Americans are so fricken paranoid about their credit history. Unless that's the only item on your credit history, you're not going to be refused a loan bases on that alone.
And why is suing such a terrible thing? It's a small claim. Pretty simple and they'll settle out of court because it's not worth it not to.
Sure they exist. You get a few of them at startups where getting something that more or less works out the door is more important than quality engineering, but that's the only time you'll see this, and even then it's not all startups.
Good point on the doorway amnesia. Honestly, I think it's only the cascading windows that I dislike. Similar issues to the taskbar, but takes up more screen space. And really, my complaint is not with windows in general but overuse. It's a widget with specific purpose.
I do agree that the way DOS based IDEs worked pretty well. Totally in favour of tiling. In fact, while it's unpopular to say positive things about Windows 8 on Slashdot, I think they way Microsoft do this in the UI was actually pretty good.
No. I'd prefer this to be tiled. Overlapping windows appear to be the worst of both worlds.
Switching between them isn't actually as bad as you seem to think. This was how I worked with Watcom C++. Gave a nice large amount of screen real estate for editing.
I think competitors should differentiate by features. There's a certain annoyance to this, but it does allow the market to establish what features people want. And while the free market isn't the perfect solution it does provide more concrete results than focus groups.
While the window does have its uses, I find most of the time I want a single app operating full screen. Additional apps are sometimes useful and I tend to fit them on a second window,but on the whole I find switching between apps using the taskbar is a lot more useful.
I'm clearly not the only person who feels this way to some degree. There's a reason that firefox gained market share, and much as I wish it was, it probably wasn't because of standards compliance. It was because it didn't clutter the workspace with windows.
My initial assumption was that they were the ones that filed the complaint. In which case, I could at least understand that they might be concerned with trademark dilution.
I have the feeling that it's actually HMRC not enforcing the rules that actually exist, because they're letting the companies dictate what the interpretations are.
The thing is, this is standard practice for US prosecutors.
Yes, they were at fault, but punishing them isn't the solution here. It might in the future make other prosecutors consider whether someone's a suicide risk, but in general prosecutors will still threaten ridiculous trumped up charges. The system is broken. Not just these individuals.
Funnily enough, if you offer something to people, and then arbitrarily change the terms to their detriment, they're going to be a little upset. It's not as though "Chad" didn't actively encourage Cueball to store stuff there.
Perhaps, but the problem here seems to be the plea bargaining system rather than the actual law.
In the case of a crowbar it wouldn't take too imaginative a prosecutor to come up with an argument for attempted burglary and to consider the crowbar as a weapon.
A crowbar is also a problem solving technique. All sort of times two items are attached too firmly and you need to apply more leverage. A lot of the time this is perfectly legal - stuck doors, opening wooden crates and so on. This is a pretty good analogy for a script.
That's obvious, and perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't actually make it true.
Seems that even if the manager was tasked with making money and offer the same risk and rewards, the mindset that goes into management would do a poorer job of it.
Why are you using the touch screen for several minutes at a time? You still have a keyboard and a trackpad, surely. Touch just complements that. So if you want, rather than use the trackpad to press the "submit" button, you could touch the actual button.
Government is irrelevant outside of the first amendment. The first amendment does not define what freedom of speech is any more than the fifth defines what the presumption of innocence is.
Why does it make any difference who is limiting your freedom?
Censorship is people with the power to prevent publishing using that power - whether it's a government or a business owner. Freedom of the press is simply about the ability to publish
Are the journalist "free" to publish? CNET journalists can't review dish products without being punished.
This is a moral principle. One that we expect all publishers to support.
Freedom of the press is about being free to publish. If the parent company allows people to publish, freedom is increased. If it does not, freedom is reduced.
Generally publishers are interested in increasing freedom. This is a moral principle. Not a legal one. It's still freedom of the press.
These guys will be in a low security prison with people who committed fraud and tax evasion, rather than the violent criminals such as rapists and armed robbers.
Give me a good reason why someone shouldn't be using DNS instead of direct IP address, other than lazy programmers.
Why is "lazy programmers" not a good enough reason in itself? Programmers are lazy. That's why they learn to use computers. Because they don't like doing tedious repetitive work. I can plug a bunch of devices into a router and be reasonably certain that they're going to have IP addresses in the range 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.255. I don't need to tinker with each one individually and set up a name. I have more important things to do than fiddle around setting things up.
Just because a company patents an idea doesn't mean they have any intention if implementing it. Patents are cheap and potentially lucrative.
Sony have certainly looked into this, and they have the option to screw over their customers, but they also have to consider how it would appeal to their customers.
Now, this is Sony we're talking about who seem to relish in pissing off their customers but we should probably still wait until they try before making a big deal of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Americans are so fricken paranoid about their credit history. Unless that's the only item on your credit history, you're not going to be refused a loan bases on that alone.
And why is suing such a terrible thing? It's a small claim. Pretty simple and they'll settle out of court because it's not worth it not to.
