Out of curiosity, what is it that makes you think 10.9 is a "toy operating system"? The only significant regression between 10.6 and 10.9 IIRC is Spaces is now one-dimensional, but TotalSpaces does a good job of fixing that.
I disagree - memory compression has made Mavericks run much better at 4GB than either of the Lions in my anecdotal experience.
To the GP umafuckit, check the hard drive in that mini carefully; in my experience strange OS X slowness is often a sign of a dying hard drive (I've seen this probably a dozen times on various clients' computers). OS X is annoyingly sensitive to hard drive issues.
IIRC this tends to be caused by misbehaving kernel extensions (old ones that are not compatible with ML). Blackberry sync driver, logmein driver, sometimes HP's shitty printer drivers, etc. Check/System/Library/Extensions/ for old cruft.
It's not mimicking the protocol that seems (to me) like it should be illegal, but rather using AOL's chat servers when you explicitly do not have permission to do so. AOL pays to run and maintain those for the benefit of their customers, not for the benefit of Microsoft. To me is feels something like a crappy restaurant handing its customers a plate of food and a red suit jacket and then telling them, "our dining room kind of sucks. Go down the street, third door on your right is a restaurant with a better view and awesome service. If you wear this jacket they'll think you're part of tonight's wedding reception and you're set."
And "Can not sue" clauses generally don't exist in a vast majority of jurisdictions around the world. Because firstly, they are stupid. Secondly, they are unfair. And thirdly, they are not (generally) legally enforceable anyway.
They are perfectly legal and enforceable in the United States, so long as the clause applies to both parties and specifies a neutral 3rd-party arbiter (at which point they are "fair").
Mandatory arbitration clauses are perfectly valid and legal in the US, so long as they apply to both parties and specify a neutral 3rd-party arbiter. THIS situation was likely in enforceable for other reasons - one of those being that some text thrown up on a page on a company's website doesn't suddenly create a contract between them and everyone who buys their product or likes in in social media.
How are they going to make them cheaper? If there was a way of doing so, wouldn't somebody be doing it already?
No, because the last guy that thought of some efficiency or tech improvements didn't bother to implement them - after all, surely somebody else did it already...
As I did say in my previous post, but you omitted when quoting it, this might stand up if all parties agreed to the arbitration.
I didn't directly quote it but I did acknowledge your "might" speculation right there in my third sentence. My point is there's no "might" about it - as long as the arbitration clause applies to both parties and the arbiter is a neutral one, it's a perfectly legal and enforceable clause... In the US, obviously. TFA was in a US paper discussing corporations operating in the US and referenced a number of relevant US court decisions, so I did not assume we were discussing elsewhere.
I came in to make a similar complaint so my vote is for insightful. Although at only three sentences, the GP wasn't nearly long enough to be truly accurate.
Indeed. Good luck arguing in court that someone gave up their right to sue. The legal profession tends to be awfully sceptical of such measures, and none more so than judges.
Umm, no. IANAL but even basic research pulls up the Federal Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1925 and allows for contractually-obligated compulsory and binding arbitration, and this has been held up in court time and again. The only way out of this is to prove the company is using a biased arbiter (they basically all use approved, neutral 3rd party arbitration services now so good luck) or (as you yourself speculated) if the clause isn't applied equally (ie. if the company still reserves the right to sue YOU - but unless they're stupid, they don't make this mistake either). TFA even points out that mandatory arbitration clauses have surged in popularity since the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that it was okay to use them to suppress class action suits.
The thing that might (I sure hope) make the "contracts" discussed in TFA unenforceable isn't the fact that they make people give up their rights to sue, but the fact that some "legal terms" page on the company website that the consumer probably isn't even aware of (much less has read) does not a binding contract make.
No reason for a power user to leave it on, IMO. Going through the trouble of overriding just three or four apps is enough to outweigh the trouble of changing the Gatekeeper setting once. It doesn't do anything useful for me - even with it off I still get the "you've never launched this app before, are you sure you want to?" warning, which is enough for me.
Seriously - haven't we seen what happens when an egghead tries to use a real man's weapon in a zombie apocalypse? Disaster. But not quite as disastrous as walking straight into the earth's last NPR radio station without questioning why there's no guards, only five hipsters, and a whole lotta barbecue...
"Rumors"? You realize you can look at photos on the internet, right? The "new" (3 year old) Mail interface is only barely different from its previous incarnation (moving the message list from a top pane to a side pane) and IMO it's a far better use of space on a widescreen display. But if you don't like it, there is (and always has been) an option to use the top-pane style instead.
10.9 did introduce a bunch of Gmail-related bugs into Mail, though, and even now (after a quick emergency Mail update, more fixes in 10.9.1, and even more in 10.9.2) it still doesn't always update when new mail comes into my Gmail account (10.9.3 is rumored to have more fixes). How they fucked up a previously perfectly functional app like that is beyond me.
