Oracle isn't worth it, where possible to avoid it, just because it's Oracle. By buying into "A DB is better on Oracle" you just hand them scads of money based only on their brand name.
Having to pay is just a minor part of it - having to pay more based on having a second CPU core, etc is just absolutely unworkable. Any software you don't buy outright is NOT worth the costs of having in your company. They haven't remotely disabled customers accidentally (I think) like VMWare (and Steam, id Software, Microsoft, etc) but by buying into a locked-down system you'll be absolutely screwed when they do.
Strange, nobody sees negative value in letting another company hold their data and system hostage.
No, this is eye-candy that specifically separates the photo from the comments, making sure that no matter how big of a monitor you have you cannot see both critical elements at once. As such, it is broken.
You're asking your kids questions you already know the answer to. They called the teacher an idiot because they are, and because calling someone what they are is stress relieving compared to trying to stifle it. The same reason you'd call someone an ass.
Instead of trying to trick them in some way, where they need to come up with a complex enough answer about human interactions to satisfy you, ask what their teacher did to justify it. You could then ask if they thought the world would work very well if everyone treated each other like that 24/7, but to pretend you don't know why they did something means that they won't discuss it with you - you obviously don't have a clue.
And yes, we know it didn't take brilliance to come up with Nokia's idea - that's why we're saying dismissively that even elementary school kids could have this idea. Save a picture of some text. Like every PDA without handwriting detection. WOW!
Those are both things ours wouldn't have been allowed to do. But that's my point. In my area, inspectors are crappy. By standard procedure they don't do anything. A carpenter on the other hand, unconcerned with hard-and-fast rules, who only needed to know he could repair it afterward, was much more effective simply because he could look everywhere.
We were buying and didn't own yet which is why they couldn't risk damaging anything. But, with that low of a threshold of risk he couldn't find anything either. Maybe if you own the place and can get them to really look.
Inspectors around here all seem stuck on the Real Estate industry. It's all about rubber-stamping another place for instant sale rather than just inspecting your home to make sure it's in good shape.
Wrong. Randi would accept a challenge from someone claiming to be able to move only a single human hair in a vacuum. Anyone who claims Randi tried to make them do something they didn't claim to be able to is a liar.
Seriously, ANYTHING. If you think you can tell, better than chance, when someone is watching you, call Randi. If the creaking of your bones predicts the even/oddness of the low-number in the lottery, call Randi. If you can hear even one in a million thoughts from those around you, call Randi. Any instance of paranormal ability wins $1m, no matter how large.
Not that you won't be asked to lift something larger than you think you can (how do you know you can't?) but that if anything lifts at all, you're golden. How else would they determine, except by testing what things interfere, how your power works?
Yeah, because it's undoubtedly protected by super-secr3t encryption. There's no way a hacker could ever look at the output from Spore's server and figure out how to distribute their own creatures.
In another example of the real product sucking more, you'd probably need the cracked version to use 3rd party downloaded creatures. The updates EA pushes will simply be incorporated into the pirated game, giving sensible pirates the best of both worlds.
Judge is a retard. The clicking happened after the paying, therefore it's a sale.
Look at all the crappy programmers around. Now realize that same percentage of judges are going to be complete droolers. Especially when you take into account the fact that they're government employees.
under your terms, not theirs, which is a gross violation of their rights.
Their EULA is an attempt to deceive me into something I'd consider a gross violation of my rights. I don't see them as having ANY rights related to the software at this point. It's as if they used a car to commit a crime, it would be taken away. They use their software as bait for an innocent customer expecting a sale, so why shouldn't they lose their software to the customer? Like you'd lose your bait to the fish that got away?
I'm failing to see where they act in a moral upright fashion, and thus deserve the protections of society. If they offer a product for sale it would be theft to take it without paying. But to pick up a thief's bait and use it - delicious!
In fact, I think their houses should be fair game. $50 isn't much, but steal that much from enough people to buy a house and the house starts to looks like stolen property... If I own that window...
Most home inspectors couldn't catch a cold. They're usually forbidden to do any destructive testing (you don't own the place yet) and that means they won't look anywhere actually interesting.
