Gangs will steal out of moving tractor trailers during rush hour on surface streets and on the highway. Also, going through the NYC can take forever and can result in late loads and wrecks.
Vermont is also a place truckers and dispatchers like to avoid.
Speaking as an ex-over-the-road truck driver, it is a bad analogy because truckers do care about what they are carrying. They have to because they have to comply with different weight and bridge laws in each state. Truckers need to know if the load could shift, leak, etc.
And, no trucker wants a load that is not what the manifest says. Makes delivery difficult and if the load is inspected and the contents of the trailer does not match the contents of the bill of lading then the driver might have be in serious trouble.
Shippers may require the route not go over a certain altitude, through certain areas (New York City for one), or require a specific delivery time frame ("You have to be there on Wednesday between 6AM and 9AM").
No, but I didn't buy the Lindisfarne Gospels, I bought this bible, I own it and it's my bible. I do whatever I like with it. Tear pages out, glue new ones in, make a lot of paper aeroplanes if I like.
But, do you have the right to copy the entire text of the bible you have purchased and use said text to print a new copy of said bible to sell or give away? Or, more to the point, purchase a copy of the book "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", do you have a right to scan or type the contents of that book into a text or PDF file and then sell or give away copies of the file or the file itself?
The text in a book is information, yet when you buy a book, you do not gain ownership over the information in the book. You do not gain a right to make copies of the book or the information in the book and give said copies of said information away.
If you purchase a print of a painting, you do not gain the right to take a digital picture of the print and then give away that digital copy of the print.
Copyright exists as a right for those who copy it
What does the law say about who has the right to copy "it"? Or, are you stating that under, apparently German, copyright law, anyone and everyone has the right to copy anything one wishes to copy?
Your "different laws for bitspace" is merely a red herring. The only difference is in the encoding of the data, not the laws that apply to the information. You just want there to be a difference to justify your infringing on other people's rights.
However, advocating at work the use of a different operating system than the one management has settled on, especially when one is a member of the IT department, has everything to do with the operation of "the place".
Doing as you say could be considered insubordination, which can lower your reviews and/or get you fired.
As a taxpayer, I want nothing more than to see our health systems improve and run more efficiently.
The OP is not working for the "DHB" as a taxpayer. He is not even a a decision maker in the IT department of the DHB. If he does not like the situation, he can publicize it (and probably get a yawn from most everyone). His technical opinion is to be expressed to his boss, but it is the boss' technical opinion that matters.
Like so many people, the OP has forgotten that a business is a voluntary dictatorship. The boss' set the business' direction and if the employee doesn't like it, the employee can voice his objections to the boss and possibly be fired or the employee can quit.
Once the OP is no longer an employee, he is free to pursue his desires as a taxpayer, but will probably meet with much the same level of success.
The package manager handles it? Really? In all disros? I think not.
You say disk space isn't an issue, but what if it is?
What about memory foot print? Remember, the system is going to load up all the libraries it needs into memory, so if you run a GNOME/GTK app, a KDE app, and WindowMaker, you have to load the KDE libs, the GTK/GNOME libs, and the WindowMaker libs.
Yes, you can upgrade your own ROM. I was able to put 2.1 features on my Droid (quite easily, I might add.)
That is because your Droid came with 2.0, dumbass. Try upgrading something that has Android 1.x on it to 2.x and get back to me.
So now the argument is that Google is working too fast? (ie: Windows versions have been 10 years old before a new one can rightfully take it's place... but upgrading a free OS every 6 months is too much?)
No, dumbass, it is that:
In 6 months, Google broke their backwards compatibility. MS managed to keep said compatibility for 10 years.
There is no way to easily upgrade from 1.x to 2.x.
Oh, and about that "Windows versions have been 10 years old before a new one can rightfully take it's place", if you want to be a liar, fine but I am going to call you on it. There has been Win2K, WinXP, Vista, and now Windows 7. That is 4 Generation where most of the apps for one can be run on all and if an app doesn't run one's current version of Windows, one can upgrade to a newer version. But, as it has been said and you have completely fucking ignored, one can not upgrade from Android 1.x to 2.x on most, if not all devices.
.. This whole non-issue is for whiners who think it will be the end all if they have the latest and greatest, while sacrificing performance on their phones.
