I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.
Isn't that basically the point of seeing a movie? Y'know... to go "ooooooohhh" for as long as possible? Admittedly different things make different people go "ooohh", but the point remains. If you're actively avoiding an experience that would've been "ooooooohhhh"-worthy, you're Doing It Wrong.
It's like going to a 5-star restaurant to dumpster-dive.
You know, I could've skipped the ticket price I paid in 1994 to watch Pink Floyd's last concert tour. I could've just listened to their CDs a couple more times. I'm sure I would have got 95% of the enjoyment that way, just like you. I wouldn't've known what I missed, either. Only, wait, I DID go, so I DO know what I would've missed, and it wouldn't be 5%.
It's silly to discard the input of people who HAVE experienced things.
Here's what a dictionary has to say about a person. Just so you know why I punched out from the flaming wreckage that is the rest of your post. Hint: it disagrees with you. Strongly.
person [pur-suhn] noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
I like what that politician is saying, therefore I am supporting him in using his right to free speech, and by doing so, essentially saying the same things he is. I have that right.
If you like what that politician is saying, tell people that. I'm not proposing to impinge on your right to speak freely. I am proposing to impinge on your current ability to PURCHASE. If you like what a prostitute has done to your genitalia, you are not (currently) permitted to (legally) give her money. The sex isn't illegal. The payment is. If it's not okay to purchase a good time, why is it okay to purchase a lawmaker?
If you think that the right to free speech means you have only the right to stand on the streetcorner and pontificate using your own vocal cords at passersby, then you are sorely mistaken. Free speech is free as in unfettered, not free as in doesn't cost money. Effective unfettered speech requires money.
Strongly disagree. Amplified unfettered speech requires money. You are permitted by law and by my suggestion to speak all you wish. That is not the same thing as the right to be extensively heard, which is not a right. If it was a universal right, money wouldn't be required and everyone would get their fair share of TV time or radio time.
No. Money is only required to be heard more than someone else who doesn't have money. Which isn't fair, right, or your right.
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment. As bad as Lobbying sounds not having the law that allows Lobbying to occur would be much much worse.
Bull. Nobody is talking about removing your right to write your elected officials a letter asking them to do or not do something. What is being talked about is removing your right to stuff the envelope full of money.
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
Yes. Yes. No.
Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion". If the CEOs, CFOs and CIOs want to influence elections to protect their gravy train, they can do so on a personal basis. They should never be permitted to redirect corporate funds towards campaigns. Also, while we're at it, to be fair no individual should be permitted to spend more than a reasonable amount as a campaign contribution. Say... $1,000
Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets.
Sounds like the parent and child are separated. Nothing wrong with trying to stay connected at a distance...assuming whoever is with the kiddo is aware/approving.
Whoever is with the kiddo is insanely likely to have at least one cell phone which they can hand to the kid once a phone call has been made.
This whole question smells very, very bad. It's made clear that this phone will go to kindergarten with the kid. Really? Because a four-year-old might possibly just need to "stay in touch" while at school? Really?
Then let's pay attention that the OS doesn't matter as long as it can do video chat to other IO/Android devices. Note that it's not phrased as "I have an X, so I need it to be able to video chat with that." No. Options. Because the four-year-old needs to be able to video chat with anyone. Now, sure, maybe they're just being proactive and they know they can't predict what phone they'll have in two years, six months, or fifteen minutes, but that's still shady.
Oh, but wait. Where's the bit about "how do I make sure this phone isn't lost, stolen, or used inapropriately?" Where's the usual questions about parental controls? Mmmm?
Right. Because this question is probably bunk. Or very, very ill-thought-out.
I'd be REALLY pissed if I was one of the 9 people that donated over $10,000.
You shouldn't, if you were, for two reasons.
One: disposable income is relative. It's safe to assume that someone who pitches in five digits for a video game is not hurting for that cash. That pledge loss is to them what $100 might be to you or I. Or $10 for someone else.
Two: Kickstarter is a patronage system. Pure and simple. It's not a purchasing system, it's not a cash-now-product-later system. Patronage. You provide funds to a person or group whom you respect and wish to assist. There's no guarantee in patronage. The artist may produce something you don't like. The artist may die. The artist's muse may prove elusive for a time. Shit happens. If you're viewing Kickstarter as anything else, you're doing it wrong.
This is a company that made its market share on the basis of "cool". When Blackberry was the king of secure, reliable and familiar, Apple sold phones that were sexy. That's what iPhone has always held over its competition... sexy.
Users don't know an ARMv8 from a LEGv8. BigNum++ doesn't work alone to sell phones and users have been weaned off the MoreGehertz progression for years now. 32 more bits doesn't mean anything to Joe ShinyGlass Don'tHoldItThatWay.
