that holding the information would offer a way to increase revenue by a fraction of a % and they'll be off collecting it with reckless abandon.
It wasn't just the lack of people moving to Vista, that problem was starting to go away as people began to buy new machines with it pre-installed (removing the hardware compatibility issues which is one of the things stopping existing XP installs being changed over to Vista) and the major post roll-out problems were addressed (in the first service pack on MS's part, and with 3rd party software being fixed or replacements developed/found for other issues).
The key reason for the support extension was netbooks: XP barely ran on the second and third batches of models with 512Mb RAM and small drives, when netbook sales were heading to their peak, and while a 7 install is less RAM hungry than Vista it wasn't nearly close enough to release and they had no other alternative. While Vista would operate (the word "run" would be incorrect in this context, a one legged tortoise could move faster) on such machines with enough drive space it wouldn't even fit on the 8Gb SSDs that were fairly standard issue at that point.
They found evidence that there was need for an investigation. That evidence turn out to not be true, i.e. the evidence was false (they don't recognise truth as a tristate (true-evidence/false-evidence/not-real-so-not-evidence-either-way), so if it isn't true it is false). You created that false evidence. Therefore you created false evidence, that the authorities then acted on either because it was brought to their attention for some reason or it was spotted as part of a search for something else (or just random surveillance).
You might call that bullshit, and I'd be with you. But you might have to make that call in court (in which case chose a word other than bullshit, otherwise they'll add contempt to your rap sheet) and that might not be easy to "win" depending on the particular circumstances and the imagination of the prosecution.
At that point they find something in your fake data that could be construed as incriminating in some small way, start an investigation that does nothing more than point out all the fake data you have created, then they can charge your with falsifying evidence, wasting police time, and possibly a few other odds and ends.
And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.
At this point couldn't Apple turn around and sue the Taiwan office for selling something it didn't have, finish off the company with that legal battle (as they are already close being shut down duw to debt) and buy the trademark in the resulting fire-sale?
They know Proview (Taiwan) had no right to sell them that trademark, Proview have stated this in a court of law (presumably under oath though I know little of the Chinese legal system but I assume they have concepts equivalent to out oaths and purgery laws), so they should have a fairly string case (again, assuming that my assumptions of the Chinese legal system are close to correct).
They are hitting the same angle as the iPhone4's high-res screen: it is intended that at normal reading distances, perhaps even closer, the human eye will not be able to resolve individual pixels.
I don't own any iDevices, but I've had occasion to use other people's and the 4's screen really is impressive. It just looks nicer than I'd think possible, certainly nicer than other phone screens, as if there is some other technical trickery going on. The high-res screen on the iPod3 will probably be marketed the same way as the one used by the iPhone4, and for some users it'll make quite a difference.
I still won't be buying one. But I appreciate the possible "luxury utility" of the high-res screen.
80 characters isn't a bad choice for how most people read. Studies have shown that the ideal (as much as there is one ideal of course, it varies between typefaces, styles and sizes) is around 60 characters. Allowing for a few indents 72 or 80 characters are good guidelines.
But it is only a guildeline. Code is not natural language and the rules are more flexible. You are not just trying to make the code easier to read line by line but you are trying to illustrate its flow in a way that you don't need to with natural language, and sometimes long lines actually help this rather than hinder it.
Using the right tool for the job extends to using the right layout for the code at hand.
Or don't transfer the name proper at all. Well, don't transfer it but monitor email on it for six months.
That way you have no security issue at all.
You want to be helpful to the new site runner of course, but it would be much safer to hand over copies of the site and relevant databases (sanitised where needed, of course) then point the relevant A records to his/her web server and forward things going to relevant email addresses that way too.
You have no security issues, they get the domain to keep running the site under and can respond to mail sent to site related addresses, and the other users of the site should see minimal (if any) downtime if the transition to their web server is done well. Everyone should be happy with that.
If the new owner wants fuller control of the domain at a later time, they can perform a managed transition to a new domain without needing to involve you (host under both old and new names for some time by advertise the new name, then start responding to requests for the old domain with redirects to the new (if you use the right redirect search engines rankings should not be lost), and finally replace responses to the old name with "please update your bookmarks" after a while longer).