Pretty much all the other "iOS-ification" I've seen people complain about is also a non-issue, but you weren't specific so I can't help there (Launchpad? Just don't use it. Notifications? Actually quite useful. Gatekeeper? Turn it off if you're a power user. Can't even think of any other things right now).
When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
Really, did you miss the whole goto fail thing, where everyone was looking at the source? Of course, the number of ACs back then crowing "stupid Apple should have stuck with OpenSSL, which is thoroughly vetted by thousands of eyes!" gives me the feeling that ACs will have a very selective memory about the whole thing now.
The lack of data both [Apple and Amazon] deliver is frustrating for marketers because these notoriously opaque giants sit atop incredible troves of information about what consumers actually buy and like, as well as who they are and where they live. One person familiar with the situation said Apple's refusal to share data makes it the best-looking girl at the party, forced to wear a bag over her head.
Not at all like rear-ending the guy in front of you because he slammed on his brakes while you were busy looking over your shoulder in anticipation of a lane change.
I disagree - I'd put the two screens just above the dash, where some cars are already putting HUDs (come to think of it that U doesn't apply here). That way there is minimal time wasted moving your attention from front display (windshield) to the side displays (people should be checking them far more often than they do). A properly-designed camera system shouldn't require any head turning at all, since the only reason we do that at all is to cover all the blind spots a traditional mirror has (and it's risky since it entirely removes your attention to what is happening in your direction of travel).
Your response to the GP is a total non sequitur. AC is correct in asserting that bricked phones are still quite valuable as parts. And 42% is "a tiny percentage"?
If there is no functional change - meaning the parts are perfectly interchangeable, backwards and forwards compatible - then there's no reason to change the part number, because someone looking for part X is going to get a correctly working part (whether it's the older style or the newer, cheaper design is irrelevant). That doesn't mean they weren't hiding a safety issue in this case, of course.
Yeah, if they're going after anyone, it's Evernote. And I'm thankful as can be about that; maybe it'll get the Evernote folks to actually focus on FUNCTIONALITY rather than just completely re-designing the app's interface once a year (in ever more convoluted ways). I stuck with Evernote through two or three obnoxious interface changes and I still have trouble getting text (particularly lists) to format sensibly.
He wasn't referring to the IRC 2057 (family-owned business) deduction at all. He was very clearly referring to the general $5 million estate tax exclusion which you seem to be ignoring entirely. You are right about the taste of feet.
I should also note that mortgages and debt are deducted from the estate value, as are estate administration/probate costs. Basically, none of what you said is correct. Maybe the rules were very different in the distant past (I don't know) or your lawyer was terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, what is it that makes you think 10.9 is a "toy operating system"? The only significant regression between 10.6 and 10.9 IIRC is Spaces is now one-dimensional, but TotalSpaces does a good job of fixing that.
I disagree - memory compression has made Mavericks run much better at 4GB than either of the Lions in my anecdotal experience.
To the GP umafuckit, check the hard drive in that mini carefully; in my experience strange OS X slowness is often a sign of a dying hard drive (I've seen this probably a dozen times on various clients' computers). OS X is annoyingly sensitive to hard drive issues.
IIRC this tends to be caused by misbehaving kernel extensions (old ones that are not compatible with ML). Blackberry sync driver, logmein driver, sometimes HP's shitty printer drivers, etc. Check /System/Library/Extensions/ for old cruft.
It's not mimicking the protocol that seems (to me) like it should be illegal, but rather using AOL's chat servers when you explicitly do not have permission to do so. AOL pays to run and maintain those for the benefit of their customers, not for the benefit of Microsoft. To me is feels something like a crappy restaurant handing its customers a plate of food and a red suit jacket and then telling them, "our dining room kind of sucks. Go down the street, third door on your right is a restaurant with a better view and awesome service. If you wear this jacket they'll think you're part of tonight's wedding reception and you're set."
And "Can not sue" clauses generally don't exist in a vast majority of jurisdictions around the world. Because firstly, they are stupid. Secondly, they are unfair. And thirdly, they are not (generally) legally enforceable anyway.
They are perfectly legal and enforceable in the United States, so long as the clause applies to both parties and specifies a neutral 3rd-party arbiter (at which point they are "fair").
Mandatory arbitration clauses are perfectly valid and legal in the US, so long as they apply to both parties and specify a neutral 3rd-party arbiter. THIS situation was likely in enforceable for other reasons - one of those being that some text thrown up on a page on a company's website doesn't suddenly create a contract between them and everyone who buys their product or likes in in social media.
How are they going to make them cheaper? If there was a way of doing so, wouldn't somebody be doing it already?
No, because the last guy that thought of some efficiency or tech improvements didn't bother to implement them - after all, surely somebody else did it already...
As I did say in my previous post, but you omitted when quoting it, this might stand up if all parties agreed to the arbitration.
I didn't directly quote it but I did acknowledge your "might" speculation right there in my third sentence. My point is there's no "might" about it - as long as the arbitration clause applies to both parties and the arbiter is a neutral one, it's a perfectly legal and enforceable clause... In the US, obviously. TFA was in a US paper discussing corporations operating in the US and referenced a number of relevant US court decisions, so I did not assume we were discussing elsewhere.
