Instead of writing a new language because programmers are lazy, wouldn't it be easier to just hire good ones to begin with?? Or to offer a class that teaches them to type???
As a user of many different languages over the last 3 decades, I have always preferred the ones that require me to think about data types. In those that didn't force types, I found that things went a lot smoother if I used them anyway, or activated a switch that did require it.
In my experience, if I didn't understand what data type I needed, even if it's just 'Object', I didn't understand what I was doing anyway.
Think before coding, it saves a lot of time later because you don't have to rewrite as much shit.
... isn't run by consensus. I'm sure most documents back in the time of Galileo also stated the earth as the center of the universe.
Yawn... let me know when someone comes up with a theory that actually predicts something with accuracy better than psychics can. (i.e. stop making claims so nebulous they are always right no matter what happens.)
Saying they were bribed is one way to look at it. Of course, the fact that these politicians could already have had pro-sales tax stances, and as such attracted more funds so they could get elected, is another way.
Otherwise, it's just free speech. NRA, Green Peace, Sierra Club, and every other lobby gives more to politicians who help their causes, they would be stupid to give money to people who oppose it. Why try to change someone's idea when you can just help someone who agrees to get elected. Why is it the 'other side' only points out the spending of people they disagree with, and not their own???
Correlation != Causation.
That is not bribery. Find an email where a senator said he will change his vote *IF* he gets more funds, and you have bribery.
There are many opposing lobbies that also spent money on getting their politicians elected. They only people complaining about how things turned out are those who disagree with the outcome. I support 100% coming up with a method to tax internet sales, it's fair and replaces an existing source of revenue. If it's not replaced, then income or property taxes will be going up. You are going to pay it one way or the other.
If you don't support the method (i.e. having 'small' companies have to collect and pay it out), then come up with a better solution and contact your political representatives instead of pouting.
Or.. here is a novel idea... try to convince your representatives that they don't need to be spending as much money so they don't need to tax as much. Cut back on social services, police, fire, or education so that the tax isn't even needed.
It's not a 'big money in politics' issue, it's a spending/revenue issue that no one has found a good solution for yet. Put your energies towards that end instead of whining.
Employment relationship? Are you fucking stupid? Since when is taxation based on employment only? The government wants to tax any and every transaction where net GAIN occurs. Win the lottery? Pay up. Found hidden treasure in the backyard, pay up. The school children example is absolutely relevant. If a child has a net gain by trading his dessert cup, that's GAIN and therefore technically taxable.
And since when do software engineers opt to take their salary in the form of food? Meals are a fringe benefit designed to keep employees happy. Will you tax free on site gym usage as well? How about fancy, office chairs? Or how about taxing free legal advice that some companies offer? How about taxing employee discounts on the products the company sells? Company holiday parties? Tax that bitch. You know what, you and IRS can go eat a bag of dicks. Stop taxing everything under the sun.
Sure, we can stop taxing everything. As soon as a bunch of people decide that we shouldn't be giving food and money to people who don't work or are disabled, provide fire and police protection, build highways, and a bunch of other shit that people keep asking the government to provide.
CEOs have to pay for their company cars if they use them for personal use. It's not unusually for people that own a business to have the business pay their bills, so why shouldn't that payment be taxed?? Obamacare has decided to tax overly generous health care plans.
If a benefit becomes a significant source of savings for employees, such that salary could be reduced because the benefit makes it worthwhile, why shouldn't it be taxed?? When the government raised income taxes, companies switched to options and benefits to compensate high-salary employees because it became cheaper.
Google providing food to it's employees is a method to retain workers without having to pay them more, and may encourage employees to hang around the office and work more. So Google gets the benefit of buying food, which they don't have to pay unemployment tax or medicare tax or medicaid taxes on and use that as 'payment' to work there instead of shelling out bigger paychecks.
There is a significant difference between providing a lunch every month of sandwiches, and providing free food every day. While I don't completely agree with taxing this as income on a personal level, it is consistent with existing taxes.
But, like the Occupy Anything hypocrites, feel scream out to tax everyone but me. Or feel free to scream out that taxes need to be cut without offering to reduce spending on social programs.
And, since I pay to go to college, it's none of their business. If someone wants to pay thousands of dollars and fail a course because they don't read the course material, that's their right. It's none of the professor's business really. I never took any notes in college or highlighted anything, and did just fine. Probably could have done better. But I didn't fail anything. And I paid for every dime of it.
On the other hand, if I go to the professor and am having issues, and he suggest that he monitors my study habits to help me, and I agree, I see nothing wrong with it.
It's the professors responsibility to provide the opportunity for me to learn, since I'm paying for it. It's not his responsibility to make sure I do learn.
Using this at the high school level and sooner might make more sense, since it's tax dollars that are paying for the education.
So.. you must then advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to change the temperature of their car then, because looking at the dash is distracting? Or change the radio? Or eat? Or even look at their odometer since they have to take their eyes off the road. Or for that matter, their mirrors???
If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?
I can glance at my GPS on a 4 lane highway while traveling in a straight line with clear lines of sight for several hundred feet and if I'm following at a safe distance, just as I can change my radio or glance at my odometer. As the highway gets busier, or starts to curve, the need to stay more focused increases since more variables are changing or can change when I glance away. But I still glance in my mirrors if I want to change lanes, so there is still a window of time that is currently acceptable to be distracted. In fact, if I'm stopped at a stop light, there is no reason whatsoever I can't glance down and check emails since nothing is even moving, as long as I don't take too long and miss the light changing.
Conditions while driving change, and what is possible in one instance may not be in another. We constantly weigh risks while driving to determine appropriate responses. Some are better at it than others, it is not possible to come up with one rule to cover all circumstances. I have gone through a red light in full view of a police officer, because it was not safe to stop. He could see that I tried since the front of my motorcycle dipped when I braked, but I continued through because the car a few feet behind me wasn't slowing down (he slammed on his brakes just after I released mine.) The police officer didn't chase me down and give me a ticket, because I used common sense.
It is possible to make sure that if someone does not use good judgement, they are held responsible for their actions. Rules like you suggest are the same ones that get kids suspended from school because they point their fingers and say 'bang'. And, in the end, do nothing because police won't bother to enforce them anyway.
Which is why Apple users are switching to Android, it's a better experience. It's why I've had one several years now, it's a better experience. I have multiple choices instead of Apple's moronic 'black or white'. I can get sliders or flip phones, different sized tablets, with or without HDMI connectors, most with SD card slots for expandability. And tons of different price points. It's got apps for what I need, like being able to remote connect to my desktop at work for support, so there is no need to buy an Apple computer or phone just for software.