You'll want to transition completely off the old name yourself of course. Do that in the phased way others have suggested, but don't get rid of the domain, at least until you are 100% sure that absolutely nothing you care about will ever go to it my email. Keeping the domain active will only cost a few $ per year unless it is one of the novelty types, or otherwise under an expensive country-specific TLD, or registered with an unnecessarily expensive registrar.
Call it a personal preference, but I prefer my relationships to have a little more "real life" in them. Meeting at tea and coffee shops, having a meal, you know, actually doing real things. Talking with my friends.
Same here. And I'm not fan of facebook and their ilk. But some of my proper friends (and family that I care about too) are, and if I stayed away from one of their preferred contact mediums completely I'd lose one method of staying in contact at those times when meeting them in person isn't possible for one reason or another. While I'd prefer email they wouldn't and I the preference isn't important enough to me that I feel like labouring the point. For a start the second choice for most of them is the phone, and like you I've never been comfortable with that so I'd be swapping something I dislike for something I dislike and that my friends dislike in comparison to the other option.
There are people on my list who are there out of politeness rather than anything else, but that is no different to being pleasant to them in person when we happen to be in the same place in RealLife(tm) because of our mutual friends.
It isn't an investment in the shares and/or dividends, you are simply pledging some money up-front in order to support the game being made. What you get, other than the game being made and you getting a copy (probably) cheaper than the price it will be release to the rest of the world at, is clearly documented on the page.
It depends on that person's income, assets, and other outgoings though. To a rich sad person $100 might not be much compared to the total scale of disposable income.
I think many people have similar plans. IIRC there is only one USB port on the A though, so you'll need a hub to use both the NIC and an input device at the same time, but two on the B.
That is a very complicated issue that will vary from territory to territory. But I'm not away of it ever being tested in court much as when ever cases on the matter progress beyond a certain stage all goes quiet as the plaintiff settles out of court and the settlement includes an agreement to go quietly.
b) is the vendor obliged to pay the refund, just because Microsoft wrote it into the EULA?
If the suppler passes that EULA on to you then yes. By supplying the software to you they are agreeing to a contract with MS that almost certainly contains terms covering the matter. Unlike the end user license agreement, that will be a "proper" legally binding contract with a lot less leeway to call "no fair!" after signing.
My phone (Motorola, running Android 2.1 as they've not bothered upgrading it despite hints that they would around the time that I bought the thing, luckily I got it dirt cheap so I don't feel too cheated) reboots itself a couple of times per day. It has never happened while I've been actively using it for anything (calls, messaging,...) but I know when it does it if it is close to me and not hidden in a pocket that muffles the sound, as there is a characteristic beep when it reboots. I can tell when it has done it if I wasn't in earshot as the recently run apps screen is clear next time I look at it.
I don't run anything much significant app wise (Opera Mobile and Mini are on there, as are a game or two to wend away the time when the weather puts me on a bus to work instead of cycling, and a remote access thingy that only runs once in a blue moon when I need it), and I've tried completely removing all of them which makes no difference.
This isn't app instability, it is either OS or hardware instability. Even if an app were to be the root cause then it is still an OS problem as one app should not be able to have that effect. I've seen many people complain of the same thing on this and other phones. There are those that suggest "well, it is your fault for running such an old version of the OS" but as I have absolutely no choice in the matter I don't accept that - if the phone manufacturers using Android want to keep forcing the appliance model on us then they can take the blame when the appliance they have supplied fails in some way.
At this point my next phone may still be an Android device, though it'll be at least six months before I switch so we'll see what happens over that time. What Google do with the bit of Motorola they've bought is something that could be significant. I refuse to join the Apple lock-in club (if I'm paying that much for a general purpose computing device I want control over what I can run on it thanks, if I just wanted a phone I'd buy something far cheaper) but a modern Windows phone might be something I'd consider depending on what I find when I research the matter closer to change time.