This year is very much lacking in sexy. Sort of like last year's "look, it's... um... longer. But at least Google Maps is gone!" We'll see what happens.
One of the crappy features of Win8 is that they try their best to shove a Microsoft Account down your throat and use it to log into your OWN computer. I'm betting that their intentions include using that account to increasingly more datamine various things about your and your computer usage. That's not cool at all.
If only there was a thing you could click that said "Don't want to sign in with a Microsoft Account?"
Now, that said, try activating an OEM copy of Office 2013 Home & Business. That on the other hand can't be done without a Live account excepting very odd circumstances. I've seen machines shipped by Dell that didn't require the account. As an MS partner we escalated to them for our own installs and evidently even using the OPK (Office Preinstallation Kit) for OEMs the Live account can't be bypassed. Basically we were repeatedly told it couldn't be done, by multiple departments, Dell be damned. So your fury and paranoia is misplaced. Wrong product.
Not always, no. There are famous quotes by people from Henry Ford to Gene Roddenberry that all come down to "people don't know what they want". And it's true, if MS asked what people wanted, 90% would say XP, solely because they're used to it.
Part of the reason Apple is so successful is that they followed a vision despite all naysayers. As seen in both Windows 8 and X-Box One, Microsoft tends to backpedal on their vision. Not being sure about your own products can hardly lead to market success.
Sure. And part of the reason why The-Artist-Formerly-Known-As-RIM is on the brink of implosion is that they followed a vision despite all naysayers.
See how that works? Dip-shit decisions are dip-shit decisions regardless of how stubborn you are.
Only time will reveal if Microsoft's stubborn unwillingness to budge on recent UI moves will turn out to be brilliant or not. For now all we (the users) know is that we don't like it, which isn't a great sign.
One solution would be to place a cap on the donations that one company of individual could make, but then you'd soon see dodgy accounting being used to work around it - things like companies giving a few thousand employees 'bonuses' on the implicit understanding they must donate to a certain candidate, or creating lots of semi-independent front companies who can each make the maximum donation.
Here's another thought; place a cap on the amount of campaign contributions a candidate can accept. Something like a total of $50,000 from all sources - personal and contributed - combined. A candidate is not permitted to spend more than that amount on their campaign and they are not permitted to run a profit. Any contributed funds beyond the $50,000 are returned to the contributor at the end of the campaign. Finances for a period of 1 year after running for state or higher office are automatically audited for fraud.
Also, elected officials are not permitted to accept gifts of goods or services. Those found violating this rule (and yes, keep it deliberately vague) must reimburse their constituency equivalent value.
The problem is those who could put accountability rules in place don't want them.
That's because to make DRM work you have to give the attacker the encryption key. It's like if you're trying to keep a raccoon-faced thief from robbing your armored car, and you give him the keys to both the ignition and the big padlock on the back.
You're right... this is much easier since Volkswagen doesn't have to give keys to the people... who bought their... to the people... don't have to give keys...
First, those community parcel boxes are small as shit. Nice if you're getting a pair of shoes delivered. Useless for the majority of things. Second, even if they did have a community parcel box big enough for the rest of the stuff, do you really enjoy having to haul it back to the house from however many blocks it might be? Finally, it is irrelevant, because those parcel boxes are only for the use of the USPS; not UPS or FedEx.
Are they? I mean, you say so which must make it so. I guess my experience with mine that is significantly larger than shit just doesn't count.
Also I have zero issues with the incredibly arduous task of lugging my shipments the one whole block from the mailbox to my house. Even if I did, I'd realize that my car was pulled into the convenient curb-cut made for the purpose and really, all I need to do is move the ten feet or so from "superbox" to my car. If you can make it from your front door to your kitchen table, you won't have a problem with a superbox.
I guess having a locked-up box down the street might be fine for you, if you live in some weird war-torn ghetto where you have to bring a small firearm with you when you go to retrieve your mail, but even in this heavily populated area with a lot of traffic, I have not had a single one of my hundreds of deliveries left on my doorstep or window well stolen.
This fails to make it s smart delivery choice. Not when there's a much smarter one just around the corner... literally.
Also, community mailbox centers are often enclosed on three sides and have little or no lighting. What a safe feeling place to be standing in the middle of the night! (And the one place where I had one was constantly being broken into and mail being stolen - how's that security?).
I can't be held responsible if your country Does It Wrong. I've never seen any such thing here in Canada. Must be my war-torn ghetto is just so much worse than your nice place that everyone's bleeding out after being shot so they don't have the strength to break into a superbox.
