Just being bitchy (I'm back from the pub) but software doesn't cost $0 as you imply. The rest is fairly solid and points to the fact that Apple didn't realise first adopters would be that fucked off but they've made a gesture. Few people will call it fair on here but most people will recognise that no one else would have done it. Apple won't hurt much because of it (the stock will be back in a couple of days) but they'll gain the good old intangible goodwill. I became a fanboy about four years ago when I bought a powerbook (so, feel free to take what I say with caution) and I've bought some more macs since. I've never been done wrong by Apple - I've always been pleased with what I got. Course I've seen newer models released after my purchase but that's tech. As you say, Apple will make a PR killing on this. Apple users love Apple and they'll/we'll feel vindicated now.
So you're saying a customer doesn't have any liability when it comes to securing their accounts held at a bank? As an internet banking customer you're usually told in the terms and conditions that you have a responsibility to secure access to your account within reasonable boundaries. Explain to me what's wrong with the bank verifying that you've complied when you're disputing a transaction.
... One, SMS/IM and email are fundamentally quite different because they function in a different capacity. Among other things, SMS/IM allow for you to know if the recepient is connected at a given moment, they allow for the real time transfer of information, and they're not designed to be edited and well thought-out before being sent. Simply put, there's a reason slander and libel are different words just like SMS/IM and email are. There's simply less weight given to an "off the cuff" remark than one which a person had conceivably several minutes to consider before transmitting....
I would disagree with that point, SMS/IM technologies are [no longer?] not restricted to connected recipients (in your statement above, therefore, one cannot know if the recipient is connected or not) which I think allows one to reasonably consider them 'messaging' in a generic sense. Further to that the amount of thought you put into them isn't necessarily commensurate with the amount of time spent composing them. In the case referred to the perpetrator was quite specific in what he asked for and in trying to arrange a meeting. I think this would put his actions into a premeditated frame giving further credence to judging the messages as being a form of "electronic mail". However, IANAL nor am I from the USA so I'm just throwing this opinion into the mix.
But you do get warned prior to entering Singapore about the anti-drug laws and the possible punishments. Generally you get told explicitly what's right and what's wrong to do here in Singapore. Yes, there are some cases of indefinite detention for political dissent and many an opposition politician has been sued out of politics. Not something I particularly like but there are quite a few countries going this way these days, I just have a better idea of where I stand in Singapore. I disagree with the death penalty but I'm actually quite in favour of corporal punishment (within my boundaries for determining 'not cruel or unusual').
Can you? I've lived here (Singapore) for over 5 years and I haven't seen or heard of it happen. A simple act of vandalism would generally be considered a crime of mischief and get a community work order or fine.
That's a civil action not a criminal conviction. Can you cite actual criminal convictions? Or are you just venting on Microsoft? That doesn't help the cause.
... considering the MO of the convicted criminal management at Microsoft this is business as usual.
Sorry, what criminal conviction is there against management at Microsoft? I've missed this somewhere along the line.
This article opens with points against an individual at Microsoft but beyond those four, relatively short, paragraphs there's nothing more than the accusations against an individual. It srikes me as a case of somebody trying to make a name for themself and overstepping a boundary, being asked to leave and the external party (Goldfarb) being treated like a pariah by those trying to clean up. Yes, they were concealing potentially illegal behaviour but potentially they were remedying it not initiating it.
Unless there is more evidence produced on this, conclusions shouldn't be drawn on guilt even if we dislike (or hate in some cases) Microsoft.
Well said, mod points expired the other day unfortunately. The complexity of development pretty much ensures that there will be these issues, there are so many parties involved. I think we whould try to look on this as a feature and one which may help push companies into dealing with driver issues more quickly.
So you think you know the law around monopolies better than the EU and US judiciaries who disagree with you on the question of Microsoft monopolistic practices?
Maybe go to 10.3 - you could probably get it off eBay cheap enough now. 10.4 introduces some nice new features and some improvements but I found some niggles with 10.4 that I didn't have in 10.3 - might go back to 10.3 on my powerbook and just run 10.4 on my mini.
However, I'm still not sure that it should belong on the front page. It's not a dupe, it doesn't have a link that I have to follow to RTFA, it doesn't mention Google/Microsoft/Apple/Whoever else gets slagged about 'marketing posts', won't inspire an In-Soviet-Russia/In-Korea-x-is-only-for-old-people meme and looks like it was checked for spelling and grammar. How could you not stick it on the front page?:)
This article sheds a little more light on their Open Source usage. Google turned up a few references to De Bortoli rolling out Linux terminals across the business (Dec. 2004).
Slashdot Mirror
You need to update to the latest version in CVS ..
No, Google uses Open Source to power their business. Their business model i.e. Google the company is based on proprietary methods and solutions.
