She wants anything connected to the smart power distribution grid to communicate using a mesh network with an open design. She thinks that putting the same sort of mesh nodes into vehicles would allow the overall mesh network to function better and, apparently, that it would be useful for something.
So why weren't you working with the vendor to get them to provide a guarantee?
I'm sure that a sufficiently large pile of money would have convinced them to do so, so it seems fairly likely that the architecture firm was more interested in profits than they were in paying for extremely high quality software.
So you want me, someone undeterred by the quality of current software, to help pay for the improvements that you see as necessary, or alternatively, simply not have access to any for pay software (You seem to be comfortable with someone giving away openly licensed software, but not selling closed software for $10; the distinction seems false to me). I'd rather see those that require high quality software be the ones to pay for it.
You may well disagree with my assumption that drastically increasing the quality of software will cost a lot of money, but you would need to come up with one hell of an argument to convince me otherwise. And then you would need to convince me that I shouldn't be allowed to risk $20 on a piece of software, simply because it might not work very well (I find it unlikely that fully warrantied software would available for cheap; maybe that's wrong).
That there are homes under $10k listed at all makes a bit of a statement. Another factor, I would think that very few foreclosure homes (Or any $10K homes for that matter) would attract much realtor attention.
In my experience, the lifespan of a modern textbook is about 3 years. I mean, you can still read it after that, but good luck trying to use it in a class.
There is some potential that e-readers could be used to replace coursepacks and other printed/photocopied material, so it isn't just textbooks that might be replaced.
Also, the article mentions that there are 60 people trying it, so I wouldn't freak out just yet.
I'm assuming that greater liability would increase the cost of purchasing software. If that is true, then for people who don't use software in situations where the liability matters (people like me!), the benefits of the more limited liability accrue in both directions; the company providing the software (probably) makes more money and I (probably) pay less money.
My point isn't that software companies should never be liable for anything ever, it is that it may not be a win (and I tend to think it would not be a win) for all consumers if software companies universally had greater liability.
Re:Can apple afford it
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A commenter above indicates that they could pay cash. Twice.
What constitutes a major defect? And then, what constitutes a reasonable remedy? Microsoft is the whipping boy apparent for this story and even they generally patch 'major' defects in reasonable order (which constitutes a reasonable remedy for a lot of people).
Not being configured to use limited user accounts by default could be considered a major defect in XP, but it is also something that was pretty clearly what the market wanted in 2003 (because the market wanted to run their old software that did a crappy job of supporting limited accounts).
If any disclaimer of suitability is reasonable, current practice really isn't that unreasonable; if no disclaimer of suitability is reasonable, software is going to get a lot more expensive.
Software companies are free to offer more liability protection; that businesses and consumers are not pounding the table demanding says at least a little bit.
The discussion surrounding externalities caused by poor software is somewhat more interesting, but I'm not convinced that software can be both useful for Jane Grandma and secured against Jane Grandma doing something stupid (and dammit, Jane Grandma is not your grandma who wrote thousands of lines of COBOL, she is some lady who heard she can look at her grandkids on the internet thingy).
Oops. I didn't read closely enough and assumed he was getting the 24 million from the number of total visitors. It isn't clear where he got it from though.
Are there really billions of dollars of marijuana grown in Toronto?
If that isn't the case, the drug gangs are siphoning money off of productive activity that does go on in the city, not bringing money into the city. I'm not trying to argue that drugs are bad, mmmkay, I'm pointing out that they resemble an importer/exporter a lot more than they resemble a factory.
About the only thing going for transfats is that they have long shelf life; you can still fry your eggs in bacon fat if you feel like you need some cholesterol (of course, no one will forget to eat the bacon).
Many companies have worked around the current surge in public distaste for transfats by switching to fats with shorter shelf life and enhancing their packaging to be more airtight. The costs of doing this are minuscule when compared to the wholesale and retail markups, so prices didn't really go up.
If you are railing against government action, you can take solace in the fact that banning trans fats results in a net benefit for the consumer, with essentially no costs.
Lots of XP software will run just fine on Windows 7 without this support.
There isn't currently a plan to even include the virtualization (which has enhanced support for software that clashes with Windows 7) on consumer versions.
Don't get too excited. Microsoft still had decent growth in 2008 and is selling into a terrible economy right now (making it a little silly to attribute the entire drop in revenues to Vista).
So you are saying that dealing with seemingly arbitrary limitations from IT and then having them explain to you that it is for your own good is a valuable life skill?
(Notice that I did insert "seemingly" in there; the limitation isn't arbitrary, but it is arbitrary from the point of view of the users, who could give a shit about IT's problems obtaining adequate resources)
Are you staff or a student? They are doing something dumb, but they are only insane to the second degree, so they are only suing people associated with the school.
You need to do some correcting for all the people that don't order coffee. I mean, I never ordered a coffee with my happy meal, so I'm pretty sure that some customers get other drinks.
I don't think it is that big a problem. Ideally, judges are chosen because they demonstrate a history of fairness, not because they are a blank slate. If a judge can reasonably set aside his life experience, he can reasonably be expected to set aside (or just ignore) information and opinions about a case (I find it reasonable to expect a judge to ignore poorly and weakly sourced information).
Slashdot Mirror
She wants anything connected to the smart power distribution grid to communicate using a mesh network with an open design. She thinks that putting the same sort of mesh nodes into vehicles would allow the overall mesh network to function better and, apparently, that it would be useful for something.
Matt Aimonetti is a Ruby on Rails bozo:
http://merbist.com/about/
He doesn't seem to be particularly involved with CouchDB:
http://couchdb.apache.org/community/committers.html
I guess he was presenting information about CouchDB to the ruby community.
So why weren't you working with the vendor to get them to provide a guarantee?