Or it could be... just maybe... that there are design considerations that can be used to take into consideration your objections and mitigate them. Further, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a hybrid system where some high-risk and/or high-density neighborhoods remain as they are. Really, this is an opportunity to rethink the system and design something sensible.
After a decade in the suburbs, with a box similar to what you describe, one of the things I like best about moving into the city is that I have mail delivery to my porch. I say Hi to the postman or woman when my mail is delivered. It feels like a community. Like others here, I'd much rather get mail just MWF than lose that feeling.
Yeah, I live somewhere safe. "Safe" being relative, of course. That doesn't mean I want to leave valuables laying around. One of the ways a place remains safe is to not be inviting to criminals.
Uh. This isn't about "not leaving your package". This is about them leaving it at your door versus leaving it at some weird "community bundle" down the street. Personally, I'd rather they just leave it on my doorstep and ring the bell, like they already do.
Wait. What insanity is this? You order a thing which costs some amount and you're okay with it being delivered to your property and just left laying around?
Not me. I'm much happier that when I check my box within my community box I find a key that unlocks a larger compartment where I - and nobody else - can get my parcel. When I do, I slide the key back into the delivery slot so the compartment can be used for the next person's parcel.
Incidentally, side benefit to this is that I can still pick up my parcels on Saturday. Or Sunday. Wow, huh?
Community boxes actually offer improved security and convenience. Maybe not to every person or in every area, but they're not all bad.
I bet even non-techie users don't like Metro.... for a start, where will they store their documents now? The desktop and the recycle bin were the usual two favourite locations pre Win 8.:P
I run a Terminal Server farm that does application publishing. Basically programs punch their view on top of the user's remote view, seamlessly. On our end we have a nice My Documents that maps to a folder on our server as the DEFAULT. Users still manually navigate to "Desktop" to save things despite that they'll never, ever see those documents because there isn't a desktop to view. Once they start doing this, they keep doing this despite that it clearly doesn't do what they expect it to do.
Q: Can you explain, in terms I could tell the average person, how your patent is novel enough that anyone who wants to distribute audio over the internet should license it from you? I'd appreciate it if you could address how the distributions of podcasts today widely differs from downloading audio files in 1995 and how your patent help change this.
A:Logan: Trcooper, this is one of those of questions that could get me in a boatload of trouble—with my lawyer, that is. Any comments I make regarding the claims and how they are different from previous systems, can and will be used against me in court. So I’ll have to take a pass on this one.
A: Logan: No, actually. If I had an actual justification for what we do, people wouldn't be able to use it against me. But I don't. So anything I make up by necessity will be shot so full of holes that it'll resemble swiss cheese. That'll make my case weaker. Which will make my pockets less full of money I haven't earned by doing anything productive. Which will make baby Jesus cry and stuff. Probably. I don't want to say for sure He'll cry because if he doesn't then someone will point out I'm a liar in court.
In other words, commercial R&D has to be useful. And the profit "cost" yields a strong incentive to insure that the R&D has positive return on investment. These are huge advantages over government R&D which neither has to be useful or provide more benefit than cost.
In other words commercial R&D has to be obviously profitable, in a short-to-medium term. It can't be tentative or exploratory, curious or inquisitive. It must be about earning, with no regard for learning.
In other words, tremendous costs, paltry returns, and the real R&D gets disguised as "derivative products".
You made that up. There is ZERO requirement for public-funded R&D to be more expensive than commercial, less productive than commercial or in any way shady.
Of course. The real question is why do you think public research has any advantages at all? For example, when I pay at the store, I pay directly for the R&D and other costs that go into the stuff that I use. If I pay taxes, then they get burned on whatever the elite who controls that spending happens to decide is most useful for themselves with a modest portion used for face-saving stuff like NASA's high profile missions.
The real question is why you trust corporations, which have absolutely no pretense of benevolence. Ask yourself, if drug companies could cure serious ailments, would they? I don't assume there's a conspiracy and that cures are literally avoided so long-term expensive treatments can be sold, but I don't assume there isn't such a conspiracy. I can't tell. Because they people directing, funding, and reviewing the research are the people who have the most to lose if cheap options are found. Non-profitable options. The only reason for a company to seek cheap alternatives is in a competitive market, where some other company is eating a slice of the pie.
With government R&D there's separation (ignoring lobbyists for a moment) of the direction of research relative to the results. The fact that companies do lobby government is pretty strong evidence that said companies are determined to influence outcome.
I have no say on what NASA spends money on (or more accurately, I can say plenty, but no one in charge of the spending listens). I have plenty of say on what I buy at the store. My money there speaks louder than words. The store is far more democratic and responsive than the space-industrial complex fueled by unaccountable public funding can be.
