See also women fleeing abusive partners, who have been abandoned by their partner, widows, single rape victims who don't agree with abortion, and any of many more possible reasons for a woman to be left raising a child alone and not be a "harlot".
So to me it seems that the MEN are being crushed by the system and are being forced to pay for these irresponsible women(who some got pregnant I'm sure).
You're sure? How else do you think the women you so detest got pregnant, divine conception?
Further, this situation seems analogous to one in which some third-party decided to make their own PS3 clones, unapproved of by Sony. The PS3 is Sony's property, to do with as they see fit. Suing this PS3 clone maker into oblivion would be wholly justified.
Well that really depends on how the PS3 clone was designed, built and marketed, doesn't it?
As long as the hypothetical cloner doesn't violate any Sony-owned IP rights (i.e. patents, copyright, registered designs, trademarks, etc) and manage to create a console that is compatible with the PS3 and market it as such, then I really don't see that Sony would have a leg to stand on.
By your logic, IBM should have sued Compaq, et al into oblivion when they reverse-engineered the PC and released their "100% IBM compatible PCs"...
Most of the time when you sign an employment agreement (especially ones with a non compete) it will have a clause that says roughly "If one part of this contract is found to be invalid the rest still holds"
I see that in contracts and agreements (including EULAs) all the time, not just employment ones. In fact I'd be very surprised to see a contract that didn't have it - it may not be necessary but it's standard wordage, so why not just bung it in?
Just because I signed it and you signed it doesn't mean its legally binding.
Absolutely - amongst other things a contract cannot compel you to perform an illegal act. There are also certain rights that you cannot sign away or waive no matter what the bit of paper you signed says.
I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.
Not true. I'm currently running Windows Server 2008 on my desktop, and while by default IE makes downloading stuff a little trickier than say XP, it most certainly will let you do it. It just throws up a warning or two, forcing you to click to say that yes, you really do mean to download it (and thus no, you're not being hit by a drive-by download). It's a nuisance (but certainly not "insane"), but then so are most security measures and this is a *server* OS, in the vast majority of deployments once you've set it up and installed the app(s), you shouldn't be surfing on it at all...
That director over there, he gets a golden handshake as he goes out the door... You want to keep him sweet because he knows where all your dirty secrets are
No, you keep him sweet because in a few years time he could be hiring you, or at least working with you directly - e.g. choosing to do business with your company rather than a competitor. That's extremely unlikely with someone at our level.
That, and the whole senior exec thing is one big old boy's club - why do you think so few of them are female?
Number two rule in IT. Just because you can get in to a system doesn't mean you can access the data or applications in a meaningful fashion in a realistic time-frame.
I bet that this thing would have enough power to run all the AERO stuff in vista.
Jesus, my ex's laptop runs Vista with Aero effects turned up to maximum with no problems and a crappy NVidia mobile GPU. This stupid "Aero eats your resources" meme needs to die.
By all means whale on MS, but at least do it for the right reasons.
A person can walk to a gas station and buy 2 or 3 gallons of gasoline and carry it to their car. That isn't ever going to happen with batteries.
Well, could you not walk to a garage and borrow/rent a charged battery (plus trolley/trailer to shift it on) and push it back to the car, with just enough juice to get you back to the garage? Plug it in, hitch the trailer to the car, and drive back to the garage to sort things out properly.
Serious question, I've no idea how big/heavy a battery big enough to get the car a couple of miles or so would be.
This is going to be one of the biggest misquoted articles of the year because some Slashdot nobody editor decided to take Shuttleworth's words out of question's context.
To be fair to Taco, the bit in quotes is written by the submitter, at least in theory. Assuming he didn't edit it, that misquoting is down to "an anonymous reader".
I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone.
You guys have to pay to receive text messages? Wow, no wonder so many US-based slashdot readers seem to hate sms so much... Over here in the UK, receiving them is free (unless you sign up for some sort of charged service, e.g. daily horoscope, sports news, etc) and most plans have some number per month included in the price (e.g. on my plan I can send up to 500 per month at no extra cost).
It's different with a debit card, since then the bank has already given the money to the company, so it is then somewhat discretionary on their part.
While it can be harder to get the money back, you can definitely stop them from taking any more of your money in the future. Note however that the last time I had to do that sort of thing, my bank (Abbey in the UK) had to issue me a new debit card to stop the payments, they couldn't (or wouldn't) simply refuse them. That was a hassle, but it worked.
That's not a good analogy - your tax dollars may pay for the roads, but you have no direct say in who uses them or how. With a wi-fi router you at least have the means available to you to (try to) prevent other people from using it, assuming you have the requisite knowledge.