Or, people who want to use an app that is available for 2.x but not 1.x
And with Windows, an application written for the 64-bit architecture won't run on a 32-bit processor, and an application that requires DirectX 11 won't work on hardware that doesn't support it.
Again, that is hardware. All we are talking about here is the operating system. We are not talking about "Android on architecture X vs architecture Y", just Android 2 vs Android 1.6 which is less than 6 months old and for which there is no upgrade path. Software, not hardware. Got it?
Someone writes a game to take advantage of the latest DirectX11 video card. - I complain that that game won't work on my old DirectX8 Video card.
That is a hardware issue, not an operating system.
Someone writes an app to take advantage of Droid hardware or uses the newest Android API. - Someone complains that that app won't work on their G1.
Someone writes an application that uses.NET3 - Why can't I run it in Windows 2000?
One can upgrade to a version of Windows that does support.Net3. This is not possible for Android 1.6 to 2.1.
Win2000 is 10 years old (released 2/2000). Android 1.6 is less than 6 months old (release date 9/2009).
Android 2.1 has parts that are incompatible with a version that is less than 6 months old and which can not be upgraded to 2.1..Net 3 is not supported on a 10 year old version of Windows, but the system can be upgraded to a newer version of Windows.
Each runs a version of Windows compatible to the same version on every other PC running the same version of Windows. This is not true of Android
Regardless of the version of Windows each runs, there is an upgrade path to the latest version of Windows. The hardware may result in the system running so slow that the system is unusable, but it is doable. This is not true of Android devices.
Except for very specific steps and very specific circumstances, one can run software between different versions Windows. I have run games for Windows 95 on a Vista machine. There are more and more Android applications that are not version compatible and/or device compatible.
The idea that Linux is any more diverse than the average Windows PC is just mindless FUD
First off, it is Windows, not "Windows PC". You see Linux is an OPERATING SYSTEM and Windows is an OPERATING SYSTEM. The "average Windows PC" is a whole computer system. If you want to compare Linux to something, you should compare it to another operating system.
Second, Windows has one official set of core components that are used over 95% of users. Linux, on the other hand, does not have standard locations or components. It has interchangeable window managers and desktop environments, each with its own API. Try installing a semi-light weight system with, say, WindowMaker as your WM. Don't install any part of GNOME or KDE. Then, start installing application such as Nautilus, or Konqueror, or Evolution. What will it say you need to do? Yet, that is not a problem on Windows, now is it? And with Android, it is worse because an application written for Android 2.1 may use OS features not available in 1.6 and there is no way to upgrade from 1.6 to 2.1 for almost every Android device with the exception of hacking the device which most users don't have the skills to do.
Then, there was Apple and there was Wintel, and they made up about 98% of the PC market with Wintel holding about 95%. Now, there is Apple on Intel and Windows on Intel and Intel work-a-likes holding 95% of the PC market with FLOSS a distant third. And, Wintel still has over 85% of the market
Looks like that "plethora of unique PC machines" aren't so unique after all. The peripheral hardware may change but the processors and the OS are pretty much standard on every every machine.
This article is about how Android implementations are different between machines. That is a lot like the FLOSS model, and we have seen how well that has worked out against the other PC OS offerings.
Second, the point of my post is that moral hazard is part of the game.
And normal "moral hazard" is figured into the price of the insurance. However, this is not "normal" as shown by the 50% increase in claims.
Third, which insurance company do you work for to get so fired up?
I don't work for an insurance company. Which insurance company did you fail to defraud to get so fired up? Or is it that they would not insure your iPhone because of some history you have?
Oh, I see what you did there. You didn't read the article so you don't know that it states that the company in question rejects approximately 25% of claims.
Oh, I see what you did there. You just lied about what the article 2nd level article says:
Supercover says that these false claims are usually quite easy to spot. ... The group says it rejects around a quarter of suspicious iPhone claims. [emphasis added]
They do not reject 25% of claims, but rather 25% of suspicious claims, which are usually easy to spot.
While one has to treat one's phone with some basic care, one's phone will stand up to regular use and being dropped, etc. You talk as if they are more fragile than eggs, which is just as "retarded".