Your ability to dictate company behaviour is an illusion, citizen. It's the identical illusion to "you tell NASA what to do by writing to your congresscritter and voting". Identical. You as an individual have an irrelevant influence on both situations. You think your buying habits matter. They don't. Take a look at glorious situations like... EA. They crap out the latest SimCity and... too bad. Sure, some folks boycott them, but it doesn't actually register on the PowerPoint presentation for quarterly earnings. Take a look at Apple. "You're holding it wrong." Seriously? But the masses keep buying the fondleslabs no matter that you kick and punch and hold your breath like a three-year-old in protest. These companies are screwing us around. And we - as individuals - have no influence on them. Only when freak moments of mass unity happen is there any hope for influence. Like... voting.
NASA's job is learning. No making your taxpayer/shareholder wallet fat from selling more widgets. I don't trust you to influence them, frankly.
I think our only real hope in the practical exploration of space lies with commercial enterprise. Which, truthfully, isn't that bad a deal.
Commercial R&D and exploration serves one purpose: to enrich the stockholders' portfolio. Yes, there's a trickle-down effect in that any technological or intellectual advances will become available to the public eventually, but at a cost whose primary concern is profit. That profit will be a margin applied to the research phase and the manufacture.
Public investment in R&D and exploration is to the direct benefit of the entire nation and its allies. Derivative products will eventually be sold for a profit but the profit margin will only be expected to cover the manufacture costs, not the research phase.
Ultimately we pay for everything we have, at the store or via taxes. The question is: do you want to pay profit mark-up on the research?
If the copyright message is pointing to the maintainer rather than the company, you may want to point it out to the company since the new developer may be trying to claim ownership of the code (or may simply be naive).
Yeah, that's the right path but it's probably too late.
What the OP should have done - ethically and legally - is obtain permission from the previous client before applying for new jobs. That way he's done the right thing to start with. And if an unforeseen circumstance like this one or any other snag comes up, he can simply say "no problem, I can give you a contact name at the client I write this for. I've already spoken to them an have permission to use this code as a reference so I'm sure they'll be able to satisfy your concern."
Did I mention it's too late? Because he didn't bother to do the right thing in the first place.
You mean open source professional software like Linux. Your entire argument is not an argument against immediate disclosure. Your argument is one against relying on closed source software for anything important. And a very good one at that.
Wait, you mean the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional CAD/CAM and cutter-path software used in the tool & mold industry? Or the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional quoting and broker-management software that the insurance industry uses? Or maybe you're referring to the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional accounting packages ranging from Accpac to Timberline at the high end to Simply Accounting and Quickbooks at the low end?
Maybe in the software development world, or any company where all their applications are just Java/Javascript run in a browser, maybe there your suggestion makes sense. If you're not a web designer or spreadsheet-pusher it gets more impractical. At least the in SMB market it seems every industry has a bunch of Windows-only must-have applications to chose from. I support somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 desktops distributed amongst several dozen clients, servicing a bunch of different industries. Not one of them would be appropriate to replace with a Linux system. Not because I personally can't. Not because I don't have Unix background - I do. No, it's because when you're setting up a dental-surgeon's office he's got recommendations from fifteen other offices telling him he needs WinDent (fictional name) to let him manage his patients' records, complete with embedding scans and video and xrays. It's because when you walk into a tool & mold shop to hook up their new multi-million-dollar milling machine, the guy who flew in from Germany hands you a CD with the Windows software on it that's required to control the beast. It's because when your property development customer calls up and tells you they landed a new multi-million-dollar contract to build a shopping mall but they need to use a Windows-only project-management package because their contract stipulates it, you make damned sure they've got Windows systems to run it on, along with the other three PM packages stipulated for their other three massive construction builds.
Sorry, but that's the real universe, outside of the nerd-i-verse. Nerd jobs (and yes, I have one) can do well - better even - without Windows. Granted. Also, huge corporations that build in-house software solutions can also pick and choose their platform. But in between? Not going to happen.
Open-source has its place. That place could even be a dominant place, if... you know... enough people wanted it that way. But they don't. The world has spoken, and the voices of the OSS proponents has been drowned out by a rock-concert of other-minded individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.
Isn't that basically the point of seeing a movie? Y'know... to go "ooooooohhh" for as long as possible? Admittedly different things make different people go "ooohh", but the point remains. If you're actively avoiding an experience that would've been "ooooooohhhh"-worthy, you're Doing It Wrong.
It's like going to a 5-star restaurant to dumpster-dive.