Sure they exist. You get a few of them at startups where getting something that more or less works out the door is more important than quality engineering, but that's the only time you'll see this, and even then it's not all startups.
Because then you have a better piece of software. How are you worse off then if someone doesn't take it or use it in their own product?
Good point on the doorway amnesia. Honestly, I think it's only the cascading windows that I dislike. Similar issues to the taskbar, but takes up more screen space. And really, my complaint is not with windows in general but overuse. It's a widget with specific purpose.
I do agree that the way DOS based IDEs worked pretty well. Totally in favour of tiling. In fact, while it's unpopular to say positive things about Windows 8 on Slashdot, I think they way Microsoft do this in the UI was actually pretty good.
No. I'd prefer this to be tiled. Overlapping windows appear to be the worst of both worlds.
Switching between them isn't actually as bad as you seem to think. This was how I worked with Watcom C++. Gave a nice large amount of screen real estate for editing.
I think competitors should differentiate by features. There's a certain annoyance to this, but it does allow the market to establish what features people want. And while the free market isn't the perfect solution it does provide more concrete results than focus groups.
While the window does have its uses, I find most of the time I want a single app operating full screen. Additional apps are sometimes useful and I tend to fit them on a second window,but on the whole I find switching between apps using the taskbar is a lot more useful.
I'm clearly not the only person who feels this way to some degree. There's a reason that firefox gained market share, and much as I wish it was, it probably wasn't because of standards compliance. It was because it didn't clutter the workspace with windows.
My initial assumption was that they were the ones that filed the complaint. In which case, I could at least understand that they might be concerned with trademark dilution.
I thought the original batmobile was a 1939 Cadillac.
I have the feeling that it's actually HMRC not enforcing the rules that actually exist, because they're letting the companies dictate what the interpretations are.
The thing is, this is standard practice for US prosecutors.
Yes, they were at fault, but punishing them isn't the solution here. It might in the future make other prosecutors consider whether someone's a suicide risk, but in general prosecutors will still threaten ridiculous trumped up charges. The system is broken. Not just these individuals.
Felt that was rather a stupid xkcd.
Funnily enough, if you offer something to people, and then arbitrarily change the terms to their detriment, they're going to be a little upset. It's not as though "Chad" didn't actively encourage Cueball to store stuff there.
Perhaps, but the problem here seems to be the plea bargaining system rather than the actual law.
In the case of a crowbar it wouldn't take too imaginative a prosecutor to come up with an argument for attempted burglary and to consider the crowbar as a weapon.
A crowbar is also a problem solving technique. All sort of times two items are attached too firmly and you need to apply more leverage. A lot of the time this is perfectly legal - stuck doors, opening wooden crates and so on. This is a pretty good analogy for a script.
No. If you were going to charge to Jail Mark Zuckerberg, you'd never want to set such a low price.
That's obvious, and perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't actually make it true.
Seems that even if the manager was tasked with making money and offer the same risk and rewards, the mindset that goes into management would do a poorer job of it.
Dammit! And the consumer's going to be the one who has to pay for the guy with a gun!
Why are you using the touch screen for several minutes at a time? You still have a keyboard and a trackpad, surely. Touch just complements that. So if you want, rather than use the trackpad to press the "submit" button, you could touch the actual button.
Government is irrelevant outside of the first amendment. The first amendment does not define what freedom of speech is any more than the fifth defines what the presumption of innocence is.
Why does it make any difference who is limiting your freedom? Censorship is people with the power to prevent publishing using that power - whether it's a government or a business owner. Freedom of the press is simply about the ability to publish
Are the journalist "free" to publish? CNET journalists can't review dish products without being punished.
This is a moral principle. One that we expect all publishers to support.
Freedom of the press is about being free to publish. If the parent company allows people to publish, freedom is increased. If it does not, freedom is reduced.
Generally publishers are interested in increasing freedom. This is a moral principle. Not a legal one. It's still freedom of the press.
I think the corollary is "sometimes you don't".
These guys will be in a low security prison with people who committed fraud and tax evasion, rather than the violent criminals such as rapists and armed robbers.
Yes. A better headline would be "Stupidity Lands Drunk Driving Teen in Jail".
Why is "lazy programmers" not a good enough reason in itself? Programmers are lazy. That's why they learn to use computers. Because they don't like doing tedious repetitive work. I can plug a bunch of devices into a router and be reasonably certain that they're going to have IP addresses in the range 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.255. I don't need to tinker with each one individually and set up a name. I have more important things to do than fiddle around setting things up.
Just because a company patents an idea doesn't mean they have any intention if implementing it. Patents are cheap and potentially lucrative.
Sony have certainly looked into this, and they have the option to screw over their customers, but they also have to consider how it would appeal to their customers.
Now, this is Sony we're talking about who seem to relish in pissing off their customers but we should probably still wait until they try before making a big deal of it.