Aye, but setting a price before hand sets an expectation (the commercial entity is hopefully less likely to think "we can offer them $3 and a free pass for out office tour if they find out") and makes it clear that there is the option to fight by their rules should they wish to chose that.
Then again not matter what you do, they can probably afford better lawyers...
I think there is a case for dual licensing.
1. Make the default license for your code commercial and decide a high-but-reasonable pricing scheme. The exact nature of the pricing would be difficult to generalise obviously, but quoting prices at $X per device would cover use in consumer electronics devices and $X/user/month would cover use in software-as-a-service solutions.
2. Suggest that you are open to negotiation on the pricing scheme (to account for volume discounts and so forth) and have a basic idea how low you would go generally.
3. Offer a F/OSS license as an alternative to the above
That way you have a defined loss for them having not paid and having not gone for option 3. Free use of the code becomes a negotiated point rather than the default stance even though there need not be any actual negotiation (all they have to do to get the F/OSS discount is play by the F/OSS rules), if they have not negotiated different pricing (i.e. free use) by any means then you probably have more of a case for either getting compensated (by them paying up) or forcing compliance (by them playing the game). It will become their choice just like any other commercial decision (we could use this component at cost X per Y assuming Z or this one at cost A per B assuming C) rather then them claiming your viral license is trying to force their hand. You are more likely to find affordabel legal help for a case too: if there is a well defined loss then you migth get picked up by a no-win-no-fee outfit who otherwise would not touch your case due to the higher risk of no payout at all.
A bit like bus fares are often done over here to get around the fact that the bus company is not permitted by law to directly hand out fines for non payment. The standard fair from anywhere to anywhere in the city is £50. When you ask the driver for a ticket covering a trip from Stonebow to Monks Cross and back you pay a "negotiated" price of £2.20. The £50 demanded for none payment is then not a fine, it is simply the payment that is due. Without that pre-set standard price things are legally and administratively more tricky, as with trying to define the loss due to infringement of a F/OSS license.
The trick would be deciding a pricing scheme that is expensive enough to strongly encourage OSS compliance, yet not so high as to be thrown out of court later (if challenged that far) as simply unrealistic.
If you don't bother enforcing your license then you weaken it for everyone else as people will continue to think they can just treat OSS as public domain because, well, they are doing and getting away with it.
If you are not going to enforce your choice of license, then use a license that you will enforce or just release public domain and be done with it.
[sarcasm]Which has a faaaar slower release schedule. Definitely.[/sarcasm]
Well, yes, but... The update process was one of the things keeping me off Chromium/Chrome. Once that difference had gone I had one less reason not to consider switching.
If you use X over Y because in part because X doesn't do Z, when X starts doing Z you reconsider the option of using Y.
Also a couple of releases got on my nerves by breaking things I use. For a while, around v7 and v8 IIRC, all plugins kept not being available: not disabled, just no UI elements to interact with them (sometimes restarting Firefox helped, sometimes it didn't) and during that period I discovered that the tools built into Chrome could do most of what I used Firebug for and do it more responsively.
This has been done in the UK for some time, though for slightly different reasons. Having exactly the same product aside from it having a different model name/number used to be something a couple of camera manufacturers used to do for Dixons/Currys/PCWorld. It meant that price-match offers could be very generous (Found it cheaper elsewhere? We'll refund three times the difference!), because they would never need to pay out as no one else carried that exact model (well, they did, but with a different label) except those three stores which always had it at the same price as they are all owned by the same parent group.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are referring to on-going manufacture as well as the first batch latency, then this bump is not that significant long term. If the order-to-deliver latency differs by 8-to-10 weeks generally then that can make a massive difference to stock control. If you might be waiting for longer to get new stock you would want to keep more in the warehouse in order to better deal with sudden bumps in demand.
But if you don't use the craft as an RKV, you might after hitting the first target be able to redirect it to a second, third, fourth, ... - sing it as an RKV might make it more powerful against a single target but a reusable weapon could be far more efficient in a larger strategy.
We told them we wouldn't start logging that piece of data because we don't need it to provide a good product.