You know, I could've skipped the ticket price I paid in 1994 to watch Pink Floyd's last concert tour. I could've just listened to their CDs a couple more times. I'm sure I would have got 95% of the enjoyment that way, just like you. I wouldn't've known what I missed, either. Only, wait, I DID go, so I DO know what I would've missed, and it wouldn't be 5%.
It's silly to discard the input of people who HAVE experienced things.
The naive BS being written all over /.'s walls here is pathetic: corporations really are people (by definition).
You can't start a lengthy post with that sort of bullshit and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Dogs aren't people. Cars aren't people. Trees aren't people. Rubik's Cubes aren't people. Photons aren't people. Legal structures of economic convenience aren't people.
Here's what a dictionary has to say about a person. Just so you know why I punched out from the flaming wreckage that is the rest of your post. Hint: it disagrees with you. Strongly.
person [pur-suhn] noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
I like what that politician is saying, therefore I am supporting him in using his right to free speech, and by doing so, essentially saying the same things he is. I have that right.
If you like what that politician is saying, tell people that. I'm not proposing to impinge on your right to speak freely. I am proposing to impinge on your current ability to PURCHASE. If you like what a prostitute has done to your genitalia, you are not (currently) permitted to (legally) give her money. The sex isn't illegal. The payment is. If it's not okay to purchase a good time, why is it okay to purchase a lawmaker?
If you think that the right to free speech means you have only the right to stand on the streetcorner and pontificate using your own vocal cords at passersby, then you are sorely mistaken. Free speech is free as in unfettered, not free as in doesn't cost money. Effective unfettered speech requires money.
Strongly disagree. Amplified unfettered speech requires money. You are permitted by law and by my suggestion to speak all you wish. That is not the same thing as the right to be extensively heard, which is not a right. If it was a universal right, money wouldn't be required and everyone would get their fair share of TV time or radio time.
No. Money is only required to be heard more than someone else who doesn't have money. Which isn't fair, right, or your right.
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment. As bad as Lobbying sounds not having the law that allows Lobbying to occur would be much much worse.
Bull. Nobody is talking about removing your right to write your elected officials a letter asking them to do or not do something. What is being talked about is removing your right to stuff the envelope full of money.
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
Yes. Yes. No.
Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion". If the CEOs, CFOs and CIOs want to influence elections to protect their gravy train, they can do so on a personal basis. They should never be permitted to redirect corporate funds towards campaigns. Also, while we're at it, to be fair no individual should be permitted to spend more than a reasonable amount as a campaign contribution. Say... $1,000
Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets.
Sounds like the parent and child are separated. Nothing wrong with trying to stay connected at a distance...assuming whoever is with the kiddo is aware/approving.
Whoever is with the kiddo is insanely likely to have at least one cell phone which they can hand to the kid once a phone call has been made.
This whole question smells very, very bad. It's made clear that this phone will go to kindergarten with the kid. Really? Because a four-year-old might possibly just need to "stay in touch" while at school? Really?
Then let's pay attention that the OS doesn't matter as long as it can do video chat to other IO/Android devices. Note that it's not phrased as "I have an X, so I need it to be able to video chat with that." No. Options. Because the four-year-old needs to be able to video chat with anyone. Now, sure, maybe they're just being proactive and they know they can't predict what phone they'll have in two years, six months, or fifteen minutes, but that's still shady.
Oh, but wait. Where's the bit about "how do I make sure this phone isn't lost, stolen, or used inapropriately?" Where's the usual questions about parental controls? Mmmm?
Right. Because this question is probably bunk. Or very, very ill-thought-out.
I'd be REALLY pissed if I was one of the 9 people that donated over $10,000.
You shouldn't, if you were, for two reasons.
One: disposable income is relative. It's safe to assume that someone who pitches in five digits for a video game is not hurting for that cash. That pledge loss is to them what $100 might be to you or I. Or $10 for someone else.
Two: Kickstarter is a patronage system. Pure and simple. It's not a purchasing system, it's not a cash-now-product-later system. Patronage. You provide funds to a person or group whom you respect and wish to assist. There's no guarantee in patronage. The artist may produce something you don't like. The artist may die. The artist's muse may prove elusive for a time. Shit happens. If you're viewing Kickstarter as anything else, you're doing it wrong.
This is a company that made its market share on the basis of "cool". When Blackberry was the king of secure, reliable and familiar, Apple sold phones that were sexy. That's what iPhone has always held over its competition... sexy.
Users don't know an ARMv8 from a LEGv8. BigNum++ doesn't work alone to sell phones and users have been weaned off the MoreGehertz progression for years now. 32 more bits doesn't mean anything to Joe ShinyGlass Don'tHoldItThatWay.