You have to treat your phone with care, but if it's insured, why would you?
Because, it is my phone and contains my data which may or may not be backed up. The phone may take time to replace. You take care of your phone for the same reason you take care of your car, even though your car is insured.
Imagine that. Who would have guessed that if you get water in a piece of electronic equipment, said equipment might be damaged. I am sure you use your hair drier, laptop, and radio while in the shower too.
The fact is that phones will generally survive a casual drop or incidental water contact with no damage. But, when you start submerging them or slamming them into the ground, you have moved from normal wear and tear into abuse.
The problem with your post, which is seriously overrated and a bit off topic, is that the insurance company is not denying the claims. The insurance company has looked at the number of claims and has seen something suspicious, specifically a 50% increase in claims one month after the release of the new iPhone. The insurance company also noted that many of those phones came in with extreme amounts of damage unlikely to be caused by a simple accident. Some showed evidence of being deliberately smashed using a hammer.
The insurance company priced their product according to normal wear and damage rates. When the new iPhone came out, there appears to have been a large amount of insurance fraud to get the newest model, something that doesn't happen with regular cell phones. Basically, the insurance company didn't think there would be that many assholes using iPhones.
The insurance company shouldn't have to pay out on phones that were deliberately damaged. That actually increases the cost of insurance and is why insurance companies don't pay out easily. Your own suggestion is that they should not fight insurance fraud but rather spread the cost to everyone by raising their rates.
Oh, and I did see what you did there. You attacked all insurance companies with no evidence, then said it was the insurance companies' fault that assholes were committing insurance fraud. You used a genetic fallacy.
His skills were in IT; he could no longer use them legitimately
He could no longer use them because of his own actions.
I'm just pointing out that judicial punishment made him into a worse criminal than he was.
It is not the judicial system's fault he can not use his IT skills, it is his own. Judicial punishment did not make him into a worse criminal, he did it to himself on his own.
giving him the choice between unskilled labor and crime
First, those were not his only choices. He could have gone to school while working as unskilled labor. Then, he could get a better job. But, that would require acting like a real adult. Second, he created that choice himself through his actions.
If an accountant can't get a job as an accountant after doing time for embezzlement then robs a bank, would you still blame the judicial system?
As near as I can tell, you think he should never have been punished for his criminal acts in the first place, which is just foolishness.
You are basing your conclusion on the fact he said he could not get a job. But, he never talks about the kind of job he was trying to get.
I think you are basing your "opposite of rehabilitation" conclusion on too little information. I am willing to bet he could have gotten a job, but not a job that would put his IT skills to use. This is to be expected as he has already proven he can not be trusted in such a position. You wouldn't hire someone who has done time for embezzlement to keep the books at your company and I wouldn't hire someone who has a record for computer crimes to run my network, work as a sysadmin, or anything else that requires privileged access to systems and data.
You are right that he didn't turn to crime for income before, which makes his crime all the worse. He didn't need to commit the crime, he wanted to commit it. He didn't have to commit a crime the first time, and he didn't have to do so the second time. It was his choice, he gets to live with the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Gangs will steal out of moving tractor trailers during rush hour on surface streets and on the highway. Also, going through the NYC can take forever and can result in late loads and wrecks.
Vermont is also a place truckers and dispatchers like to avoid.
Speaking as an ex-over-the-road truck driver, it is a bad analogy because truckers do care about what they are carrying. They have to because they have to comply with different weight and bridge laws in each state. Truckers need to know if the load could shift, leak, etc.
And, no trucker wants a load that is not what the manifest says. Makes delivery difficult and if the load is inspected and the contents of the trailer does not match the contents of the bill of lading then the driver might have be in serious trouble.
Shippers may require the route not go over a certain altitude, through certain areas (New York City for one), or require a specific delivery time frame ("You have to be there on Wednesday between 6AM and 9AM").
But, do you have the right to copy the entire text of the bible you have purchased and use said text to print a new copy of said bible to sell or give away? Or, more to the point, purchase a copy of the book "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", do you have a right to scan or type the contents of that book into a text or PDF file and then sell or give away copies of the file or the file itself?
The text in a book is information, yet when you buy a book, you do not gain ownership over the information in the book. You do not gain a right to make copies of the book or the information in the book and give said copies of said information away.