In other words they'd have no problem collecting that data if it were useful to them or their advertisers. All that agency has to do is make a case that holding the information would offer a way to increase revenue by a fraction of a % and they'll be off collecting it with reckless abandon.
Or am I being too cynical here?
It wasn't just the lack of people moving to Vista, that problem was starting to go away as people began to buy new machines with it pre-installed (removing the hardware compatibility issues which is one of the things stopping existing XP installs being changed over to Vista) and the major post roll-out problems were addressed (in the first service pack on MS's part, and with 3rd party software being fixed or replacements developed/found for other issues).
The key reason for the support extension was netbooks: XP barely ran on the second and third batches of models with 512Mb RAM and small drives, when netbook sales were heading to their peak, and while a 7 install is less RAM hungry than Vista it wasn't nearly close enough to release and they had no other alternative. While Vista would operate (the word "run" would be incorrect in this context, a one legged tortoise could move faster) on such machines with enough drive space it wouldn't even fit on the 8Gb SSDs that were fairly standard issue at that point.
They found evidence that there was need for an investigation. That evidence turn out to not be true, i.e. the evidence was false (they don't recognise truth as a tristate (true-evidence/false-evidence/not-real-so-not-evidence-either-way), so if it isn't true it is false). You created that false evidence. Therefore you created false evidence, that the authorities then acted on either because it was brought to their attention for some reason or it was spotted as part of a search for something else (or just random surveillance).
You might call that bullshit, and I'd be with you. But you might have to make that call in court (in which case chose a word other than bullshit, otherwise they'll add contempt to your rap sheet) and that might not be easy to "win" depending on the particular circumstances and the imagination of the prosecution.
At that point they find something in your fake data that could be construed as incriminating in some small way, start an investigation that does nothing more than point out all the fake data you have created, then they can charge your with falsifying evidence, wasting police time, and possibly a few other odds and ends.
And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.
At this point couldn't Apple turn around and sue the Taiwan office for selling something it didn't have, finish off the company with that legal battle (as they are already close being shut down duw to debt) and buy the trademark in the resulting fire-sale?
They know Proview (Taiwan) had no right to sell them that trademark, Proview have stated this in a court of law (presumably under oath though I know little of the Chinese legal system but I assume they have concepts equivalent to out oaths and purgery laws), so they should have a fairly string case (again, assuming that my assumptions of the Chinese legal system are close to correct).
They are hitting the same angle as the iPhone4's high-res screen: it is intended that at normal reading distances, perhaps even closer, the human eye will not be able to resolve individual pixels.
I don't own any iDevices, but I've had occasion to use other people's and the 4's screen really is impressive. It just looks nicer than I'd think possible, certainly nicer than other phone screens, as if there is some other technical trickery going on. The high-res screen on the iPod3 will probably be marketed the same way as the one used by the iPhone4, and for some users it'll make quite a difference.
I still won't be buying one. But I appreciate the possible "luxury utility" of the high-res screen.
80 characters isn't a bad choice for how most people read. Studies have shown that the ideal (as much as there is one ideal of course, it varies between typefaces, styles and sizes) is around 60 characters. Allowing for a few indents 72 or 80 characters are good guidelines.
But it is only a guildeline. Code is not natural language and the rules are more flexible. You are not just trying to make the code easier to read line by line but you are trying to illustrate its flow in a way that you don't need to with natural language, and sometimes long lines actually help this rather than hinder it.
Using the right tool for the job extends to using the right layout for the code at hand.
Or don't transfer the name proper at all. Well, don't transfer it but monitor email on it for six months.
That way you have no security issue at all.
You want to be helpful to the new site runner of course, but it would be much safer to hand over copies of the site and relevant databases (sanitised where needed, of course) then point the relevant A records to his/her web server and forward things going to relevant email addresses that way too.
You have no security issues, they get the domain to keep running the site under and can respond to mail sent to site related addresses, and the other users of the site should see minimal (if any) downtime if the transition to their web server is done well. Everyone should be happy with that.