Not that I disagree with the decision at all, just with your analogy:)
"Fucks me right off" is a UK colloquialism for "makes me very angry" or "annoys me greatly". Cf "it fucked me off" for "it made me angry" or "annoyed me".
Adobe has Flash and Air, which isn't really better except for the fact that at least they're trying to push their crap on many platforms, not only Windows.
Silverlight is apparently available for Mac as well as Windows PCs (see the download links on the "Get started" page, and while I can't currently find any info (and don't have time to google it) I remember reading that it was planned for Linux too. I'll believe that when I see it, however..
There is absolutely no reason that the web should be turned into an application deployment platform
And what reason is there for it to not be used in that way? Deploying applications on the web has a number of advantages over more traditional methods, not least of which is that maintenance and QA become very much easier. Anything that makes it easier to produce higher quality software has to be a good thing.
I am fully aware of the original purpose of the web. Times and needs change, however. If we were to stop using the web to deploy applications in this manner, we'd simply be forced to invent another protocol to use instead; why bother, now that most of the hard work has already been done?
Besides which, the fact that some sites host applications in no way detracts from that section of the web that behaves as you wish. I really do not see the need to artificially segregate them.
No, the last mile over here in the UK can be pretty dire too - for example my "up to 8Mbps" connection generally actually reports a connection of around 2.5Mbps, and real-world throughput tends to cap out at around 250KBps (or around 2Mbps).
I've had much better speeds at other addresses of course; the phone lines in my area are poor, and we're relatively far from the exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
single mothers(see harlots)
See also women fleeing abusive partners, who have been abandoned by their partner, widows, single rape victims who don't agree with abortion, and any of many more possible reasons for a woman to be left raising a child alone and not be a "harlot".
So to me it seems that the MEN are being crushed by the system and are being forced to pay for these irresponsible women(who some got pregnant I'm sure).
You're sure? How else do you think the women you so detest got pregnant, divine conception?
Further, this situation seems analogous to one in which some third-party decided to make their own PS3 clones, unapproved of by Sony. The PS3 is Sony's property, to do with as they see fit. Suing this PS3 clone maker into oblivion would be wholly justified.
Well that really depends on how the PS3 clone was designed, built and marketed, doesn't it?
As long as the hypothetical cloner doesn't violate any Sony-owned IP rights (i.e. patents, copyright, registered designs, trademarks, etc) and manage to create a console that is compatible with the PS3 and market it as such, then I really don't see that Sony would have a leg to stand on.
By your logic, IBM should have sued Compaq, et al into oblivion when they reverse-engineered the PC and released their "100% IBM compatible PCs"...
Most of the time when you sign an employment agreement (especially ones with a non compete) it will have a clause that says roughly "If one part of this contract is found to be invalid the rest still holds"
I see that in contracts and agreements (including EULAs) all the time, not just employment ones. In fact I'd be very surprised to see a contract that didn't have it - it may not be necessary but it's standard wordage, so why not just bung it in?
Just because I signed it and you signed it doesn't mean its legally binding.
Absolutely - amongst other things a contract cannot compel you to perform an illegal act. There are also certain rights that you cannot sign away or waive no matter what the bit of paper you signed says.
I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.
Not true. I'm currently running Windows Server 2008 on my desktop, and while by default IE makes downloading stuff a little trickier than say XP, it most certainly will let you do it. It just throws up a warning or two, forcing you to click to say that yes, you really do mean to download it (and thus no, you're not being hit by a drive-by download). It's a nuisance (but certainly not "insane"), but then so are most security measures and this is a *server* OS, in the vast majority of deployments once you've set it up and installed the app(s), you shouldn't be surfing on it at all...
That director over there, he gets a golden handshake as he goes out the door... You want to keep him sweet because he knows where all your dirty secrets are
No, you keep him sweet because in a few years time he could be hiring you, or at least working with you directly - e.g. choosing to do business with your company rather than a competitor. That's extremely unlikely with someone at our level.
That, and the whole senior exec thing is one big old boy's club - why do you think so few of them are female?
Number two rule in IT. Just because you can get in to a system doesn't mean you can access the data or applications in a meaningful fashion in a realistic time-frame.
Ok, it's not as snappy...
No, it just means you got lucky. Plenty of bad ideas work, that doesn't mean they're the best idea.
I bet that this thing would have enough power to run all the AERO stuff in vista.
Jesus, my ex's laptop runs Vista with Aero effects turned up to maximum with no problems and a crappy NVidia mobile GPU. This stupid "Aero eats your resources" meme needs to die.