This year is very much lacking in sexy. Sort of like last year's "look, it's... um... longer. But at least Google Maps is gone!" We'll see what happens.
Damnit, I just posted that. Now my post is redundant.
Yes, but... has Parallels supplied an uninstaller or listed the steps to fully uninstall the files?
One of the crappy features of Win8 is that they try their best to shove a Microsoft Account down your throat and use it to log into your OWN computer. I'm betting that their intentions include using that account to increasingly more datamine various things about your and your computer usage. That's not cool at all.
If only there was a thing you could click that said "Don't want to sign in with a Microsoft Account?"
Now, that said, try activating an OEM copy of Office 2013 Home & Business. That on the other hand can't be done without a Live account excepting very odd circumstances. I've seen machines shipped by Dell that didn't require the account. As an MS partner we escalated to them for our own installs and evidently even using the OPK (Office Preinstallation Kit) for OEMs the Live account can't be bypassed. Basically we were repeatedly told it couldn't be done, by multiple departments, Dell be damned. So your fury and paranoia is misplaced. Wrong product.
Not always, no. There are famous quotes by people from Henry Ford to Gene Roddenberry that all come down to "people don't know what they want". And it's true, if MS asked what people wanted, 90% would say XP, solely because they're used to it.
Part of the reason Apple is so successful is that they followed a vision despite all naysayers. As seen in both Windows 8 and X-Box One, Microsoft tends to backpedal on their vision. Not being sure about your own products can hardly lead to market success.
Sure. And part of the reason why The-Artist-Formerly-Known-As-RIM is on the brink of implosion is that they followed a vision despite all naysayers.
See how that works? Dip-shit decisions are dip-shit decisions regardless of how stubborn you are.
Only time will reveal if Microsoft's stubborn unwillingness to budge on recent UI moves will turn out to be brilliant or not. For now all we (the users) know is that we don't like it, which isn't a great sign.
fuck you, i might be contagius. idiot.
Fortunately you have to actually bite someone to pass rabies on.
One solution would be to place a cap on the donations that one company of individual could make, but then you'd soon see dodgy accounting being used to work around it - things like companies giving a few thousand employees 'bonuses' on the implicit understanding they must donate to a certain candidate, or creating lots of semi-independent front companies who can each make the maximum donation.
Here's another thought; place a cap on the amount of campaign contributions a candidate can accept. Something like a total of $50,000 from all sources - personal and contributed - combined. A candidate is not permitted to spend more than that amount on their campaign and they are not permitted to run a profit. Any contributed funds beyond the $50,000 are returned to the contributor at the end of the campaign. Finances for a period of 1 year after running for state or higher office are automatically audited for fraud.
Also, elected officials are not permitted to accept gifts of goods or services. Those found violating this rule (and yes, keep it deliberately vague) must reimburse their constituency equivalent value.
The problem is those who could put accountability rules in place don't want them.
That's because to make DRM work you have to give the attacker the encryption key. It's like if you're trying to keep a raccoon-faced thief from robbing your armored car, and you give him the keys to both the ignition and the big padlock on the back.
You're right... this is much easier since Volkswagen doesn't have to give keys to the people... who bought their... to the people... don't have to give keys...
Oh.
A few problems, here:
First, those community parcel boxes are small as shit. Nice if you're getting a pair of shoes delivered. Useless for the majority of things. Second, even if they did have a community parcel box big enough for the rest of the stuff, do you really enjoy having to haul it back to the house from however many blocks it might be? Finally, it is irrelevant, because those parcel boxes are only for the use of the USPS; not UPS or FedEx.
Are they? I mean, you say so which must make it so. I guess my experience with mine that is significantly larger than shit just doesn't count.
Also I have zero issues with the incredibly arduous task of lugging my shipments the one whole block from the mailbox to my house. Even if I did, I'd realize that my car was pulled into the convenient curb-cut made for the purpose and really, all I need to do is move the ten feet or so from "superbox" to my car. If you can make it from your front door to your kitchen table, you won't have a problem with a superbox.
I guess having a locked-up box down the street might be fine for you, if you live in some weird war-torn ghetto where you have to bring a small firearm with you when you go to retrieve your mail, but even in this heavily populated area with a lot of traffic, I have not had a single one of my hundreds of deliveries left on my doorstep or window well stolen.
This fails to make it s smart delivery choice. Not when there's a much smarter one just around the corner... literally.
Also, community mailbox centers are often enclosed on three sides and have little or no lighting. What a safe feeling place to be standing in the middle of the night! (And the one place where I had one was constantly being broken into and mail being stolen - how's that security?).
