Also, Gmail for Business is $50/user/year, so in that arena it does appear they have something to lose. It also suggests that there are at least SOME companies that use the Gmail code.
The university I attend does. (and I'm sure certain members of the administration would like to have stationary-esque logos above their email)
Also, Wikipedia has signatures of many famous people on their respective articles.
Well as you know gmail users are not google customers.
Yeah, that's why I put "customers" in quotes - (which I guess you noticed) because obviously it's the companies paying for advertising that are the REAL customers. However, with fewer "customers" (gmail users), the service they offer to their REAL customers is of less value.
I don't personally do this, but there are lots of business-types who like to have their actual signature as a JPG inline. Also, maybe a small corporate logo on the top-left.
I understand the reasons for not having it, but I also don't think Google should be the arbiter of good taste in emails. I know it's their service and they can do what they want, but they are likely going to lose "customers" over it.
So right now if I have a website and someone visits it such that their browser downloads my intellectual property (the images, content, etc.), is there not some kind of implied license that allows them to view the content? And if so, wouldn't the above put an end to all websites? I'm sure I'm missing something, but maybe you could clue me in.
What I really meant was: It's the courts that screw us with respect to matters of intellectual property law. In other areas, such as basic human rights and constitutionality, they do a pretty decent job.
I don't think that will ever happen. IANAL, but I don't see how you could make it illegal to license your IP under one license while making it legal to use a different license.
Agreed. It's their money and if they think it's in the best interest of their companies, they should do it. It's not their job to make sure the USA keeps running like it's supposed to, it's the job of Congress and the judicial system. They are who we should be outraged with.
Can't say that I blame them... it's their industry and they're advocating for it - big surprise. That's how the system works: Both sides fight it out based on how important it is to them and the courts decide. If I'm a shareholder, I want them doing everything they can to make the value of my stock go up. That's why the courts are supposed to be there to make sure they're playing by the rules. It's the courts that screw us.
There's a difference between using correct punctuation (i.e. an apostrophe) and following style guidelines (i.e. italics, underlining, etc.). It's a little less pedantic to complain about punctuation than style.
Even high schools aren't as bad as people say. I went to a public high school in the USA and if you didn't do your homework and study for your tests you would fail. If you fail, you repeat the grade.
The argument of administrators at many colleges is that the records is used to track down financial aid fraud - mostly at community colleges, though, since you won't last too long at a major university without showing up. (people who get free money to go to college and don't actually show up - they use the money to buy cars, televisions, etc.)
That being said, I disagree with the sentiment. If they want to track down fraud, they should require students on financial aid maintain a certain GPA (even if it's only, say, a 2.5)
Not sure why it's necessary to mention that... RFID tags are cheap (very, very, cheap) and sensors don't cost that much either. Although on an unrelated note, I agree with others that keeping attendance (especially in college) is stupid. If you can skip class all the time and still get A's on tests, then great. If not, it's your own fault. I understand that much of the attendance-keeping in major universities these days is intended to track down financial aid fraud (people who get pell grants and don't actually go to school), but it's definitely a privacy concern.
I believe the "fail" was directed at the GP's reference to an "internet browser" rather than a "web browser." (which is pretty bad considering GP was attempting to explain the difference between the two)
Slashdot Mirror
I find people using gmail, hotmail or yahoo mail for formal business communications all a bit iffy.
I agree - I automatically think twice about doing business when I see a @yahoo or @gmail on a business card.
However, even the free Gmail allows you to use your own domain such that you have user@domainname.com instead of user@gmail.com
Also, Gmail for Business is $50/user/year, so in that arena it does appear they have something to lose. It also suggests that there are at least SOME companies that use the Gmail code.
The university I attend does. (and I'm sure certain members of the administration would like to have stationary-esque logos above their email)
Also, Wikipedia has signatures of many famous people on their respective articles.
Well as you know gmail users are not google customers.