By all means whale on MS, but at least do it for the right reasons.
Even more strange, how is making a copy of something illegal? I thought only distributing copies was illegal.
The clue is in the name of the law - copyright, not distributionright...
Otherwise it would be legal to borrow something from someone, copy it, and give the original back, no? No distribution has taken place.
A person can walk to a gas station and buy 2 or 3 gallons of gasoline and carry it to their car. That isn't ever going to happen with batteries.
Well, could you not walk to a garage and borrow/rent a charged battery (plus trolley/trailer to shift it on) and push it back to the car, with just enough juice to get you back to the garage? Plug it in, hitch the trailer to the car, and drive back to the garage to sort things out properly.
Serious question, I've no idea how big/heavy a battery big enough to get the car a couple of miles or so would be.
This is going to be one of the biggest misquoted articles of the year because some Slashdot nobody editor decided to take Shuttleworth's words out of question's context.
To be fair to Taco, the bit in quotes is written by the submitter, at least in theory. Assuming he didn't edit it, that misquoting is down to "an anonymous reader".
With all due respect CmdrTaco, if you think the article is a waste of time (as your comment implies), then why the hell did you post it?
I even get messages sometimes from the telco, which means they are getting free money everytime they send a promotion to every cell phone.
You guys have to pay to receive text messages? Wow, no wonder so many US-based slashdot readers seem to hate sms so much... Over here in the UK, receiving them is free (unless you sign up for some sort of charged service, e.g. daily horoscope, sports news, etc) and most plans have some number per month included in the price (e.g. on my plan I can send up to 500 per month at no extra cost).
It's different with a debit card, since then the bank has already given the money to the company, so it is then somewhat discretionary on their part.
While it can be harder to get the money back, you can definitely stop them from taking any more of your money in the future. Note however that the last time I had to do that sort of thing, my bank (Abbey in the UK) had to issue me a new debit card to stop the payments, they couldn't (or wouldn't) simply refuse them. That was a hassle, but it worked.
Hey, it's not my fault, my PC crashed part-way through sending the data!
Do you realize how many people get angry, and how many conversation turn ugly becasue someone didn't realize it was sarcasm.
That would suggest that it's safer not to use sarcasm at all, rather than to use it and try to mark it as such - especially in such a cryptic fashion.
That's not a good analogy - your tax dollars may pay for the roads, but you have no direct say in who uses them or how. With a wi-fi router you at least have the means available to you to (try to) prevent other people from using it, assuming you have the requisite knowledge.
Not that I disagree with the decision at all, just with your analogy :)
"Fucks me right off" is a UK colloquialism for "makes me very angry" or "annoys me greatly". Cf "it fucked me off" for "it made me angry" or "annoyed me".
(Yes, I got the joke)
Didn't Google Earth require Windows at first, only adding other platforms as time went on?
Adobe has Flash and Air, which isn't really better except for the fact that at least they're trying to push their crap on many platforms, not only Windows.
Silverlight is apparently available for Mac as well as Windows PCs (see the download links on the "Get started" page, and while I can't currently find any info (and don't have time to google it) I remember reading that it was planned for Linux too. I'll believe that when I see it, however..
Fine, so ignore the fact that Opera, Safari and Konqueror all support it, leaving just Firefox as a major browser that does.
That still doesn't change the fact that IE is the only major browser that doesn't.
There is absolutely no reason that the web should be turned into an application deployment platform
And what reason is there for it to not be used in that way? Deploying applications on the web has a number of advantages over more traditional methods, not least of which is that maintenance and QA become very much easier. Anything that makes it easier to produce higher quality software has to be a good thing.
I am fully aware of the original purpose of the web. Times and needs change, however. If we were to stop using the web to deploy applications in this manner, we'd simply be forced to invent another protocol to use instead; why bother, now that most of the hard work has already been done?
Besides which, the fact that some sites host applications in no way detracts from that section of the web that behaves as you wish. I really do not see the need to artificially segregate them.
No, the last mile over here in the UK can be pretty dire too - for example my "up to 8Mbps" connection generally actually reports a connection of around 2.5Mbps, and real-world throughput tends to cap out at around 250KBps (or around 2Mbps).
I've had much better speeds at other addresses of course; the phone lines in my area are poor, and we're relatively far from the exchange.
"Apostasy" is an ordinary English word (definition); it's useful to point out which is the religion in question in this specific situation.
Well it's actually a two-seater, though the person in the back seat isn't going to have a lot of leg-room I'll grant you...