Not that an inspector isn't a good idea, but the McInspectors who are everywhere are worthless. Hire a good handyman and have them do an inspection. Our carpenter caught more problems than our inspector did, and helped us get an electrician to fix it before the city inspector saw them.
For instance, our inspector wouldn't pop the electrical panel plate off, because it was painted onto and would risked tearing the paint where it met the wall. A slightly valid objection. But it still left that unexamined. Our carpenter sliced the paint around all sides, popped the screws out in seconds, and said "I'm not an electrician, but...".
And he charged about 1/5th of the inspector's rate.
You're a complete douche. Of course nobody should ever do anything that impacts a company because --- PEOPLE MIGHT BE LAID OFF AND NEED TO FIND OTHER WORK! Oh My GOD!
That said, why aren't the EA devs as guilty as the management? I doubt management coded the DRM integration. I doubt they wrote the install counter. Those innocent devs thought their cushy job was more important than trying to deliver an honest product to their customers - they're just as guilty as their bosses.
They knew the type of EULAs used would attempt to deny future purchasers as much value as possible. They knew EA would restrict usage of the game not where required to prevent harm, but anywhere possible to get more money. Would they really have any moral ground on which to complain if 97% of their paycheck for this work mysteriously vanished? Like the value to a gamer who had to reinstall one-to-many times.
Bullshit! They're attempting to STEAL money without providing utility. Stealing their utility is just leveling the playing field. Wah.
When this doesn't involve EULAs and depriving honest customers of the experience they expect when they BUY a product only to find it crippled beyond belief, then I'll respect EA's right to get paid. But as long as they're willing to rip off those who buy their games, it's be a huge injustice to give them any money.
It's like being assaulted by a thief trying to steal your wallet. Theoretically, taking anyone's wallet by force is bad. But if you pound him flat and take HIS wallet, it's not bad because he indicated to you (through his attack) his willingness to have his wallet taken, and his face beaten.
EA can indicate their willingness to be honest citizens, by providing honest value. Or they can act like thieves and be treated like thieves.
Your post is like saying that vigilante justice isn't moral. Which is wrong. It may be, or may not. The mere fact that it isn't societally endorsed says nothing in this regard.
As for the fairness of gaining utility, I'll note that Walt Disney gained a lot of utility without compensating the creators of his stories. We have no problem with one-sided gains where appropriate, only abuse of someone's legal position (rich, and thus always successful in court) intended to deny us our rightful gains.
Summary: Offer an honest product, deserve honest treatment. Try to cheat people, get beaten up and have your past-victims laugh as you bleed in the street.
Try charging $500 for the lecture, plus a few annoying fees. Then, offer a funding package where by applying for a grant (from your organization) the fee is (mostly) covered.
"The eminent open-learning proponent G.D. speaks on Foo - Targeted at 8-12 graders looking to go into... $500 per session. (* Note, financial help is made available by the FriendsofGD foundation, on a basis of need.)"
Also, being paid $500 for a lecture should help your performance, even if it is a shell-game.
I also blame MS for not having free rescue tools (a bootable OS on CD...?) on their website. What kind of crappy OS company are they?
Seriously, MS could demand that you must give the customer a real CD or lose your special OEM pricing (and thus, the price-break that keeps the consumer from buying the CD at a store.) That they don't, and yet have done more drastic anti-consumer things which show they COULD implement this policy, proves that they don't mind.
If MS was hands-off with the industry it wouldn't be blamed for every failing. But instead it tried to dictate every little thing and still releases such absolute shit. It's such a joke.
And if anyone implied that MS cared someone would come in and point out that companies are obligated to increase wealth, not make customers happy. Microsoft sells the cheapest shit to your boss, not quality to you.
Anyways, I'm happy that there are commands, even if complex ones, that can sometimes restart from an X crash where otherwise I'd have to reboot. They may not help everyone, or even me all the time, but at least they're there to try.
Correct. People who have too much house should have to ditch it. People who have too much bad debt should have to eat it. I fully expect both to lose a fortune. How else could I enjoy my money from doing the sensible thing?