Yeah, that's why I put "customers" in quotes - (which I guess you noticed) because obviously it's the companies paying for advertising that are the REAL customers. However, with fewer "customers" (gmail users), the service they offer to their REAL customers is of less value.
You can send them as an attachment.
I don't personally do this, but there are lots of business-types who like to have their actual signature as a JPG inline. Also, maybe a small corporate logo on the top-left.
I understand the reasons for not having it, but I also don't think Google should be the arbiter of good taste in emails. I know it's their service and they can do what they want, but they are likely going to lose "customers" over it.
Ok thanks - I've always found IP law interesting
And what about releasing things into the public domain? No more free stock photography, no more public domain images from NASA, no more podcasts...
So right now if I have a website and someone visits it such that their browser downloads my intellectual property (the images, content, etc.), is there not some kind of implied license that allows them to view the content? And if so, wouldn't the above put an end to all websites? I'm sure I'm missing something, but maybe you could clue me in.
What I really meant was: It's the courts that screw us with respect to matters of intellectual property law. In other areas, such as basic human rights and constitutionality, they do a pretty decent job.
Well that's easy enough to circumvent. Just have anyone downloading a Creative Commons licensed file do a "click here to accept" on the download page.
I don't think that will ever happen. IANAL, but I don't see how you could make it illegal to license your IP under one license while making it legal to use a different license.
Agreed. It's their money and if they think it's in the best interest of their companies, they should do it. It's not their job to make sure the USA keeps running like it's supposed to, it's the job of Congress and the judicial system. They are who we should be outraged with.
and the idiots who make the laws in the first place - let's not forget them
Can't say that I blame them... it's their industry and they're advocating for it - big surprise. That's how the system works: Both sides fight it out based on how important it is to them and the courts decide. If I'm a shareholder, I want them doing everything they can to make the value of my stock go up. That's why the courts are supposed to be there to make sure they're playing by the rules. It's the courts that screw us.
There's a difference between using correct punctuation (i.e. an apostrophe) and following style guidelines (i.e. italics, underlining, etc.). It's a little less pedantic to complain about punctuation than style.
I'm convinced
if you really want to UNDERSTAND why things are the way they are, then manuals like these are very good...
That's what Windows Internals, by Mark Russinovich, is for...
Even high schools aren't as bad as people say. I went to a public high school in the USA and if you didn't do your homework and study for your tests you would fail. If you fail, you repeat the grade.
The argument of administrators at many colleges is that the records is used to track down financial aid fraud - mostly at community colleges, though, since you won't last too long at a major university without showing up. (people who get free money to go to college and don't actually show up - they use the money to buy cars, televisions, etc.)
That being said, I disagree with the sentiment. If they want to track down fraud, they should require students on financial aid maintain a certain GPA (even if it's only, say, a 2.5)
Not sure why it's necessary to mention that... RFID tags are cheap (very, very, cheap) and sensors don't cost that much either. Although on an unrelated note, I agree with others that keeping attendance (especially in college) is stupid. If you can skip class all the time and still get A's on tests, then great. If not, it's your own fault. I understand that much of the attendance-keeping in major universities these days is intended to track down financial aid fraud (people who get pell grants and don't actually go to school), but it's definitely a privacy concern.
But are those in constant dollars? (adjusted for inflation)
Grammatically correct? yes
What he intended to say? probably not
If someone could care less, that means that they DO care to some degree.
The correct phrase is saying that I care SO LITTLE that I couldn't care less if I wanted to....
what are the evil parts of the interface you're referring to?
The "kill puppies" button. Or is that only on my copy of Outlook?
That's weird - I have the same button in my web browser (in "private browsing" mode)
I believe the "fail" was directed at the GP's reference to an "internet browser" rather than a "web browser." (which is pretty bad considering GP was attempting to explain the difference between the two)
exactly.
Regardless: Christians rarely follow through...
How many instances of Muslim terrorism have you heard of? I presume MANY more...