If you purchase a print of a painting, you do not gain the right to take a digital picture of the print and then give away that digital copy of the print.
What does the law say about who has the right to copy "it"? Or, are you stating that under, apparently German, copyright law, anyone and everyone has the right to copy anything one wishes to copy?
Your "different laws for bitspace" is merely a red herring. The only difference is in the encoding of the data, not the laws that apply to the information. You just want there to be a difference to justify your infringing on other people's rights.
However, advocating at work the use of a different operating system than the one management has settled on, especially when one is a member of the IT department, has everything to do with the operation of "the place".
Doing as you say could be considered insubordination, which can lower your reviews and/or get you fired.
As a taxpayer, I want nothing more than to see our health systems improve and run more efficiently.
The OP is not working for the "DHB" as a taxpayer. He is not even a a decision maker in the IT department of the DHB. If he does not like the situation, he can publicize it (and probably get a yawn from most everyone). His technical opinion is to be expressed to his boss, but it is the boss' technical opinion that matters.
Like so many people, the OP has forgotten that a business is a voluntary dictatorship. The boss' set the business' direction and if the employee doesn't like it, the employee can voice his objections to the boss and possibly be fired or the employee can quit.
Once the OP is no longer an employee, he is free to pursue his desires as a taxpayer, but will probably meet with much the same level of success.
Please explain in detail what a "questionable copyright notice" is.
In my opinion
Your opinion does not matter because you are not a judge but rather a biased lawyer. Your opinion is worthless.
Yes, that is right. So, let us get rid of ALL laws. I can hardly wait for a world where I can kill stupid people with impunity.
You have completely missed the whole point of the thread.
The package manager handles it? Really? In all disros? I think not.
You say disk space isn't an issue, but what if it is?
What about memory foot print? Remember, the system is going to load up all the libraries it needs into memory, so if you run a GNOME/GTK app, a KDE app, and WindowMaker, you have to load the KDE libs, the GTK/GNOME libs, and the WindowMaker libs.
That is because your Droid came with 2.0, dumbass. Try upgrading something that has Android 1.x on it to 2.x and get back to me.
No, dumbass, it is that:
Oh, and about that "Windows versions have been 10 years old before a new one can rightfully take it's place", if you want to be a liar, fine but I am going to call you on it. There has been Win2K, WinXP, Vista, and now Windows 7. That is 4 Generation where most of the apps for one can be run on all and if an app doesn't run one's current version of Windows, one can upgrade to a newer version. But, as it has been said and you have completely fucking ignored, one can not upgrade from Android 1.x to 2.x on most, if not all devices.
Now, then, are you done showing your ignorance?
Or, people who want to use an app that is available for 2.x but not 1.x
Again, that is hardware. All we are talking about here is the operating system. We are not talking about "Android on architecture X vs architecture Y", just Android 2 vs Android 1.6 which is less than 6 months old and for which there is no upgrade path. Software, not hardware. Got it?
That is a hardware issue, not an operating system.
Android 2.1 has parts that are incompatible with a version that is less than 6 months old and which can not be upgraded to 2.1. .Net 3 is not supported on a 10 year old version of Windows, but the system can be upgraded to a newer version of Windows.
See?
Nice try at a red herring, but you fail.
But,
First off, it is Windows, not "Windows PC". You see Linux is an OPERATING SYSTEM and Windows is an OPERATING SYSTEM. The "average Windows PC" is a whole computer system. If you want to compare Linux to something, you should compare it to another operating system.
Second, Windows has one official set of core components that are used over 95% of users. Linux, on the other hand, does not have standard locations or components. It has interchangeable window managers and desktop environments, each with its own API. Try installing a semi-light weight system with, say, WindowMaker as your WM. Don't install any part of GNOME or KDE. Then, start installing application such as Nautilus, or Konqueror, or Evolution. What will it say you need to do? Yet, that is not a problem on Windows, now is it? And with Android, it is worse because an application written for Android 2.1 may use OS features not available in 1.6 and there is no way to upgrade from 1.6 to 2.1 for almost every Android device with the exception of hacking the device which most users don't have the skills to do.
Explain in detail, please, how the Windows operating system has this exact same problem.