Oh I know, I'll give it all the the government to be distributed to the people who should/could have known better so that they don't feel the need to learn.
One "un-bailed" subprime crisis later and we'd stop having them. But because of all the safety nets it'll actually pay out in the end to buy a house on your credit card while working at Walmart. The entire economy will tank to do it, but we'll plaster over the problem and pretend that nobody loses money, especially not from investing in fucking retarded things.
That assumes that smart people were holding a bunch of UAL stock.
"Investing" blindly is about the same as casino gambling. The big easy games in the front lobby are all a rip-off (Slot-machines, mutual funds, etc).
So is investing and holding. You need something worth holding - most people can't tell a good company from a bad one and wouldn't know why it could tank. They should get the hell out of the casino.
Don't buy into a crappy airline if you don't want volatile stock. As someone said, nobody would have believed the story if they hadn't been half expecting UAL to tank.
Seriously, it's RISK that pays off. If there was no risk, you wouldn't look for other people to share it, and wouldn't sell stock/etc. There's risk in holding money - the gov is burning it while in your hands. Acknowledge this and stop looking for the 100% safe payout.
Understand it in a general sense, or well enough to accurately describe all clauses with a flow-chart or other different medium? When you tested yourself on comprehension, what was your error rate?
The problem with law and contracts are that any misunderstanding can be ruinous, and they are usually written by someone trying to exploit the situation. have you looked at the IOCCC or similar obfuscated programming challenges?
We need a legal version of these - the most abusive yet harmless seeming contract possible.
That's to keep from being sued, but there's no "model release" law that requires such a thing, even for commercial use. (That doesn't mean anyone would buy a photo without the appropriate releases.)
No, PPL is a scam because it's an MLM pushed by scammers like you. There's always some shill willing to tell a story about how great PPL is, despite (supposedly) not being affiliated, etc... It's misrepresented, and when you try to deal with PPL management, or marketing (people like you) you get nothing but lies.
If you weren't a scammer you'd look around online and see the horrible reviews PPL gets. Instead you'll just say that everyone complaining has some grudge and dismiss it all.
If I got trapped in a cabin all winter with a friend I'd really love to be able to copy a game onto their computer so we could play.
If my computer died I'd want to be able to reinstall my software on another one, without having to prove even in the smallest way that I have a right to do so.
This magic DRM you speak of must restrict some things. Why would I want to use software that ties my hands? It's all nice and shiny when I want something simple and it just works, but when I need to do something complex or break a rule for some greater good I can't have a machine that refuses to function.
Yes, why don't you just stop posting about it, considering you know so little.
Everything you say would only be true if he was passing his name-based domain off as the trademarked domain. In that case, his name would be no defense. But if he merely has a domain whose name could be confusing (Coke is other things besides coca-cola) it isn't problematic unless he tries to use that trademarked name for the one thing he can't - trying to represent himself with the company's image.
coke.com - fansite for old smelting technology - just fine coke.com - telling people to stop drinking pop - just fine coke.com - pretending to be the coca-cola company - forbidden
So as long as your website doesn't pretend to be (related to) the company whose trademark your domain name happens to be, you're in the clear by a basic reading of trademark law. No intentional confusion, no overlapping areas of business.
Further, while there is a requirement for a company to take action against trademark violations that they see, there's no legal requirement for them to be assholes about it.
They could solve the case by writing "Though your domain is also our trademark, we recognize your efforts to distinguish yourself from our company which means you are not violating our trademark. Thanks." That would fully protect them (establish a history of actively investigating misuse) and yet not cause an unreasonable burned on the site owner. It would also explain to the owner what not to do to avoid future legal problems.
Any lawyer *could* help them figure out the non-confrontational way to handle this and save your rights. So why haven't they? Because they want the domain name but not to pay for it. The trademark/squatting lawsuit is just a way to fool people like you (with some knowledge) into thinking they deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle isn't worth it, where possible to avoid it, just because it's Oracle. By buying into "A DB is better on Oracle" you just hand them scads of money based only on their brand name.