My wife gave away two different iPods because she and I both agree.. iTune software sucks. She would rather use an old Creative brick MP3 player than her iPods because the music software just worked better. Now she just uses her Android phone.
I work for a company that runs RedHat clusters on Vmware. No Apple computer in sight because they are expensive and don't provide the same bang for the buck.
Apple may be leading windows, but that is mostly because Windows phones just suck. They always have, and they always will. But people will continue to want choices, which Apple has yet to figure out because it wants a stranglehold on it's product. Because it wants to make money and really doesn't give a crap about anything other than that.
If it did, it would allow me to buy any PC I wanted to and put Apple software on it. It would let manufacturers build iPhone compatible hardware, and let them put Apple software on it. But they don't. Because they want to make a bunch of money by charging more for a device by controlling the supply and artificially inflating the demand.
Apple does not play well with others, and I will never buy their products.
I run a large motorcycle group. There are motorcycles that only have a 100 mile effective range. We just did a trip from Phoenix to California and back (over 2,000 miles), and were able to plan our trip so we could stop every 60-80 miles to make sure the one person with the 120 mile range would not run out of gas.
So it's possible to do this for the water, but you can't just jump in the car and go. Unless you put a 100 gallon water tank in the trunk. Or stick to the freeways. It would also be far more difficult to take a cross country trip. Is there some type of warning when the battery only has 100 miles before it needs to be replaced?? And are all batteries going to use the same plates? Are they user replaceable?? It's one thing to create a center at existing service stations for one or two types of plates. But if you need a mechanic to do it, or every manufacturer or model decides to use a different size, it would be a mess.
I also wonder how this deals with little things like traveling in Maine in the winter with the heater on, or in Phoenix in the summer with the A/C on. Most vehicles today can dump waste heat to heat the car, and use mechanical energy off the engine to drive a compressor for cooling. This car would need to 'burn' electricity to create heat, or use it to power a compressor for cooling. I wonder how that would impact the effective miles between stops or recycling.
I'm sure a CS freshman could also explain it. In fact, I'm sure someone who read the Java book could explain it. And if it takes you an hour to explain it, and you are a graduate, it's a good thing you didn't become a professor.
Doesn't really make any difference. Inventing a new word to describe a precise action doesn't make it necessary. Except to people trying to justify their waste of money on college or sound more intelligent than they really are. I know people who use more words than necessary to sound more important then they really are. They are usually called 'blowhards'. I'm sure there is another word that means basically the same thing but is a lot more precise, but blowhard works just as well and usually gets the point across.
Just what we don't need ...
on
Let Them Eat Teslas
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
... even more stupid people going to college to get degrees in things they have no talent for. I see them all the time, developers with 'degrees' who can only code if you put a spec in front of them, they are incapable of creative thought and have no real-world experience to pull from.
I went for a job interview last week, and the hiring VP said their biggest problem is finding developers who know how to program instead of just knowing how to code. Programmers who actually understand things like operations and systems. Programmers who are capable of seeing the big picture and coding at the systems level instead of at the method level.
These days that type of programmer is hard to find, because the days of becoming a computer programmer by starting as an operator or trainee are over. No one will hire anyone without a degree now. And no developer with a degree is willing to start as an operator, they all want $100k/year to pay off their debts. And of course, no one will hire a programmer with a degree as an operator because they are overqualified.
Yet some of the brightest programmers I know don't have degrees. They started at the bottom and worked up. They attended classes here and there, either at school or online, to learn what they needed to learn. They bought books and learned new tech.
But back when I started, companies were willing to hire someone simply because they were smart, creative, and had a great curiosity about how things work. People with good work ethics that worked smarter, not necessarily harder, than their peers.
And we do none of it now because we have been lied to that programming requires a degree. Bullshit. Programming is one of the easiest things in the world to do. I've seen 10 year old kids write code without ever having been to a class. Simply because their brain works a certain way. I've seen programmers learn new styles of programming over a weekend simply be reading a book. Their biggest stumbling block wasn't not going to college, they understood how to do things. But they didn't know the fancy words for everything. They just programmed and got the job done without worrying about technical mumbo-jumbo that really doesn't mean jack squat. Like how 'initialization' was change to 'instantiation'.
If all we want is code monkeys who need a complete spec before writing anything, go ahead. Keep sending them to school. Continue to let the government subsidize people who really have no business writing code because their brain just doesn't have the spatial aptitude that is required for programming. Because they thought it was just a great way to make a buck. Continuing only hiring people based on a piece of paper that only says they know how to pass tests.
Now.. I'm not saying that some truly great people have not come out of college and done great things. I know some people far smarter than me that have degrees and will always make more than me. And no matter how much college I had, I would never have been them. They had the talent already.
It wasn't college that made them successful, it was themselves. College was just a tool they chose to use because it served a purpose. They already had the ability, college was a different way of getting the information.
Starting at the bottom is not a bad way to learn. Sure, it sucks at first. But in 3 or 4 years, you get 3 or 4 years of experience and little or no college debt. Many companies will help with tuition. Granted, it cuts out a lot of companies that will only hire if you have a degree. And it can take a lot of time to find someplace that will do it. But someone that has been writing code at home or part-time for friends and family, and knows how to write a resume, should be able to find something if they truly have talent and interview well. If you don't interview well.. go to college.
But really, do you want to work for a company that is so procedure oriented that they won't look beyond the resume to what a pe
In the last three months, our company has hired THREE H1B employees, one being a programmer. They had to post the jobs, so I got to see the salary ranges.
'Less restrictive' is code for 'lower paid'. There are plenty of out-of-work US citizens that could have done these jobs, but if they hire H1B, they can pay less and keep them longer because of the sponsorship requirement. I was able to review resumes for one position, and there were definitely capable US citizens to do these.
I'm not against hiring talented, smart, folks. I'm not even against companies paying less and driving down wages if it makes products cheaper.
I am against lying about why they are doing it. Just be honest, and admit Mr. Zuckerberg that you just want to hire people you can pay less money.
I stuck with my Skyrocket because I carry my phone in my front pants pocket. I lost my last one carrying it in my shirt pocket, It fell out in some cow field out around Portal, Arizona when I bent down to open a gate to drive through on an off road trip.
My wife has a Galaxy Note, but she carries it in her purse. I tried it out in my front pants pocket, but I felt it was too big, so I'm staying put. She looked at the newest model, and it fits her purse so she is all about getting the new one now as soon as hers breaks. I foresee a misstep around the pool coming up when it gets warmer out....
Different needs for different people. That's why we both prefer our Android phones to Apple, many styles and types to choose from instead of white or black.