I can't be held responsible if your country Does It Wrong. I've never seen any such thing here in Canada. Must be my war-torn ghetto is just so much worse than your nice place that everyone's bleeding out after being shot so they don't have the strength to break into a superbox.
Or it could be... just maybe... that there are design considerations that can be used to take into consideration your objections and mitigate them. Further, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a hybrid system where some high-risk and/or high-density neighborhoods remain as they are. Really, this is an opportunity to rethink the system and design something sensible.
I dunno about you, but I live somewhere safe.
After a decade in the suburbs, with a box similar to what you describe, one of the things I like best about moving into the city is that I have mail delivery to my porch. I say Hi to the postman or woman when my mail is delivered. It feels like a community. Like others here, I'd much rather get mail just MWF than lose that feeling.
Yeah, I live somewhere safe. "Safe" being relative, of course. That doesn't mean I want to leave valuables laying around. One of the ways a place remains safe is to not be inviting to criminals.
Uh. This isn't about "not leaving your package". This is about them leaving it at your door versus leaving it at some weird "community bundle" down the street. Personally, I'd rather they just leave it on my doorstep and ring the bell, like they already do.
Wait. What insanity is this? You order a thing which costs some amount and you're okay with it being delivered to your property and just left laying around?
Not me. I'm much happier that when I check my box within my community box I find a key that unlocks a larger compartment where I - and nobody else - can get my parcel. When I do, I slide the key back into the delivery slot so the compartment can be used for the next person's parcel.
Incidentally, side benefit to this is that I can still pick up my parcels on Saturday. Or Sunday. Wow, huh?
Community boxes actually offer improved security and convenience. Maybe not to every person or in every area, but they're not all bad.
I bet even non-techie users don't like Metro.... for a start, where will they store their documents now? The desktop and the recycle bin were the usual two favourite locations pre Win 8. :P
I run a Terminal Server farm that does application publishing. Basically programs punch their view on top of the user's remote view, seamlessly. On our end we have a nice My Documents that maps to a folder on our server as the DEFAULT. Users still manually navigate to "Desktop" to save things despite that they'll never, ever see those documents because there isn't a desktop to view. Once they start doing this, they keep doing this despite that it clearly doesn't do what they expect it to do.
Q: Can you explain, in terms I could tell the average person, how your patent is novel enough that anyone who wants to distribute audio over the internet should license it from you? I'd appreciate it if you could address how the distributions of podcasts today widely differs from downloading audio files in 1995 and how your patent help change this.
A:Logan: Trcooper, this is one of those of questions that could get me in a boatload of trouble—with my lawyer, that is. Any comments I make regarding the claims and how they are different from previous systems, can and will be used against me in court. So I’ll have to take a pass on this one.
A: Logan: No, actually. If I had an actual justification for what we do, people wouldn't be able to use it against me. But I don't. So anything I make up by necessity will be shot so full of holes that it'll resemble swiss cheese. That'll make my case weaker. Which will make my pockets less full of money I haven't earned by doing anything productive. Which will make baby Jesus cry and stuff. Probably. I don't want to say for sure He'll cry because if he doesn't then someone will point out I'm a liar in court.
Nice. Your former employer filled undocumented, potentially important history (which belongs to us all) with cement.
If it's important to us all and belongs to us all and is not of benefit to the discoverer then why are "us all" paying for cost of recovery?
In other words, commercial R&D has to be useful. And the profit "cost" yields a strong incentive to insure that the R&D has positive return on investment. These are huge advantages over government R&D which neither has to be useful or provide more benefit than cost.
In other words commercial R&D has to be obviously profitable, in a short-to-medium term. It can't be tentative or exploratory, curious or inquisitive. It must be about earning, with no regard for learning.
In other words, tremendous costs, paltry returns, and the real R&D gets disguised as "derivative products".
You made that up. There is ZERO requirement for public-funded R&D to be more expensive than commercial, less productive than commercial or in any way shady.
Of course. The real question is why do you think public research has any advantages at all? For example, when I pay at the store, I pay directly for the R&D and other costs that go into the stuff that I use. If I pay taxes, then they get burned on whatever the elite who controls that spending happens to decide is most useful for themselves with a modest portion used for face-saving stuff like NASA's high profile missions.
The real question is why you trust corporations, which have absolutely no pretense of benevolence. Ask yourself, if drug companies could cure serious ailments, would they? I don't assume there's a conspiracy and that cures are literally avoided so long-term expensive treatments can be sold, but I don't assume there isn't such a conspiracy. I can't tell. Because they people directing, funding, and reviewing the research are the people who have the most to lose if cheap options are found. Non-profitable options. The only reason for a company to seek cheap alternatives is in a competitive market, where some other company is eating a slice of the pie.