Having to pay is just a minor part of it - having to pay more based on having a second CPU core, etc is just absolutely unworkable. Any software you don't buy outright is NOT worth the costs of having in your company. They haven't remotely disabled customers accidentally (I think) like VMWare (and Steam, id Software, Microsoft, etc) but by buying into a locked-down system you'll be absolutely screwed when they do.
Strange, nobody sees negative value in letting another company hold their data and system hostage.
No, this is eye-candy that specifically separates the photo from the comments, making sure that no matter how big of a monitor you have you cannot see both critical elements at once. As such, it is broken.
You're asking your kids questions you already know the answer to. They called the teacher an idiot because they are, and because calling someone what they are is stress relieving compared to trying to stifle it. The same reason you'd call someone an ass.
Instead of trying to trick them in some way, where they need to come up with a complex enough answer about human interactions to satisfy you, ask what their teacher did to justify it. You could then ask if they thought the world would work very well if everyone treated each other like that 24/7, but to pretend you don't know why they did something means that they won't discuss it with you - you obviously don't have a clue.
And yes, we know it didn't take brilliance to come up with Nokia's idea - that's why we're saying dismissively that even elementary school kids could have this idea. Save a picture of some text. Like every PDA without handwriting detection. WOW!
Those are both things ours wouldn't have been allowed to do. But that's my point. In my area, inspectors are crappy. By standard procedure they don't do anything. A carpenter on the other hand, unconcerned with hard-and-fast rules, who only needed to know he could repair it afterward, was much more effective simply because he could look everywhere.
We were buying and didn't own yet which is why they couldn't risk damaging anything. But, with that low of a threshold of risk he couldn't find anything either. Maybe if you own the place and can get them to really look.
Inspectors around here all seem stuck on the Real Estate industry. It's all about rubber-stamping another place for instant sale rather than just inspecting your home to make sure it's in good shape.
Wrong. Randi would accept a challenge from someone claiming to be able to move only a single human hair in a vacuum. Anyone who claims Randi tried to make them do something they didn't claim to be able to is a liar.
Seriously, ANYTHING. If you think you can tell, better than chance, when someone is watching you, call Randi. If the creaking of your bones predicts the even/oddness of the low-number in the lottery, call Randi. If you can hear even one in a million thoughts from those around you, call Randi. Any instance of paranormal ability wins $1m, no matter how large.
Not that you won't be asked to lift something larger than you think you can (how do you know you can't?) but that if anything lifts at all, you're golden. How else would they determine, except by testing what things interfere, how your power works?
Yeah, because it's undoubtedly protected by super-secr3t encryption. There's no way a hacker could ever look at the output from Spore's server and figure out how to distribute their own creatures.
In another example of the real product sucking more, you'd probably need the cracked version to use 3rd party downloaded creatures. The updates EA pushes will simply be incorporated into the pirated game, giving sensible pirates the best of both worlds.
Judge is a retard. The clicking happened after the paying, therefore it's a sale.
Look at all the crappy programmers around. Now realize that same percentage of judges are going to be complete droolers. Especially when you take into account the fact that they're government employees.
under your terms, not theirs, which is a gross violation of their rights.
Their EULA is an attempt to deceive me into something I'd consider a gross violation of my rights. I don't see them as having ANY rights related to the software at this point. It's as if they used a car to commit a crime, it would be taken away. They use their software as bait for an innocent customer expecting a sale, so why shouldn't they lose their software to the customer? Like you'd lose your bait to the fish that got away?
I'm failing to see where they act in a moral upright fashion, and thus deserve the protections of society. If they offer a product for sale it would be theft to take it without paying. But to pick up a thief's bait and use it - delicious!
In fact, I think their houses should be fair game. $50 isn't much, but steal that much from enough people to buy a house and the house starts to looks like stolen property... If I own that window...
Absolutely! In what possible way is it wrong to punch someone who punched you?
Vigilantism is bad only in that theoretically individuals aren't as accurate about their targets.
Most home inspectors couldn't catch a cold. They're usually forbidden to do any destructive testing (you don't own the place yet) and that means they won't look anywhere actually interesting.