I did this test to figure out optimal size. We have a 42" TV, so I sat on the couch and held my phone out in front of me so that the relative width of both the TV and the phone was the same. It was a comfortable distance, which explains why I don't mind watching TV on the phones, even though the sound is much worse than a Dolby Surround system. However, I have to hold it within 4 inches of my face to make the screen the same relative size as my monitor. Which explains why I don't like to use it as a browser much. Based on that test, it would have to be two to three times as wide to make it useful for browsing. Plus typing on it still sucks when compared to a keyboard. At least for me, I type 75 words a minute. Glad I took 'typing' 30 years ago in high school....
So I don't see much of a need to go bigger, until bigger is big enough to browse. Or is reasonable to use on glasses.
The only people who bought a bunch of hardware and had it sitting around idle were people that didn't know how to manage data centers. You still have to project loads for the cloud, and you still have to pay for the ability to scale up. In fact, in our cost estimating, the cost of moving data into and out of someone else's cloud, and the cost of having those large data sets on their servers, was the reason it was more pricey than having our own servers locally even if we had to buy extra servers.
And of course, you missed the entire point. Once you pay someone else, you are at their mercy. Now, if you are a large corporation that can bring pressure to bear, that may not be a bad thing. But if you are a $10M company, they don't care if you pull everything and go elsewhere. In fact, they are betting you can't afford to.
Both Microsoft and Amazon have had major outages in the last year. At our data center, we have not had ANY in the five years I've worked here.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a good reason for letting someone else host my data. Lower price and higher availability don't seem to be valid arguments from my experience. It seems the only reason is because people would rather trust Amazon's and Microsoft's incompetent staff over their own incompetent staff.
... this is what you get. Sure, it's possible the same thing can happen for any company. But at least then you can fire your incompetent staff.
Once you deploy to a vendor, you are stuck. From what I've seen, you can't easily move data and code from one vendor to another. One of our clients is in the UK Azure cloud and we have to BCP about 6M rows from their server to our system every week. Takes over 90 minutes, and constantly fails because of losing the connection. We've looked at deploying systems to various clouds, and the costs were not worth it.
I will NEVER put any critical business system in someone else's cloud. At worst, I might put it in someone's data center on *MY* servers. The cloud seems to be fine for small business startups and non-important data for personal use. Businesses who no one would even notice if their site was down for a day.
BTW.. 'Cloud' computing is just remote virtual servers over the Internet. It's really not something new and original. People act like it's some amazing new 'thing'. Well.. it's not. It's just another way of letting companies with limited or no tech skills put up a web site or store data. It's expensive, proprietary, and I doubt very cost effective in the long run.
Why would AT&T want a customer that doesn't use data? Better to charge them fees and make them go elsewhere, or hope that they will start to use data. Same thing happened to my son-in-law, but I changed his plan to a $5 plan, and he does use data from time to time. So it all worked out.
Contrary to popular belief, businesses only want your money if they make more money than you cost. If you don't fit into that mold, they will be very happy you go elsewhere.
Welcome to capitalism. I have had AT&T for years, but only because the services they offer are the ones I want and am willing to pay for. Seems you and many others don't understand how that process works. Don't like it, go elsewhere. If AT&T really wants you around, they will try to keep you.
I'm talking about a town of 600,000 people that has a far lower violent crime rate than either NYC or the UK. Murder is included in violent crime, but isn't the only component. Guns are involved in violent crime, but they also aren't the only factor. If guns were the only factor, then Mesa would also have a high violent crime rate. Guns don't cause violent crime, criminals do. If you drill further down into the statistics you quote about murder in Arizona, you will discover they are either gun or illegal immigration factors in a large percentage of them. Changing gun laws won't change those statistics at all, except now when the meth addict breaks into someone's home he has a better chance at killing the occupants.
I have seen no statistic that show direct proof that reducing guns reduces crime without other statistics that refute it. I believe it's because there are far too many other factors that aren't taken into account and can't be removed from the equation. There are only misleading statistics that people use to support their side of the argument. Did you know the average criminal that uses a gun shoots less than three times?? Did you know that in instances where either off duty law enforcement or private citizens were present and able to stop public shootings, the average number of people killed (including the perpetrator) is 3 and not 11 when guns aren't present. (And that the national media never reports those because the body count isn't high enough to warrant any attention?) How come you don't mention those, you only mention the ones that support your belief (just as I did.)
So, ignoring misleading statistics, please explain how limiting magazines to 7 rounds does anything. I have a two six shot revolvers, one 5 shot, and a 7+1 round semi-automatic (if you don't know what 7+1 means, you have no business talking about guns). I can easily carry all four, which still gives me 23 shots. Couple that with a 7+1 lever action round rifle and maybe another pocket pistol, and I'm over 35 rounds without having to reload. I can easily shoot at least one round a second from all of those guns. I practice moving from gun to gun at the range, there will not be any 'down time' while I switch guns. The lever action rifle does far more damage than an AR15, and it's a hunting rifle. So when the mass murderers start doing that, is Cuomo going to make it illegal to carry more than one gun at a time??? Is he going to start limiting the caliber of guns so they don't cause as much damage?? Read the history of the UK gun laws, and you will discover their gun gun control laws were ineffective, so after each ban of a single type because 'no one needs them', they banned the next type. Until everything was banned and their citizens have to buy baseball bats to protect themselves because the police can't.
Useless gun control law is the perfect title for this purely political power grab to make it look like they are doing something. When in reality, nothing changes. Except a few more of the freedoms law-abiding citizens have (like privacy and due process) are slowly whittled away because people ignorant of guns lash out at things they don't understand and are afraid of.
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
My Ruger SR22 rifle comes standard with a 10 round magazine. I have never seen a 7 round magazine for it. Yet it's very useful for hunting rabbits and squirrels.
So much for the 'no one needs 10 rounds for hunting' argument....
My Beretta Bobcat comes with a 7 round magazine, yet holds one in the chamber. Will people that have it 'locked and loaded' be breaking the law??
My S&W Mod 15 revolver carries 6 rounds. I've been timed at firing 6 rounds in under three seconds, and reloading in less than three more. And I know people faster than I am. Someone trained doesn't need 10 round (or more) magazines to shoot lots of people in a very short time. Should we ban handgun training next???
Cumo, Bloomberg, and Obama are all idiots trying to look like they are doing something. When in fact, I'm positive statistics over the next 4 or 5 years (if these laws even stand that long) will show how ineffective they are.
It's also far too easy for alcoholics to get cars and drive them. Negligent car drives already face harsh penalties. And there are far too many irresponsible car owners in this country (US) that allow their cars to be used by alcoholics.
You mean the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times that of the US?? Where there was recently a run on small baseball bats because police weren't able to protect businesses and people from rioters?? That country??