If the new owner wants fuller control of the domain at a later time, they can perform a managed transition to a new domain without needing to involve you (host under both old and new names for some time by advertise the new name, then start responding to requests for the old domain with redirects to the new (if you use the right redirect search engines rankings should not be lost), and finally replace responses to the old name with "please update your bookmarks" after a while longer).
You'll want to transition completely off the old name yourself of course. Do that in the phased way others have suggested, but don't get rid of the domain, at least until you are 100% sure that absolutely nothing you care about will ever go to it my email. Keeping the domain active will only cost a few $ per year unless it is one of the novelty types, or otherwise under an expensive country-specific TLD, or registered with an unnecessarily expensive registrar.
Call it a personal preference, but I prefer my relationships to have a little more "real life" in them. Meeting at tea and coffee shops, having a meal, you know, actually doing real things. Talking with my friends.
Same here. And I'm not fan of facebook and their ilk. But some of my proper friends (and family that I care about too) are, and if I stayed away from one of their preferred contact mediums completely I'd lose one method of staying in contact at those times when meeting them in person isn't possible for one reason or another. While I'd prefer email they wouldn't and I the preference isn't important enough to me that I feel like labouring the point. For a start the second choice for most of them is the phone, and like you I've never been comfortable with that so I'd be swapping something I dislike for something I dislike and that my friends dislike in comparison to the other option.
There are people on my list who are there out of politeness rather than anything else, but that is no different to being pleasant to them in person when we happen to be in the same place in RealLife(tm) because of our mutual friends.
It isn't an investment in the shares and/or dividends, you are simply pledging some money up-front in order to support the game being made. What you get, other than the game being made and you getting a copy (probably) cheaper than the price it will be release to the rest of the world at, is clearly documented on the page.
That shows how blinkered you are. Not all old people are little you know.
It depends on that person's income, assets, and other outgoings though. To a rich sad person $100 might not be much compared to the total scale of disposable income.
I think many people have similar plans. IIRC there is only one USB port on the A though, so you'll need a hub to use both the NIC and an input device at the same time, but two on the B.
a) is the EULA legally binding?
That is a very complicated issue that will vary from territory to territory. But I'm not away of it ever being tested in court much as when ever cases on the matter progress beyond a certain stage all goes quiet as the plaintiff settles out of court and the settlement includes an agreement to go quietly.
b) is the vendor obliged to pay the refund, just because Microsoft wrote it into the EULA?
If the suppler passes that EULA on to you then yes. By supplying the software to you they are agreeing to a contract with MS that almost certainly contains terms covering the matter. Unlike the end user license agreement, that will be a "proper" legally binding contract with a lot less leeway to call "no fair!" after signing.
nobody uses aero in everyday language nowadays
Once again I'm declared a nobody by slashdot. Should I just get it over with a book a flight to Switzerland now?!
My phone (Motorola, running Android 2.1 as they've not bothered upgrading it despite hints that they would around the time that I bought the thing, luckily I got it dirt cheap so I don't feel too cheated) reboots itself a couple of times per day. It has never happened while I've been actively using it for anything (calls, messaging, ...) but I know when it does it if it is close to me and not hidden in a pocket that muffles the sound, as there is a characteristic beep when it reboots. I can tell when it has done it if I wasn't in earshot as the recently run apps screen is clear next time I look at it.
I don't run anything much significant app wise (Opera Mobile and Mini are on there, as are a game or two to wend away the time when the weather puts me on a bus to work instead of cycling, and a remote access thingy that only runs once in a blue moon when I need it), and I've tried completely removing all of them which makes no difference.
This isn't app instability, it is either OS or hardware instability. Even if an app were to be the root cause then it is still an OS problem as one app should not be able to have that effect. I've seen many people complain of the same thing on this and other phones. There are those that suggest "well, it is your fault for running such an old version of the OS" but as I have absolutely no choice in the matter I don't accept that - if the phone manufacturers using Android want to keep forcing the appliance model on us then they can take the blame when the appliance they have supplied fails in some way.