I came in to make a similar complaint so my vote is for insightful. Although at only three sentences, the GP wasn't nearly long enough to be truly accurate.
Indeed. Good luck arguing in court that someone gave up their right to sue. The legal profession tends to be awfully sceptical of such measures, and none more so than judges.
Umm, no. IANAL but even basic research pulls up the Federal Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1925 and allows for contractually-obligated compulsory and binding arbitration, and this has been held up in court time and again. The only way out of this is to prove the company is using a biased arbiter (they basically all use approved, neutral 3rd party arbitration services now so good luck) or (as you yourself speculated) if the clause isn't applied equally (ie. if the company still reserves the right to sue YOU - but unless they're stupid, they don't make this mistake either). TFA even points out that mandatory arbitration clauses have surged in popularity since the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that it was okay to use them to suppress class action suits.
The thing that might (I sure hope) make the "contracts" discussed in TFA unenforceable isn't the fact that they make people give up their rights to sue, but the fact that some "legal terms" page on the company website that the consumer probably isn't even aware of (much less has read) does not a binding contract make.
No reason for a power user to leave it on, IMO. Going through the trouble of overriding just three or four apps is enough to outweigh the trouble of changing the Gatekeeper setting once. It doesn't do anything useful for me - even with it off I still get the "you've never launched this app before, are you sure you want to?" warning, which is enough for me.
Seriously - haven't we seen what happens when an egghead tries to use a real man's weapon in a zombie apocalypse? Disaster. But not quite as disastrous as walking straight into the earth's last NPR radio station without questioning why there's no guards, only five hipsters, and a whole lotta barbecue...
Well, since it was so worthless, I'm sure nobody hopped on that train...
"Rumors"? You realize you can look at photos on the internet, right? The "new" (3 year old) Mail interface is only barely different from its previous incarnation (moving the message list from a top pane to a side pane) and IMO it's a far better use of space on a widescreen display. But if you don't like it, there is (and always has been) an option to use the top-pane style instead.
10.9 did introduce a bunch of Gmail-related bugs into Mail, though, and even now (after a quick emergency Mail update, more fixes in 10.9.1, and even more in 10.9.2) it still doesn't always update when new mail comes into my Gmail account (10.9.3 is rumored to have more fixes). How they fucked up a previously perfectly functional app like that is beyond me.
Pretty much all the other "iOS-ification" I've seen people complain about is also a non-issue, but you weren't specific so I can't help there (Launchpad? Just don't use it. Notifications? Actually quite useful. Gatekeeper? Turn it off if you're a power user. Can't even think of any other things right now).
Nothing forced Apple to open source it, contrary to the OP's claim. Follow along.
When Apple has released stuff as open source software, it has either been because they were forced to by the license, or because it was for software that primarily runs on OS X.
Clang puts the lie to this.
Really, did you miss the whole goto fail thing, where everyone was looking at the source? Of course, the number of ACs back then crowing "stupid Apple should have stuck with OpenSSL, which is thoroughly vetted by thousands of eyes!" gives me the feeling that ACs will have a very selective memory about the whole thing now.
Not at all like rear-ending the guy in front of you because he slammed on his brakes while you were busy looking over your shoulder in anticipation of a lane change.
I disagree - I'd put the two screens just above the dash, where some cars are already putting HUDs (come to think of it that U doesn't apply here). That way there is minimal time wasted moving your attention from front display (windshield) to the side displays (people should be checking them far more often than they do). A properly-designed camera system shouldn't require any head turning at all, since the only reason we do that at all is to cover all the blind spots a traditional mirror has (and it's risky since it entirely removes your attention to what is happening in your direction of travel).
Your response to the GP is a total non sequitur. AC is correct in asserting that bricked phones are still quite valuable as parts. And 42% is "a tiny percentage"?
If there is no functional change - meaning the parts are perfectly interchangeable, backwards and forwards compatible - then there's no reason to change the part number, because someone looking for part X is going to get a correctly working part (whether it's the older style or the newer, cheaper design is irrelevant). That doesn't mean they weren't hiding a safety issue in this case, of course.
Yeah, if they're going after anyone, it's Evernote. And I'm thankful as can be about that; maybe it'll get the Evernote folks to actually focus on FUNCTIONALITY rather than just completely re-designing the app's interface once a year (in ever more convoluted ways). I stuck with Evernote through two or three obnoxious interface changes and I still have trouble getting text (particularly lists) to format sensibly.
He wasn't referring to the IRC 2057 (family-owned business) deduction at all. He was very clearly referring to the general $5 million estate tax exclusion which you seem to be ignoring entirely. You are right about the taste of feet.
I should also note that mortgages and debt are deducted from the estate value, as are estate administration/probate costs. Basically, none of what you said is correct. Maybe the rules were very different in the distant past (I don't know) or your lawyer was terrible.