I fail to see any common sense in a country where 5 years ago, a group of doctors were trying to ban long, pointed kitchen knives because the criminals had turned to those for killing. As I recall, the reason was 'no one needs those'.
The UK.. where Big Brother knows what's best, and is watching.
Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities.
I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off.
People who are knowledgeable about guns and know how to use them aren't scared of them. Anymore than someone is scared of a hammer. It's mostly people ignorant about guns who are scared of guns. And only want them removed because of their phobia, not the reality that low gun ownership does not reduce violent crime. I seem to recall a madman in Sweden a few years ago that showed how ineffective gun laws are.
Another comment from ignorant anti-gun cultists. Many semi-automatic guns have magazines that support more than 7 rounds. I have a Ruger rifle that FROM THE FACTORY comes with 10 round magazines. I have NEVER seen a 7 round magazine for it. It's a hunting rifle for me, it's great for taking squirrels and rabbits that move around a lot. If I lived in NY, this gun would become useless. Yet someone could still easily buy and use 4 or more holsters and walk into a school with revolvers and shoot 10, 20, or more people if they wanted to. The law accomplished nothing except make a bunch of legal gun owners potential criminals. I also own a few 30 round magazines so when I go target shooting I don't have to reload as often. I can load them at home where it's easier and more comfortable. People who claim large magazines serve no purpose except killing people are just ignorant and don't know what they are talking about. People who claim a semi-automatic rifle can fire 6 shots a second are also ignorant. Three, maybe four tops. But then I can clear all 6 rounds out of my revolver in under 3 seconds, and reload in 3 more. so what difference does it make???
Last time I checked, the taking of property without due process is illegal. I doubt this will stand in it's present form. It takes a judge's order today to get a restraining order, it will be found that the police will have to get one to remove a gun from someone mentally ill, they can't just do it because some therapist says so. The government can't order me to sell something today that was legal yesterday. That's why pre-embargo Cuban cigars are still legal, along with many other grandfathered items in various laws.
Requiring back ground checks for private sales simply won't work. First, the FBI isn't setup to take them from private citizens. Second, why would I bother getting permission to sell a non-registered gun to a friend. Criminals already get guns from other criminals, I doubt if they will change their ways. Instead, thousands of people that now go to gun shows to sell guns they don't want anymore will simply stop doing it, reducing the supply and driving up the costs. If they want to make a difference, require anyone that sells more than 20 guns a year get a license. If there is a problem with private sales, it's not Bob next door selling to his buddies, it's the guy who is buying and selling to make a profit.
I doubt if much of this will survive any Supreme Court challenges. Cuomo and the NY legislature have just proven they are a bunch of ignorant people willing to pass ineffective laws just to look like they did something (and Obama is about to fall into that category). NY is going to lose some air travel business as people with guns avoid even passing through their airspace. I already do because of many cases where people just passing through had to spend a night and got booked on gun charges simply because the laws in NY are moronic and do nothing to prevent gun violence already.
I live in Mesa Arizona in a state that allows concealed carry without a license, Mesa remains below the national average in all violent crimes for cities of more than 500,000 people. Maybe if Cuomo and Bloomberg would work on figuring out why people in his state want to kill each other and focus on criminals, they might actually accomplish something of value.
Protestors may only protest on private property in the US when allowed by the property owner. As long as the owner of the web site has a way to tell the people that are doing the DOS attack to 'get off their web page', and can turn around and jail them for trespassing if they don't, I fully support this.
I would like for the jury to turn their attention to other Microsoft 'innovations' here on the table. You will find Windows ME, Windows Vista, Windows 8, Surface, Zune, Media Center, and Microsoft Cordless phone. There are many more, but these should suffice for the purposes of this trial. You will notice that Microsoft has plenty of ideas, but is rarely able to find something that people want or need. These products are all 'pretty', but upon closer inspection you will find that Microsoft seemed to be more interested in creating something pretty than something that actually worked and worked well. Often times, using a product was met with frustrations non-standard operations were confusing. Or things were made so simple that intelligent people had to use more effort to use them.
On this table are successful Microsoft products.. Windows, Excel, Word, and Powerpoint. What you will notice is that these products were not truly innovative, they already existed. But became very popular because they worked well, and worked well together.
Your decision in this matter is clear. Microsoft has a very low success rate when developing new products, but is able to take ideas that other people have, fine tune them, and create better products. Please find in favor of the plaintiffs and approve this injunction that forbids Microsoft from every trying to create something new ever again so as to stop wasting money so we can have lower prices. They will only be allowed to improve their own successful products or copy some other product, as long as they keep the way things currently work the same while adding new features, or changes to existing features will only be allowed if the user 'Opts In', instead of the current method of having to dig through endless, non-intuitive screens to find a box to click to revert back.
It's called using a 'mouse' and 'keyboard'. I touch both of them and the way I touch and move them controls what is on the screen. I need to use the screen on my tablet and phone because I'm not at my desk. What works well on the desktop doesn't work on the phone, it needed different input techniques. That doesn't mean those techniques work well on the desktop.
Now.. would I like a touch screen on my desktop? A little, most mouse-type devices are limited in movement to do things like rotate, although with the appropriate software it's possible, just not as intuitive. Most of screen manipulation is simply clicking, double/long clicking, or moving and mice cal already do that. They can also be used to zoom and swipe with the appropriate software. You can't right click a touch screen, although long clicking kinda sorta is the same thing I guess. Definitely can't middle click. It would be handy for media manipulation at times. But how is that going to work on my 72" HDTV??? I need the capability for both to use when I need to.
And explain to me why you decided that bigger icons on my desktop were a good idea, especially since most of the time I have these things you call 'windows' up and can't really see any of them when they are active so what's the purpose?? I have dual monitors, and most of the time I have windows open on both and most of my desktop is hidden. I'm doing this thing called 'work'. The little pop-up notifications that pop-up then fade away work just fine and are much more useful.
Windows 8 is not on my list of upgrades. If you want me to upgrade, give me something that is a reason to upgrade, like runs faster. I don't care about boot or standby times, my PC is on 24x7 and I rarely reboot. In fact, the only time I reboot is when you need to install updates because you haven't figured out how to do that without rebooting, like UNIX has done for decades you idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of writing a new language because programmers are lazy, wouldn't it be easier to just hire good ones to begin with?? Or to offer a class that teaches them to type???
As a user of many different languages over the last 3 decades, I have always preferred the ones that require me to think about data types. In those that didn't force types, I found that things went a lot smoother if I used them anyway, or activated a switch that did require it.
In my experience, if I didn't understand what data type I needed, even if it's just 'Object', I didn't understand what I was doing anyway.
Think before coding, it saves a lot of time later because you don't have to rewrite as much shit.