I'm sure that a sufficiently large pile of money would have convinced them to do so, so it seems fairly likely that the architecture firm was more interested in profits than they were in paying for extremely high quality software.
It would probably be simpler to spend money on enforcing work permit laws and so force, making illegal border crossings a less attractive activity.
Or do you also favor beefing up the border with Canada? That would be consistent with worrying about the border with a reasonably friendly nation.
So you want me, someone undeterred by the quality of current software, to help pay for the improvements that you see as necessary, or alternatively, simply not have access to any for pay software (You seem to be comfortable with someone giving away openly licensed software, but not selling closed software for $10; the distinction seems false to me). I'd rather see those that require high quality software be the ones to pay for it.
You may well disagree with my assumption that drastically increasing the quality of software will cost a lot of money, but you would need to come up with one hell of an argument to convince me otherwise. And then you would need to convince me that I shouldn't be allowed to risk $20 on a piece of software, simply because it might not work very well (I find it unlikely that fully warrantied software would available for cheap; maybe that's wrong).
Apparently he has never heard the first 3 rules of real estate.
That there are homes under $10k listed at all makes a bit of a statement. Another factor, I would think that very few foreclosure homes (Or any $10K homes for that matter) would attract much realtor attention.
In my experience, the lifespan of a modern textbook is about 3 years. I mean, you can still read it after that, but good luck trying to use it in a class.
There is some potential that e-readers could be used to replace coursepacks and other printed/photocopied material, so it isn't just textbooks that might be replaced.
Also, the article mentions that there are 60 people trying it, so I wouldn't freak out just yet.
I'm assuming that greater liability would increase the cost of purchasing software. If that is true, then for people who don't use software in situations where the liability matters (people like me!), the benefits of the more limited liability accrue in both directions; the company providing the software (probably) makes more money and I (probably) pay less money.
My point isn't that software companies should never be liable for anything ever, it is that it may not be a win (and I tend to think it would not be a win) for all consumers if software companies universally had greater liability.
A commenter above indicates that they could pay cash. Twice.
What constitutes a major defect? And then, what constitutes a reasonable remedy? Microsoft is the whipping boy apparent for this story and even they generally patch 'major' defects in reasonable order (which constitutes a reasonable remedy for a lot of people).
Not being configured to use limited user accounts by default could be considered a major defect in XP, but it is also something that was pretty clearly what the market wanted in 2003 (because the market wanted to run their old software that did a crappy job of supporting limited accounts).
If any disclaimer of suitability is reasonable, current practice really isn't that unreasonable; if no disclaimer of suitability is reasonable, software is going to get a lot more expensive.
Would they still be allowed to offer a separate version without the warranty?
I'm pretty sure I'd rather not be paying them to warranty their software, my computing needs just aren't that closely tied to my dollars.
Software companies are free to offer more liability protection; that businesses and consumers are not pounding the table demanding says at least a little bit.
The discussion surrounding externalities caused by poor software is somewhat more interesting, but I'm not convinced that software can be both useful for Jane Grandma and secured against Jane Grandma doing something stupid (and dammit, Jane Grandma is not your grandma who wrote thousands of lines of COBOL, she is some lady who heard she can look at her grandkids on the internet thingy).
If I sell you (reasonably labeled) motor oil and you drink it, holding me responsible for your stupidity is ridiculous.
I seriously doubt that most people would be interested in paying what disclaimer free software would cost, so this whole idea seems pretty unlikely.
Two.
According to that site, Forest Whitaker is a better Bacon than Kevin, so the late Mr. Davis is probably quite well linked to most actors.
Oops. I didn't read closely enough and assumed he was getting the 24 million from the number of total visitors. It isn't clear where he got it from though.
Are there really billions of dollars of marijuana grown in Toronto?
If that isn't the case, the drug gangs are siphoning money off of productive activity that does go on in the city, not bringing money into the city. I'm not trying to argue that drugs are bad, mmmkay, I'm pointing out that they resemble an importer/exporter a lot more than they resemble a factory.
About the only thing going for transfats is that they have long shelf life; you can still fry your eggs in bacon fat if you feel like you need some cholesterol (of course, no one will forget to eat the bacon).
Many companies have worked around the current surge in public distaste for transfats by switching to fats with shorter shelf life and enhancing their packaging to be more airtight. The costs of doing this are minuscule when compared to the wholesale and retail markups, so prices didn't really go up.
If you are railing against government action, you can take solace in the fact that banning trans fats results in a net benefit for the consumer, with essentially no costs.
That sounds like it would quickly turn into a full time job.
Lots of XP software will run just fine on Windows 7 without this support.
There isn't currently a plan to even include the virtualization (which has enhanced support for software that clashes with Windows 7) on consumer versions.
Don't get too excited. Microsoft still had decent growth in 2008 and is selling into a terrible economy right now (making it a little silly to attribute the entire drop in revenues to Vista).
So you are saying that dealing with seemingly arbitrary limitations from IT and then having them explain to you that it is for your own good is a valuable life skill?
(Notice that I did insert "seemingly" in there; the limitation isn't arbitrary, but it is arbitrary from the point of view of the users, who could give a shit about IT's problems obtaining adequate resources)
Are you staff or a student? They are doing something dumb, but they are only insane to the second degree, so they are only suing people associated with the school.
You need to do some correcting for all the people that don't order coffee. I mean, I never ordered a coffee with my happy meal, so I'm pretty sure that some customers get other drinks.
I don't think it is that big a problem. Ideally, judges are chosen because they demonstrate a history of fairness, not because they are a blank slate. If a judge can reasonably set aside his life experience, he can reasonably be expected to set aside (or just ignore) information and opinions about a case (I find it reasonable to expect a judge to ignore poorly and weakly sourced information).