Not that an inspector isn't a good idea, but the McInspectors who are everywhere are worthless. Hire a good handyman and have them do an inspection. Our carpenter caught more problems than our inspector did, and helped us get an electrician to fix it before the city inspector saw them.
For instance, our inspector wouldn't pop the electrical panel plate off, because it was painted onto and would risked tearing the paint where it met the wall. A slightly valid objection. But it still left that unexamined. Our carpenter sliced the paint around all sides, popped the screws out in seconds, and said "I'm not an electrician, but...".
And he charged about 1/5th of the inspector's rate.
"Think of the devs!"
You're a complete douche. Of course nobody should ever do anything that impacts a company because --- PEOPLE MIGHT BE LAID OFF AND NEED TO FIND OTHER WORK! Oh My GOD!
That said, why aren't the EA devs as guilty as the management? I doubt management coded the DRM integration. I doubt they wrote the install counter. Those innocent devs thought their cushy job was more important than trying to deliver an honest product to their customers - they're just as guilty as their bosses.
They knew the type of EULAs used would attempt to deny future purchasers as much value as possible. They knew EA would restrict usage of the game not where required to prevent harm, but anywhere possible to get more money. Would they really have any moral ground on which to complain if 97% of their paycheck for this work mysteriously vanished? Like the value to a gamer who had to reinstall one-to-many times.
Bullshit! They're attempting to STEAL money without providing utility. Stealing their utility is just leveling the playing field. Wah.
When this doesn't involve EULAs and depriving honest customers of the experience they expect when they BUY a product only to find it crippled beyond belief, then I'll respect EA's right to get paid. But as long as they're willing to rip off those who buy their games, it's be a huge injustice to give them any money.
It's like being assaulted by a thief trying to steal your wallet. Theoretically, taking anyone's wallet by force is bad. But if you pound him flat and take HIS wallet, it's not bad because he indicated to you (through his attack) his willingness to have his wallet taken, and his face beaten.
EA can indicate their willingness to be honest citizens, by providing honest value. Or they can act like thieves and be treated like thieves.
Your post is like saying that vigilante justice isn't moral. Which is wrong. It may be, or may not. The mere fact that it isn't societally endorsed says nothing in this regard.
As for the fairness of gaining utility, I'll note that Walt Disney gained a lot of utility without compensating the creators of his stories. We have no problem with one-sided gains where appropriate, only abuse of someone's legal position (rich, and thus always successful in court) intended to deny us our rightful gains.
Summary: Offer an honest product, deserve honest treatment. Try to cheat people, get beaten up and have your past-victims laugh as you bleed in the street.
They primarily chew tobacco in East Virginia?
That's the problem - the perceived value of free.
Try charging $500 for the lecture, plus a few annoying fees. Then, offer a funding package where by applying for a grant (from your organization) the fee is (mostly) covered.
"The eminent open-learning proponent G.D. speaks on Foo - Targeted at 8-12 graders looking to go into ... $500 per session. (* Note, financial help is made available by the FriendsofGD foundation, on a basis of need.)"
Also, being paid $500 for a lecture should help your performance, even if it is a shell-game.
I also blame MS for not having free rescue tools (a bootable OS on CD...?) on their website. What kind of crappy OS company are they?
Seriously, MS could demand that you must give the customer a real CD or lose your special OEM pricing (and thus, the price-break that keeps the consumer from buying the CD at a store.) That they don't, and yet have done more drastic anti-consumer things which show they COULD implement this policy, proves that they don't mind.
If MS was hands-off with the industry it wouldn't be blamed for every failing. But instead it tried to dictate every little thing and still releases such absolute shit. It's such a joke.
And if anyone implied that MS cared someone would come in and point out that companies are obligated to increase wealth, not make customers happy. Microsoft sells the cheapest shit to your boss, not quality to you.
Anyways, I'm happy that there are commands, even if complex ones, that can sometimes restart from an X crash where otherwise I'd have to reboot. They may not help everyone, or even me all the time, but at least they're there to try.