... isn't run by consensus. I'm sure most documents back in the time of Galileo also stated the earth as the center of the universe.
... let me know when someone comes up with a theory that actually predicts something with accuracy better than psychics can. (i.e. stop making claims so nebulous they are always right no matter what happens.)
Yawn
Saying they were bribed is one way to look at it. Of course, the fact that these politicians could already have had pro-sales tax stances, and as such attracted more funds so they could get elected, is another way.
.. here is a novel idea ... try to convince your representatives that they don't need to be spending as much money so they don't need to tax as much. Cut back on social services, police, fire, or education so that the tax isn't even needed.
Otherwise, it's just free speech. NRA, Green Peace, Sierra Club, and every other lobby gives more to politicians who help their causes, they would be stupid to give money to people who oppose it. Why try to change someone's idea when you can just help someone who agrees to get elected. Why is it the 'other side' only points out the spending of people they disagree with, and not their own???
Correlation != Causation.
That is not bribery. Find an email where a senator said he will change his vote *IF* he gets more funds, and you have bribery.
There are many opposing lobbies that also spent money on getting their politicians elected. They only people complaining about how things turned out are those who disagree with the outcome. I support 100% coming up with a method to tax internet sales, it's fair and replaces an existing source of revenue. If it's not replaced, then income or property taxes will be going up. You are going to pay it one way or the other.
If you don't support the method (i.e. having 'small' companies have to collect and pay it out), then come up with a better solution and contact your political representatives instead of pouting.
Or
It's not a 'big money in politics' issue, it's a spending/revenue issue that no one has found a good solution for yet. Put your energies towards that end instead of whining.
Employment relationship? Are you fucking stupid? Since when is taxation based on employment only? The government wants to tax any and every transaction where net GAIN occurs. Win the lottery? Pay up. Found hidden treasure in the backyard, pay up. The school children example is absolutely relevant. If a child has a net gain by trading his dessert cup, that's GAIN and therefore technically taxable.
And since when do software engineers opt to take their salary in the form of food? Meals are a fringe benefit designed to keep employees happy. Will you tax free on site gym usage as well? How about fancy, office chairs? Or how about taxing free legal advice that some companies offer? How about taxing employee discounts on the products the company sells? Company holiday parties? Tax that bitch. You know what, you and IRS can go eat a bag of dicks. Stop taxing everything under the sun.
Sure, we can stop taxing everything. As soon as a bunch of people decide that we shouldn't be giving food and money to people who don't work or are disabled, provide fire and police protection, build highways, and a bunch of other shit that people keep asking the government to provide.
CEOs have to pay for their company cars if they use them for personal use. It's not unusually for people that own a business to have the business pay their bills, so why shouldn't that payment be taxed?? Obamacare has decided to tax overly generous health care plans.
If a benefit becomes a significant source of savings for employees, such that salary could be reduced because the benefit makes it worthwhile, why shouldn't it be taxed?? When the government raised income taxes, companies switched to options and benefits to compensate high-salary employees because it became cheaper.
Google providing food to it's employees is a method to retain workers without having to pay them more, and may encourage employees to hang around the office and work more. So Google gets the benefit of buying food, which they don't have to pay unemployment tax or medicare tax or medicaid taxes on and use that as 'payment' to work there instead of shelling out bigger paychecks.
There is a significant difference between providing a lunch every month of sandwiches, and providing free food every day. While I don't completely agree with taxing this as income on a personal level, it is consistent with existing taxes.
But, like the Occupy Anything hypocrites, feel scream out to tax everyone but me. Or feel free to scream out that taxes need to be cut without offering to reduce spending on social programs.
And, since I pay to go to college, it's none of their business. If someone wants to pay thousands of dollars and fail a course because they don't read the course material, that's their right. It's none of the professor's business really. I never took any notes in college or highlighted anything, and did just fine. Probably could have done better. But I didn't fail anything. And I paid for every dime of it.
On the other hand, if I go to the professor and am having issues, and he suggest that he monitors my study habits to help me, and I agree, I see nothing wrong with it.
It's the professors responsibility to provide the opportunity for me to learn, since I'm paying for it. It's not his responsibility to make sure I do learn.
Using this at the high school level and sooner might make more sense, since it's tax dollars that are paying for the education.
So .. you must then advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to change the temperature of their car then, because looking at the dash is distracting? Or change the radio? Or eat? Or even look at their odometer since they have to take their eyes off the road. Or for that matter, their mirrors???
If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?
I can glance at my GPS on a 4 lane highway while traveling in a straight line with clear lines of sight for several hundred feet and if I'm following at a safe distance, just as I can change my radio or glance at my odometer. As the highway gets busier, or starts to curve, the need to stay more focused increases since more variables are changing or can change when I glance away. But I still glance in my mirrors if I want to change lanes, so there is still a window of time that is currently acceptable to be distracted. In fact, if I'm stopped at a stop light, there is no reason whatsoever I can't glance down and check emails since nothing is even moving, as long as I don't take too long and miss the light changing.
Conditions while driving change, and what is possible in one instance may not be in another. We constantly weigh risks while driving to determine appropriate responses. Some are better at it than others, it is not possible to come up with one rule to cover all circumstances. I have gone through a red light in full view of a police officer, because it was not safe to stop. He could see that I tried since the front of my motorcycle dipped when I braked, but I continued through because the car a few feet behind me wasn't slowing down (he slammed on his brakes just after I released mine.) The police officer didn't chase me down and give me a ticket, because I used common sense.
It is possible to make sure that if someone does not use good judgement, they are held responsible for their actions. Rules like you suggest are the same ones that get kids suspended from school because they point their fingers and say 'bang'. And, in the end, do nothing because police won't bother to enforce them anyway.
Which is why Apple users are switching to Android, it's a better experience. It's why I've had one several years now, it's a better experience. I have multiple choices instead of Apple's moronic 'black or white'. I can get sliders or flip phones, different sized tablets, with or without HDMI connectors, most with SD card slots for expandability. And tons of different price points. It's got apps for what I need, like being able to remote connect to my desktop at work for support, so there is no need to buy an Apple computer or phone just for software.
.. iTune software sucks. She would rather use an old Creative brick MP3 player than her iPods because the music software just worked better. Now she just uses her Android phone.
My wife gave away two different iPods because she and I both agree
I work for a company that runs RedHat clusters on Vmware. No Apple computer in sight because they are expensive and don't provide the same bang for the buck.
Apple may be leading windows, but that is mostly because Windows phones just suck. They always have, and they always will. But people will continue to want choices, which Apple has yet to figure out because it wants a stranglehold on it's product. Because it wants to make money and really doesn't give a crap about anything other than that.