With government R&D there's separation (ignoring lobbyists for a moment) of the direction of research relative to the results. The fact that companies do lobby government is pretty strong evidence that said companies are determined to influence outcome.
I have no say on what NASA spends money on (or more accurately, I can say plenty, but no one in charge of the spending listens). I have plenty of say on what I buy at the store. My money there speaks louder than words. The store is far more democratic and responsive than the space-industrial complex fueled by unaccountable public funding can be.
Your ability to dictate company behaviour is an illusion, citizen. It's the identical illusion to "you tell NASA what to do by writing to your congresscritter and voting". Identical. You as an individual have an irrelevant influence on both situations. You think your buying habits matter. They don't. Take a look at glorious situations like... EA. They crap out the latest SimCity and... too bad. Sure, some folks boycott them, but it doesn't actually register on the PowerPoint presentation for quarterly earnings. Take a look at Apple. "You're holding it wrong." Seriously? But the masses keep buying the fondleslabs no matter that you kick and punch and hold your breath like a three-year-old in protest. These companies are screwing us around. And we - as individuals - have no influence on them. Only when freak moments of mass unity happen is there any hope for influence. Like... voting.
NASA's job is learning. No making your taxpayer/shareholder wallet fat from selling more widgets. I don't trust you to influence them, frankly.
I think our only real hope in the practical exploration of space lies with commercial enterprise. Which, truthfully, isn't that bad a deal.
Commercial R&D and exploration serves one purpose: to enrich the stockholders' portfolio. Yes, there's a trickle-down effect in that any technological or intellectual advances will become available to the public eventually, but at a cost whose primary concern is profit. That profit will be a margin applied to the research phase and the manufacture.
Public investment in R&D and exploration is to the direct benefit of the entire nation and its allies. Derivative products will eventually be sold for a profit but the profit margin will only be expected to cover the manufacture costs, not the research phase.
Ultimately we pay for everything we have, at the store or via taxes. The question is: do you want to pay profit mark-up on the research?
Get a referral from the company.
If the copyright message is pointing to the maintainer rather than the company, you may want to point it out to the company since the new developer may be trying to claim ownership of the code (or may simply be naive).
Yeah, that's the right path but it's probably too late.
What the OP should have done - ethically and legally - is obtain permission from the previous client before applying for new jobs. That way he's done the right thing to start with. And if an unforeseen circumstance like this one or any other snag comes up, he can simply say "no problem, I can give you a contact name at the client I write this for. I've already spoken to them an have permission to use this code as a reference so I'm sure they'll be able to satisfy your concern."
Did I mention it's too late? Because he didn't bother to do the right thing in the first place.
You mean open source professional software like Linux. Your entire argument is not an argument against immediate disclosure. Your argument is one against relying on closed source software for anything important. And a very good one at that.
Wait, you mean the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional CAD/CAM and cutter-path software used in the tool & mold industry? Or the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional quoting and broker-management software that the insurance industry uses? Or maybe you're referring to the professional version of Linux that runs all the professional accounting packages ranging from Accpac to Timberline at the high end to Simply Accounting and Quickbooks at the low end?
Maybe in the software development world, or any company where all their applications are just Java/Javascript run in a browser, maybe there your suggestion makes sense. If you're not a web designer or spreadsheet-pusher it gets more impractical. At least the in SMB market it seems every industry has a bunch of Windows-only must-have applications to chose from. I support somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 desktops distributed amongst several dozen clients, servicing a bunch of different industries. Not one of them would be appropriate to replace with a Linux system. Not because I personally can't. Not because I don't have Unix background - I do. No, it's because when you're setting up a dental-surgeon's office he's got recommendations from fifteen other offices telling him he needs WinDent (fictional name) to let him manage his patients' records, complete with embedding scans and video and xrays. It's because when you walk into a tool & mold shop to hook up their new multi-million-dollar milling machine, the guy who flew in from Germany hands you a CD with the Windows software on it that's required to control the beast. It's because when your property development customer calls up and tells you they landed a new multi-million-dollar contract to build a shopping mall but they need to use a Windows-only project-management package because their contract stipulates it, you make damned sure they've got Windows systems to run it on, along with the other three PM packages stipulated for their other three massive construction builds.
Sorry, but that's the real universe, outside of the nerd-i-verse. Nerd jobs (and yes, I have one) can do well - better even - without Windows. Granted. Also, huge corporations that build in-house software solutions can also pick and choose their platform. But in between? Not going to happen.
Open-source has its place. That place could even be a dominant place, if... you know... enough people wanted it that way. But they don't. The world has spoken, and the voices of the OSS proponents has been drowned out by a rock-concert of other-minded individuals.