At this point my next phone may still be an Android device, though it'll be at least six months before I switch so we'll see what happens over that time. What Google do with the bit of Motorola they've bought is something that could be significant. I refuse to join the Apple lock-in club (if I'm paying that much for a general purpose computing device I want control over what I can run on it thanks, if I just wanted a phone I'd buy something far cheaper) but a modern Windows phone might be something I'd consider depending on what I find when I research the matter closer to change time.
Aye, but setting a price before hand sets an expectation (the commercial entity is hopefully less likely to think "we can offer them $3 and a free pass for out office tour if they find out") and makes it clear that there is the option to fight by their rules should they wish to chose that.
Then again not matter what you do, they can probably afford better lawyers...
I think there is a case for dual licensing.
1. Make the default license for your code commercial and decide a high-but-reasonable pricing scheme. The exact nature of the pricing would be difficult to generalise obviously, but quoting prices at $X per device would cover use in consumer electronics devices and $X/user/month would cover use in software-as-a-service solutions.
2. Suggest that you are open to negotiation on the pricing scheme (to account for volume discounts and so forth) and have a basic idea how low you would go generally.
3. Offer a F/OSS license as an alternative to the above
That way you have a defined loss for them having not paid and having not gone for option 3. Free use of the code becomes a negotiated point rather than the default stance even though there need not be any actual negotiation (all they have to do to get the F/OSS discount is play by the F/OSS rules), if they have not negotiated different pricing (i.e. free use) by any means then you probably have more of a case for either getting compensated (by them paying up) or forcing compliance (by them playing the game). It will become their choice just like any other commercial decision (we could use this component at cost X per Y assuming Z or this one at cost A per B assuming C) rather then them claiming your viral license is trying to force their hand. You are more likely to find affordabel legal help for a case too: if there is a well defined loss then you migth get picked up by a no-win-no-fee outfit who otherwise would not touch your case due to the higher risk of no payout at all.
A bit like bus fares are often done over here to get around the fact that the bus company is not permitted by law to directly hand out fines for non payment. The standard fair from anywhere to anywhere in the city is £50. When you ask the driver for a ticket covering a trip from Stonebow to Monks Cross and back you pay a "negotiated" price of £2.20. The £50 demanded for none payment is then not a fine, it is simply the payment that is due. Without that pre-set standard price things are legally and administratively more tricky, as with trying to define the loss due to infringement of a F/OSS license.
The trick would be deciding a pricing scheme that is expensive enough to strongly encourage OSS compliance, yet not so high as to be thrown out of court later (if challenged that far) as simply unrealistic.
If you don't bother enforcing your license then you weaken it for everyone else as people will continue to think they can just treat OSS as public domain because, well, they are doing and getting away with it.
If you are not going to enforce your choice of license, then use a license that you will enforce or just release public domain and be done with it.
Ah, the "I want so I'll take and rationalise later" reasoning.
[sarcasm]Which has a faaaar slower release schedule. Definitely.[/sarcasm]
Well, yes, but... The update process was one of the things keeping me off Chromium/Chrome. Once that difference had gone I had one less reason not to consider switching.
If you use X over Y because in part because X doesn't do Z, when X starts doing Z you reconsider the option of using Y.
Also a couple of releases got on my nerves by breaking things I use. For a while, around v7 and v8 IIRC, all plugins kept not being available: not disabled, just no UI elements to interact with them (sometimes restarting Firefox helped, sometimes it didn't) and during that period I discovered that the tools built into Chrome could do most of what I used Firebug for and do it more responsively.
It doesn't replace his mills and lathes, but it sure is a convenient addition.
Ah, the sign of someone who knows their trade, rather than a boy playing with toys: knowing the right tool for the job.
This has been done in the UK for some time, though for slightly different reasons. Having exactly the same product aside from it having a different model name/number used to be something a couple of camera manufacturers used to do for Dixons/Currys/PCWorld. It meant that price-match offers could be very generous (Found it cheaper elsewhere? We'll refund three times the difference!), because they would never need to pay out as no one else carried that exact model (well, they did, but with a different label) except those three stores which always had it at the same price as they are all owned by the same parent group.