Just being bitchy (I'm back from the pub) but software doesn't cost $0 as you imply. The rest is fairly solid and points to the fact that Apple didn't realise first adopters would be that fucked off but they've made a gesture. Few people will call it fair on here but most people will recognise that no one else would have done it. Apple won't hurt much because of it (the stock will be back in a couple of days) but they'll gain the good old intangible goodwill. I became a fanboy about four years ago when I bought a powerbook (so, feel free to take what I say with caution) and I've bought some more macs since. I've never been done wrong by Apple - I've always been pleased with what I got. Course I've seen newer models released after my purchase but that's tech. As you say, Apple will make a PR killing on this. Apple users love Apple and they'll/we'll feel vindicated now.
So you're saying a customer doesn't have any liability when it comes to securing their accounts held at a bank? As an internet banking customer you're usually told in the terms and conditions that you have a responsibility to secure access to your account within reasonable boundaries. Explain to me what's wrong with the bank verifying that you've complied when you're disputing a transaction.
Thanks, looks interesting so I'm going to have a poke around their collection and see how it works out ...
I would disagree with that point, SMS/IM technologies are [no longer?] not restricted to connected recipients (in your statement above, therefore, one cannot know if the recipient is connected or not) which I think allows one to reasonably consider them 'messaging' in a generic sense. Further to that the amount of thought you put into them isn't necessarily commensurate with the amount of time spent composing them. In the case referred to the perpetrator was quite specific in what he asked for and in trying to arrange a meeting. I think this would put his actions into a premeditated frame giving further credence to judging the messages as being a form of "electronic mail". However, IANAL nor am I from the USA so I'm just throwing this opinion into the mix.
But you do get warned prior to entering Singapore about the anti-drug laws and the possible punishments. Generally you get told explicitly what's right and what's wrong to do here in Singapore. Yes, there are some cases of indefinite detention for political dissent and many an opposition politician has been sued out of politics. Not something I particularly like but there are quite a few countries going this way these days, I just have a better idea of where I stand in Singapore. I disagree with the death penalty but I'm actually quite in favour of corporal punishment (within my boundaries for determining 'not cruel or unusual').
Can you? I've lived here (Singapore) for over 5 years and I haven't seen or heard of it happen. A simple act of vandalism would generally be considered a crime of mischief and get a community work order or fine.
That's a civil action not a criminal conviction. Can you cite actual criminal convictions? Or are you just venting on Microsoft? That doesn't help the cause.
... considering the MO of the convicted criminal management at Microsoft this is business as usual.
Sorry, what criminal conviction is there against management at Microsoft? I've missed this somewhere along the line.
This article opens with points against an individual at Microsoft but beyond those four, relatively short, paragraphs there's nothing more than the accusations against an individual. It srikes me as a case of somebody trying to make a name for themself and overstepping a boundary, being asked to leave and the external party (Goldfarb) being treated like a pariah by those trying to clean up. Yes, they were concealing potentially illegal behaviour but potentially they were remedying it not initiating it.
Unless there is more evidence produced on this, conclusions shouldn't be drawn on guilt even if we dislike (or hate in some cases) Microsoft.
Well said, mod points expired the other day unfortunately. The complexity of development pretty much ensures that there will be these issues, there are so many parties involved. I think we whould try to look on this as a feature and one which may help push companies into dealing with driver issues more quickly.
So you think you know the law around monopolies better than the EU and US judiciaries who disagree with you on the question of Microsoft monopolistic practices?
Maybe go to 10.3 - you could probably get it off eBay cheap enough now. 10.4 introduces some nice new features and some improvements but I found some niggles with 10.4 that I didn't have in 10.3 - might go back to 10.3 on my powerbook and just run 10.4 on my mini.
However, I'm still not sure that it should belong on the front page.e meme and looks like it was checked for spelling and grammar. How could you not stick it on the front page? :)
It's not a dupe, it doesn't have a link that I have to follow to RTFA, it doesn't mention Google/Microsoft/Apple/Whoever else gets slagged about 'marketing posts', won't inspire an In-Soviet-Russia/In-Korea-x-is-only-for-old-peopl
I jest, of course.
I guess we will eventually have variations on this device in cameras to handle that requirement.
Either way, you must actively submit your site, or actively seek a link. Opt-IN.
Nope, I have sites that were indexed without submission and were not linked to, when they first appeared in Google results.
I refuse to get on the "but he does some good" bandwagon here.
I hear that. Getting down off your high horse just to climb up on the bandwagon does seem like a lot of trouble.
Nah .. just put a music tax on them that's at least twice the cost of the FTL drive ... only fair
Seeing as you're 'insightful', please explain to me which law they are taking into their hands?
Must be some kind of logical partitioning, I hear you can do it on many platforms now (surely a Frod Locust runs Linux?).
How do you know his surname is Moran?
Has he bought you the 'fine' t-shirt yet? (you can get them at most tourist shops)
Any chance someone could knock up a Perl script to duplicate some of these? Just so we all get to stay in the /. comfort zone :)
This article sheds a little more light on their Open Source usage. Google turned up a few references to De Bortoli rolling out Linux terminals across the business (Dec. 2004).
Schwartz, is that you?