Correct. People who have too much house should have to ditch it. People who have too much bad debt should have to eat it. I fully expect both to lose a fortune. How else could I enjoy my money from doing the sensible thing?
Oh I know, I'll give it all the the government to be distributed to the people who should/could have known better so that they don't feel the need to learn.
One "un-bailed" subprime crisis later and we'd stop having them. But because of all the safety nets it'll actually pay out in the end to buy a house on your credit card while working at Walmart. The entire economy will tank to do it, but we'll plaster over the problem and pretend that nobody loses money, especially not from investing in fucking retarded things.
That assumes that smart people were holding a bunch of UAL stock.
"Investing" blindly is about the same as casino gambling. The big easy games in the front lobby are all a rip-off (Slot-machines, mutual funds, etc).
So is investing and holding. You need something worth holding - most people can't tell a good company from a bad one and wouldn't know why it could tank. They should get the hell out of the casino.
Don't buy into a crappy airline if you don't want volatile stock. As someone said, nobody would have believed the story if they hadn't been half expecting UAL to tank.
Seriously, it's RISK that pays off. If there was no risk, you wouldn't look for other people to share it, and wouldn't sell stock/etc. There's risk in holding money - the gov is burning it while in your hands. Acknowledge this and stop looking for the 100% safe payout.
Understand it in a general sense, or well enough to accurately describe all clauses with a flow-chart or other different medium? When you tested yourself on comprehension, what was your error rate?
The problem with law and contracts are that any misunderstanding can be ruinous, and they are usually written by someone trying to exploit the situation. have you looked at the IOCCC or similar obfuscated programming challenges?
We need a legal version of these - the most abusive yet harmless seeming contract possible.
That's to keep from being sued, but there's no "model release" law that requires such a thing, even for commercial use. (That doesn't mean anyone would buy a photo without the appropriate releases.)
No, PPL is a scam because it's an MLM pushed by scammers like you. There's always some shill willing to tell a story about how great PPL is, despite (supposedly) not being affiliated, etc... It's misrepresented, and when you try to deal with PPL management, or marketing (people like you) you get nothing but lies.
If you weren't a scammer you'd look around online and see the horrible reviews PPL gets. Instead you'll just say that everyone complaining has some grudge and dismiss it all.
Yes. Absolutely.
If I got trapped in a cabin all winter with a friend I'd really love to be able to copy a game onto their computer so we could play.
If my computer died I'd want to be able to reinstall my software on another one, without having to prove even in the smallest way that I have a right to do so.
This magic DRM you speak of must restrict some things. Why would I want to use software that ties my hands? It's all nice and shiny when I want something simple and it just works, but when I need to do something complex or break a rule for some greater good I can't have a machine that refuses to function.
Doesn't that just make you more vulnerable to me picking up a new variation on that domain?
Yes, why don't you just stop posting about it, considering you know so little.
Everything you say would only be true if he was passing his name-based domain off as the trademarked domain. In that case, his name would be no defense. But if he merely has a domain whose name could be confusing (Coke is other things besides coca-cola) it isn't problematic unless he tries to use that trademarked name for the one thing he can't - trying to represent himself with the company's image.
coke.com - fansite for old smelting technology - just fine
coke.com - telling people to stop drinking pop - just fine
coke.com - pretending to be the coca-cola company - forbidden
So as long as your website doesn't pretend to be (related to) the company whose trademark your domain name happens to be, you're in the clear by a basic reading of trademark law. No intentional confusion, no overlapping areas of business.
Further, while there is a requirement for a company to take action against trademark violations that they see, there's no legal requirement for them to be assholes about it.
They could solve the case by writing "Though your domain is also our trademark, we recognize your efforts to distinguish yourself from our company which means you are not violating our trademark. Thanks." That would fully protect them (establish a history of actively investigating misuse) and yet not cause an unreasonable burned on the site owner. It would also explain to the owner what not to do to avoid future legal problems.
Any lawyer *could* help them figure out the non-confrontational way to handle this and save your rights. So why haven't they? Because they want the domain name but not to pay for it. The trademark/squatting lawsuit is just a way to fool people like you (with some knowledge) into thinking they deserve it.