If it did, it would allow me to buy any PC I wanted to and put Apple software on it. It would let manufacturers build iPhone compatible hardware, and let them put Apple software on it. But they don't. Because they want to make a bunch of money by charging more for a device by controlling the supply and artificially inflating the demand.
Apple does not play well with others, and I will never buy their products.
I run a large motorcycle group. There are motorcycles that only have a 100 mile effective range. We just did a trip from Phoenix to California and back (over 2,000 miles), and were able to plan our trip so we could stop every 60-80 miles to make sure the one person with the 120 mile range would not run out of gas.
... keep looking.
So it's possible to do this for the water, but you can't just jump in the car and go. Unless you put a 100 gallon water tank in the trunk. Or stick to the freeways. It would also be far more difficult to take a cross country trip. Is there some type of warning when the battery only has 100 miles before it needs to be replaced?? And are all batteries going to use the same plates? Are they user replaceable?? It's one thing to create a center at existing service stations for one or two types of plates. But if you need a mechanic to do it, or every manufacturer or model decides to use a different size, it would be a mess.
I also wonder how this deals with little things like traveling in Maine in the winter with the heater on, or in Phoenix in the summer with the A/C on. Most vehicles today can dump waste heat to heat the car, and use mechanical energy off the engine to drive a compressor for cooling. This car would need to 'burn' electricity to create heat, or use it to power a compressor for cooling. I wonder how that would impact the effective miles between stops or recycling.
Nice concept
I'm sure a CS freshman could also explain it. In fact, I'm sure someone who read the Java book could explain it. And if it takes you an hour to explain it, and you are a graduate, it's a good thing you didn't become a professor.
Doesn't really make any difference. Inventing a new word to describe a precise action doesn't make it necessary. Except to people trying to justify their waste of money on college or sound more intelligent than they really are. I know people who use more words than necessary to sound more important then they really are. They are usually called 'blowhards'. I'm sure there is another word that means basically the same thing but is a lot more precise, but blowhard works just as well and usually gets the point across.
... even more stupid people going to college to get degrees in things they have no talent for. I see them all the time, developers with 'degrees' who can only code if you put a spec in front of them, they are incapable of creative thought and have no real-world experience to pull from.
.. I'm not saying that some truly great people have not come out of college and done great things. I know some people far smarter than me that have degrees and will always make more than me. And no matter how much college I had, I would never have been them. They had the talent already.
.. go to college.
I went for a job interview last week, and the hiring VP said their biggest problem is finding developers who know how to program instead of just knowing how to code. Programmers who actually understand things like operations and systems. Programmers who are capable of seeing the big picture and coding at the systems level instead of at the method level.
These days that type of programmer is hard to find, because the days of becoming a computer programmer by starting as an operator or trainee are over. No one will hire anyone without a degree now. And no developer with a degree is willing to start as an operator, they all want $100k/year to pay off their debts. And of course, no one will hire a programmer with a degree as an operator because they are overqualified.
Yet some of the brightest programmers I know don't have degrees. They started at the bottom and worked up. They attended classes here and there, either at school or online, to learn what they needed to learn. They bought books and learned new tech.
But back when I started, companies were willing to hire someone simply because they were smart, creative, and had a great curiosity about how things work. People with good work ethics that worked smarter, not necessarily harder, than their peers.
And we do none of it now because we have been lied to that programming requires a degree. Bullshit. Programming is one of the easiest things in the world to do. I've seen 10 year old kids write code without ever having been to a class. Simply because their brain works a certain way. I've seen programmers learn new styles of programming over a weekend simply be reading a book. Their biggest stumbling block wasn't not going to college, they understood how to do things. But they didn't know the fancy words for everything. They just programmed and got the job done without worrying about technical mumbo-jumbo that really doesn't mean jack squat. Like how 'initialization' was change to 'instantiation'.
If all we want is code monkeys who need a complete spec before writing anything, go ahead. Keep sending them to school. Continue to let the government subsidize people who really have no business writing code because their brain just doesn't have the spatial aptitude that is required for programming. Because they thought it was just a great way to make a buck. Continuing only hiring people based on a piece of paper that only says they know how to pass tests.
Now
It wasn't college that made them successful, it was themselves. College was just a tool they chose to use because it served a purpose. They already had the ability, college was a different way of getting the information.
Starting at the bottom is not a bad way to learn. Sure, it sucks at first. But in 3 or 4 years, you get 3 or 4 years of experience and little or no college debt. Many companies will help with tuition. Granted, it cuts out a lot of companies that will only hire if you have a degree. And it can take a lot of time to find someplace that will do it. But someone that has been writing code at home or part-time for friends and family, and knows how to write a resume, should be able to find something if they truly have talent and interview well. If you don't interview well
But really, do you want to work for a company that is so procedure oriented that they won't look beyond the resume to what a pe
In the last three months, our company has hired THREE H1B employees, one being a programmer. They had to post the jobs, so I got to see the salary ranges.
'Less restrictive' is code for 'lower paid'. There are plenty of out-of-work US citizens that could have done these jobs, but if they hire H1B, they can pay less and keep them longer because of the sponsorship requirement. I was able to review resumes for one position, and there were definitely capable US citizens to do these.
I'm not against hiring talented, smart, folks. I'm not even against companies paying less and driving down wages if it makes products cheaper.
I am against lying about why they are doing it. Just be honest, and admit Mr. Zuckerberg that you just want to hire people you can pay less money.
I stuck with my Skyrocket because I carry my phone in my front pants pocket. I lost my last one carrying it in my shirt pocket, It fell out in some cow field out around Portal, Arizona when I bent down to open a gate to drive through on an off road trip.
My wife has a Galaxy Note, but she carries it in her purse. I tried it out in my front pants pocket, but I felt it was too big, so I'm staying put. She looked at the newest model, and it fits her purse so she is all about getting the new one now as soon as hers breaks. I foresee a misstep around the pool coming up when it gets warmer out....
Different needs for different people. That's why we both prefer our Android phones to Apple, many styles and types to choose from instead of white or black.
I did this test to figure out optimal size. We have a 42" TV, so I sat on the couch and held my phone out in front of me so that the relative width of both the TV and the phone was the same. It was a comfortable distance, which explains why I don't mind watching TV on the phones, even though the sound is much worse than a Dolby Surround system. However, I have to hold it within 4 inches of my face to make the screen the same relative size as my monitor. Which explains why I don't like to use it as a browser much. Based on that test, it would have to be two to three times as wide to make it useful for browsing. Plus typing on it still sucks when compared to a keyboard. At least for me, I type 75 words a minute. Glad I took 'typing' 30 years ago in high school....