Let's take a closer look:
Then, there was Apple and there was Wintel, and they made up about 98% of the PC market with Wintel holding about 95%.
Now, there is Apple on Intel and Windows on Intel and Intel work-a-likes holding 95% of the PC market with FLOSS a distant third. And, Wintel still has over 85% of the market
Looks like that "plethora of unique PC machines" aren't so unique after all. The peripheral hardware may change but the processors and the OS are pretty much standard on every every machine.
This article is about how Android implementations are different between machines. That is a lot like the FLOSS model, and we have seen how well that has worked out against the other PC OS offerings.
Someone explain to me how my post is redundant.
And normal "moral hazard" is figured into the price of the insurance. However, this is not "normal" as shown by the 50% increase in claims.
I don't work for an insurance company. Which insurance company did you fail to defraud to get so fired up? Or is it that they would not insure your iPhone because of some history you have?
Oh, I see what you did there. You didn't read the article so you don't know that it states that the company in question rejects approximately 25% of claims.
Oh, I see what you did there. You just lied about what the article 2nd level article says:
They do not reject 25% of claims, but rather 25% of suspicious claims, which are usually easy to spot.
While one has to treat one's phone with some basic care, one's phone will stand up to regular use and being dropped, etc. You talk as if they are more fragile than eggs, which is just as "retarded".
Because, it is my phone and contains my data which may or may not be backed up. The phone may take time to replace. You take care of your phone for the same reason you take care of your car, even though your car is insured.
Wow. Let us look at what you call easy to break:
Imagine that. Who would have guessed that if you get water in a piece of electronic equipment, said equipment might be damaged. I am sure you use your hair drier, laptop, and radio while in the shower too.
The fact is that phones will generally survive a casual drop or incidental water contact with no damage. But, when you start submerging them or slamming them into the ground, you have moved from normal wear and tear into abuse.
The problem with your post, which is seriously overrated and a bit off topic, is that the insurance company is not denying the claims. The insurance company has looked at the number of claims and has seen something suspicious, specifically a 50% increase in claims one month after the release of the new iPhone. The insurance company also noted that many of those phones came in with extreme amounts of damage unlikely to be caused by a simple accident. Some showed evidence of being deliberately smashed using a hammer.
The insurance company priced their product according to normal wear and damage rates. When the new iPhone came out, there appears to have been a large amount of insurance fraud to get the newest model, something that doesn't happen with regular cell phones. Basically, the insurance company didn't think there would be that many assholes using iPhones.
The insurance company shouldn't have to pay out on phones that were deliberately damaged. That actually increases the cost of insurance and is why insurance companies don't pay out easily. Your own suggestion is that they should not fight insurance fraud but rather spread the cost to everyone by raising their rates.
Oh, and I did see what you did there. You attacked all insurance companies with no evidence, then said it was the insurance companies' fault that assholes were committing insurance fraud. You used a genetic fallacy.
He could no longer use them because of his own actions.
It is not the judicial system's fault he can not use his IT skills, it is his own. Judicial punishment did not make him into a worse criminal, he did it to himself on his own.
First, those were not his only choices. He could have gone to school while working as unskilled labor. Then, he could get a better job. But, that would require acting like a real adult. Second, he created that choice himself through his actions.
If an accountant can't get a job as an accountant after doing time for embezzlement then robs a bank, would you still blame the judicial system?
As near as I can tell, you think he should never have been punished for his criminal acts in the first place, which is just foolishness.
You are basing your conclusion on the fact he said he could not get a job. But, he never talks about the kind of job he was trying to get.
I think you are basing your "opposite of rehabilitation" conclusion on too little information. I am willing to bet he could have gotten a job, but not a job that would put his IT skills to use. This is to be expected as he has already proven he can not be trusted in such a position. You wouldn't hire someone who has done time for embezzlement to keep the books at your company and I wouldn't hire someone who has a record for computer crimes to run my network, work as a sysadmin, or anything else that requires privileged access to systems and data.
You are right that he didn't turn to crime for income before, which makes his crime all the worse. He didn't need to commit the crime, he wanted to commit it. He didn't have to commit a crime the first time, and he didn't have to do so the second time. It was his choice, he gets to live with the consequences.