So I don't see much of a need to go bigger, until bigger is big enough to browse. Or is reasonable to use on glasses.
The only people who bought a bunch of hardware and had it sitting around idle were people that didn't know how to manage data centers. You still have to project loads for the cloud, and you still have to pay for the ability to scale up. In fact, in our cost estimating, the cost of moving data into and out of someone else's cloud, and the cost of having those large data sets on their servers, was the reason it was more pricey than having our own servers locally even if we had to buy extra servers.
And of course, you missed the entire point. Once you pay someone else, you are at their mercy. Now, if you are a large corporation that can bring pressure to bear, that may not be a bad thing. But if you are a $10M company, they don't care if you pull everything and go elsewhere. In fact, they are betting you can't afford to.
Both Microsoft and Amazon have had major outages in the last year. At our data center, we have not had ANY in the five years I've worked here.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a good reason for letting someone else host my data. Lower price and higher availability don't seem to be valid arguments from my experience. It seems the only reason is because people would rather trust Amazon's and Microsoft's incompetent staff over their own incompetent staff.
... this is what you get. Sure, it's possible the same thing can happen for any company. But at least then you can fire your incompetent staff.
.. 'Cloud' computing is just remote virtual servers over the Internet. It's really not something new and original. People act like it's some amazing new 'thing'. Well .. it's not. It's just another way of letting companies with limited or no tech skills put up a web site or store data. It's expensive, proprietary, and I doubt very cost effective in the long run.
Once you deploy to a vendor, you are stuck. From what I've seen, you can't easily move data and code from one vendor to another. One of our clients is in the UK Azure cloud and we have to BCP about 6M rows from their server to our system every week. Takes over 90 minutes, and constantly fails because of losing the connection. We've looked at deploying systems to various clouds, and the costs were not worth it.
I will NEVER put any critical business system in someone else's cloud. At worst, I might put it in someone's data center on *MY* servers. The cloud seems to be fine for small business startups and non-important data for personal use. Businesses who no one would even notice if their site was down for a day.
BTW
Why would AT&T want a customer that doesn't use data? Better to charge them fees and make them go elsewhere, or hope that they will start to use data. Same thing happened to my son-in-law, but I changed his plan to a $5 plan, and he does use data from time to time. So it all worked out.
Contrary to popular belief, businesses only want your money if they make more money than you cost. If you don't fit into that mold, they will be very happy you go elsewhere.
Welcome to capitalism. I have had AT&T for years, but only because the services they offer are the ones I want and am willing to pay for. Seems you and many others don't understand how that process works. Don't like it, go elsewhere. If AT&T really wants you around, they will try to keep you.
I'm talking about a town of 600,000 people that has a far lower violent crime rate than either NYC or the UK. Murder is included in violent crime, but isn't the only component. Guns are involved in violent crime, but they also aren't the only factor. If guns were the only factor, then Mesa would also have a high violent crime rate. Guns don't cause violent crime, criminals do. If you drill further down into the statistics you quote about murder in Arizona, you will discover they are either gun or illegal immigration factors in a large percentage of them. Changing gun laws won't change those statistics at all, except now when the meth addict breaks into someone's home he has a better chance at killing the occupants.
I have seen no statistic that show direct proof that reducing guns reduces crime without other statistics that refute it. I believe it's because there are far too many other factors that aren't taken into account and can't be removed from the equation. There are only misleading statistics that people use to support their side of the argument. Did you know the average criminal that uses a gun shoots less than three times?? Did you know that in instances where either off duty law enforcement or private citizens were present and able to stop public shootings, the average number of people killed (including the perpetrator) is 3 and not 11 when guns aren't present. (And that the national media never reports those because the body count isn't high enough to warrant any attention?) How come you don't mention those, you only mention the ones that support your belief (just as I did.)
So, ignoring misleading statistics, please explain how limiting magazines to 7 rounds does anything. I have a two six shot revolvers, one 5 shot, and a 7+1 round semi-automatic (if you don't know what 7+1 means, you have no business talking about guns). I can easily carry all four, which still gives me 23 shots. Couple that with a 7+1 lever action round rifle and maybe another pocket pistol, and I'm over 35 rounds without having to reload. I can easily shoot at least one round a second from all of those guns. I practice moving from gun to gun at the range, there will not be any 'down time' while I switch guns. The lever action rifle does far more damage than an AR15, and it's a hunting rifle. So when the mass murderers start doing that, is Cuomo going to make it illegal to carry more than one gun at a time??? Is he going to start limiting the caliber of guns so they don't cause as much damage?? Read the history of the UK gun laws, and you will discover their gun gun control laws were ineffective, so after each ban of a single type because 'no one needs them', they banned the next type. Until everything was banned and their citizens have to buy baseball bats to protect themselves because the police can't.
Useless gun control law is the perfect title for this purely political power grab to make it look like they are doing something. When in reality, nothing changes. Except a few more of the freedoms law-abiding citizens have (like privacy and due process) are slowly whittled away because people ignorant of guns lash out at things they don't understand and are afraid of.
Should be 'New York Passes Useless Gun Control Law', since nothing in the law will make any positive difference in crime rates, and will only impact legal gun holders. My prediction is that like Chicago, New York will continue down the path of passing more and more restrictive gun control laws, which make it easier for criminals to commit more crimes and serve only to continue to drive their violent crime rates even higher above the national average. Meanwhile, I live in a community of over 600,000 people in a state with very few gun control laws (Arizona) that has a violent crime rate almost have the national average. Where I can open carry into a bank (and have) and no one runs out in fear, the tellers smile, say high, and take my deposit as if nothing was wrong.
Because nothing was wrong.
My Ruger SR22 rifle comes standard with a 10 round magazine. I have never seen a 7 round magazine for it. Yet it's very useful for hunting rabbits and squirrels.
So much for the 'no one needs 10 rounds for hunting' argument....
My Beretta Bobcat comes with a 7 round magazine, yet holds one in the chamber. Will people that have it 'locked and loaded' be breaking the law??
My S&W Mod 15 revolver carries 6 rounds. I've been timed at firing 6 rounds in under three seconds, and reloading in less than three more. And I know people faster than I am. Someone trained doesn't need 10 round (or more) magazines to shoot lots of people in a very short time. Should we ban handgun training next???
Cumo, Bloomberg, and Obama are all idiots trying to look like they are doing something. When in fact, I'm positive statistics over the next 4 or 5 years (if these laws even stand that long) will show how ineffective they are.
It's also far too easy for alcoholics to get cars and drive them. Negligent car drives already face harsh penalties. And there are far too many irresponsible car owners in this country (US) that allow their cars to be used by alcoholics.
Did you have a point???
You mean the UK, where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times that of the US?? Where there was recently a run on small baseball bats because police weren't able to protect businesses and people from rioters?? That country??
.. where Big Brother knows what's best, and is watching.
I fail to see any common sense in a country where 5 years ago, a group of doctors were trying to ban long, pointed kitchen knives because the criminals had turned to those for killing. As I recall, the reason was 'no one needs those'.
The UK
Or is it a country without very large population centers, mostly rural, where murder rates are statistically lower anyway, everywhere in the world. Except in their cities.
I live in Arizona, where people carrying guns are not an uncommon site. I myself have carried into gas stations, drug stores, and banks without incident. I had a police officer pull me over to tell me my brake lights were out, I had a gun visible and he didn't ask me to take it off.
People who are knowledgeable about guns and know how to use them aren't scared of them. Anymore than someone is scared of a hammer. It's mostly people ignorant about guns who are scared of guns. And only want them removed because of their phobia, not the reality that low gun ownership does not reduce violent crime. I seem to recall a madman in Sweden a few years ago that showed how ineffective gun laws are.
Another comment from ignorant anti-gun cultists. Many semi-automatic guns have magazines that support more than 7 rounds. I have a Ruger rifle that FROM THE FACTORY comes with 10 round magazines. I have NEVER seen a 7 round magazine for it. It's a hunting rifle for me, it's great for taking squirrels and rabbits that move around a lot. If I lived in NY, this gun would become useless. Yet someone could still easily buy and use 4 or more holsters and walk into a school with revolvers and shoot 10, 20, or more people if they wanted to. The law accomplished nothing except make a bunch of legal gun owners potential criminals. I also own a few 30 round magazines so when I go target shooting I don't have to reload as often. I can load them at home where it's easier and more comfortable. People who claim large magazines serve no purpose except killing people are just ignorant and don't know what they are talking about. People who claim a semi-automatic rifle can fire 6 shots a second are also ignorant. Three, maybe four tops. But then I can clear all 6 rounds out of my revolver in under 3 seconds, and reload in 3 more. so what difference does it make???
Last time I checked, the taking of property without due process is illegal. I doubt this will stand in it's present form. It takes a judge's order today to get a restraining order, it will be found that the police will have to get one to remove a gun from someone mentally ill, they can't just do it because some therapist says so. The government can't order me to sell something today that was legal yesterday. That's why pre-embargo Cuban cigars are still legal, along with many other grandfathered items in various laws.
Requiring back ground checks for private sales simply won't work. First, the FBI isn't setup to take them from private citizens. Second, why would I bother getting permission to sell a non-registered gun to a friend. Criminals already get guns from other criminals, I doubt if they will change their ways. Instead, thousands of people that now go to gun shows to sell guns they don't want anymore will simply stop doing it, reducing the supply and driving up the costs. If they want to make a difference, require anyone that sells more than 20 guns a year get a license. If there is a problem with private sales, it's not Bob next door selling to his buddies, it's the guy who is buying and selling to make a profit.
I doubt if much of this will survive any Supreme Court challenges. Cuomo and the NY legislature have just proven they are a bunch of ignorant people willing to pass ineffective laws just to look like they did something (and Obama is about to fall into that category). NY is going to lose some air travel business as people with guns avoid even passing through their airspace. I already do because of many cases where people just passing through had to spend a night and got booked on gun charges simply because the laws in NY are moronic and do nothing to prevent gun violence already.
I live in Mesa Arizona in a state that allows concealed carry without a license, Mesa remains below the national average in all violent crimes for cities of more than 500,000 people. Maybe if Cuomo and Bloomberg would work on figuring out why people in his state want to kill each other and focus on criminals, they might actually accomplish something of value.
Protestors may only protest on private property in the US when allowed by the property owner. As long as the owner of the web site has a way to tell the people that are doing the DOS attack to 'get off their web page', and can turn around and jail them for trespassing if they don't, I fully support this.
I would like for the jury to turn their attention to other Microsoft 'innovations' here on the table. You will find Windows ME, Windows Vista, Windows 8, Surface, Zune, Media Center, and Microsoft Cordless phone. There are many more, but these should suffice for the purposes of this trial. You will notice that Microsoft has plenty of ideas, but is rarely able to find something that people want or need. These products are all 'pretty', but upon closer inspection you will find that Microsoft seemed to be more interested in creating something pretty than something that actually worked and worked well. Often times, using a product was met with frustrations non-standard operations were confusing. Or things were made so simple that intelligent people had to use more effort to use them.
.. Windows, Excel, Word, and Powerpoint. What you will notice is that these products were not truly innovative, they already existed. But became very popular because they worked well, and worked well together.
On this table are successful Microsoft products
Your decision in this matter is clear. Microsoft has a very low success rate when developing new products, but is able to take ideas that other people have, fine tune them, and create better products. Please find in favor of the plaintiffs and approve this injunction that forbids Microsoft from every trying to create something new ever again so as to stop wasting money so we can have lower prices. They will only be allowed to improve their own successful products or copy some other product, as long as they keep the way things currently work the same while adding new features, or changes to existing features will only be allowed if the user 'Opts In', instead of the current method of having to dig through endless, non-intuitive screens to find a box to click to revert back.
Thank you for your service.
It's called using a 'mouse' and 'keyboard'. I touch both of them and the way I touch and move them controls what is on the screen. I need to use the screen on my tablet and phone because I'm not at my desk. What works well on the desktop doesn't work on the phone, it needed different input techniques. That doesn't mean those techniques work well on the desktop.
.. would I like a touch screen on my desktop? A little, most mouse-type devices are limited in movement to do things like rotate, although with the appropriate software it's possible, just not as intuitive. Most of screen manipulation is simply clicking, double/long clicking, or moving and mice cal already do that. They can also be used to zoom and swipe with the appropriate software. You can't right click a touch screen, although long clicking kinda sorta is the same thing I guess. Definitely can't middle click. It would be handy for media manipulation at times. But how is that going to work on my 72" HDTV??? I need the capability for both to use when I need to.
Now
And explain to me why you decided that bigger icons on my desktop were a good idea, especially since most of the time I have these things you call 'windows' up and can't really see any of them when they are active so what's the purpose?? I have dual monitors, and most of the time I have windows open on both and most of my desktop is hidden. I'm doing this thing called 'work'. The little pop-up notifications that pop-up then fade away work just fine and are much more useful.
Windows 8 is not on my list of upgrades. If you want me to upgrade, give me something that is a reason to upgrade, like runs faster. I don't care about boot or standby times, my PC is on 24x7 and I rarely reboot. In fact, the only time I reboot is when you need to install updates because you haven't figured out how to do that without rebooting, like UNIX has done for decades you idiots.