I have one. I purchased it for browsing and watching streamed videos. The trackpad sucks, but it works well for online use, and it has a larger screen than tablets. I was using a Kindle Fire HD for wireless browsing, and this beats it hands down.
I toyed with the idea of replacing ChromeOS, but I'm not so interested in tinkering any more.
No. The National Guard has always has dual missions, state and federal. National guard troops even get extra training during their basic training, to cover dealing with riots. The feds fund the majority of the costs so that the guard is available in case of need, but they still have to request the guard from the governor. They get around that "nicety" by threatening to take away federal funding.
What they were not intended for was long term recurring deployments outside of declared wars.
From my experience, that is also the pattern in the US. Accenture has repeatedly made the news here for failed projects, yet the governments still turn to them for project work. Accenture must have really good sales people.
RTFC, I didn't say they have a right to money... they have a right to choose to offer that music for a price that you and others are free to pay or to pass on. If people choose to pay their price then they get money; if people decide it isn't worth it then they don't get money. Simple concept; they have the right to the earnings, which in that case amount to zero. But people that choose not to pay the price do not have the right to make a copy of the music to listen to if the artist/owner does not permit it, any more than a company has the right to take GPL code in violation of the license.
A person/entity has the right to the earnings from its labor; they do not belong to society to meet some vague notion of a "greater good". Society might be enrichened if Jimmy Buffet performed concerts with no admission charge, but the decision to do that is his. It might benefit the "greater good" if Oracle gave away their database, but it is their choice to do so. Frank Lloyd Wright built homes that many consider to be great works of art, but he definately did not do so for free.
The creator of the work, or the entity that funded its creation and gained control over it, has the right to decide how others may use it. The controller may decide that all are free to appreciate it for no charge, or may set a price which individuals are free to choose to pay or not use the item. But society at large is not free to declare that it wants access to a given item for free and therefore take control (or possession) of the item from its owner or creator (emminent domain notwithstanding).
If you choose to create paintings and give them away, write GPL code, or provide free medical assistance to others, more power to you; I think it's great. But don't try to insist that all others also do so, or insist that one answer fits all circumstances.
It is horribly annoying, isn't it? I do not believe I've completely read a single article of his, because of that. Yes, I could ignore it, but my time is valuable enough that I will go elesewhere.
I suspect that without that inanity, he could probalby write fairly well.
C'mon, editors; it's basic English. Many on this site like to bag on Microsoft for poor coding; that is little different from misue of the English language, although it can have more severe effects.
and understand the criminal's need to victimize others. Sheesh, no wonder you posted AC. Dealing with conditions that lead to crime is a good thing, but it is not terribly relevant at the instant you are faced with an attack. Studies have repeatedly shown that people that resist are less likely to be injured than those that meekly submit. If you want cites, do your own homework; it's trivial nowadays. Search for Kleck, an anti-firearm ownership researcher that changed his views after gathering and analyzing the evidence.
I support the Salvation Army, other homeless shelters and food pantries, but that doesn't mean I'll choose to roll over the next time someone tries to break into my house.
My wife was burglarized while I was on an unaccompanied tour in Korea. A month later she heard someone trying to pry a window open about 2 AM. She chambered a round in her handgun and said she'd shoot if he(presumably) came through the window. She heard someone drop to the ground and run, and never had another problem. I too have used a firearm to defend myself. I didn't have to fire, but it helped convince two punks to leave me be.
You may choose to be victimized if you wish. Don't project your sheephood onto others, however.
Those are the only two movies I've ever walked out on. For most of the movies that have been listed here, I could at least sit through it and laugh at the director. My two choices lacked even that draw. In fact, I left Chariots of Fire during a rainstorm, prefering a long walk back to my car in the rain to waiting out the rain watching the movie.
Yet another slashbot clueless about the topic, yet willing to state as "fact" silly misperceptions...
The fact is, sometimes workers DO vote not to be represented by a union. And, hard as you may find it to believe, sometimes they vote to decertify the existing union.
Unions are not automatic. If the employees of a company are not represented, and wish to be, the union will conduct an organizing campaign. They attempt to get more than half (IIRC) of the employees to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them. If the union gains that many signatures, and the count survives challenge by the employer, the union becomes the designated representative of the employees without it being put to a vote.
And, as happened here about 8 years ago, if the employees get fed up with the union officers living well off of the unoin dues while being perceived as not doing enough for the members, they can vote the union out (in effect, fire the union).
No, it's not. The "Open Source movement", such as it is, is about developing software that meets your need and making it available to others so that they may also benefit from it and possibly extend/improve it.
I see your claim repeated often, and it annoys me each time; it looks/sounds/feels like a religious crusade. If a business demands a given piece of software, they can fund its development. They can hire or divert their programmers to develop the project, or they can pay others to develop it. Seriously. Open Source software allows people/organizations to benefit from the charity of others; that does not mean that they have any "right" to demand any piece of software. They may ask, but they can also chip in and contribute themselves. And if they refuse to switch to Open Source software because an application that they want is not available, so what?
Businesses do not have to run Open Source software. If they are satisfied with their current solutions, more power to them.
That being said, you do have a point about the lack of polish in many Open Source applications. More attention to usability and missing features would probably entice more users to switch to it, but that is more of a concern for companies that want to make money from it than for developers that are donating their time to write the apps.
Sheesh... yet another twit heard from. Go read the decisions yourself, without a hoplophobic filter. The main decision cited is Miller, where the SCOTUS held that shotguns with sawed-off barrels (less than 13" in this case, IIRC) could be banned as they were not suitable for use by militia. This decision would tend to support the argument that people should be allowed to own cannons and hand grenades, so be careful in using it to support your agenda.
Since you fouled the last one off so badly, want to try again? How can you claim that the word people, when used in the Second Amendment, means something totally different from its meaning in every other amendment? You cannot, logically. And before you trot out that old cannard about militia, note that the phrase containing militia is a subordinate clause; that means it is used to support the sentence. To be logically consistent, which is more than I expect, you would have to argue that the idea of free speech only applies to organized news agencies and that individuals have no right to express their opinions.
There was an interesting exercise done a few years back, where the word book was substituted for the word gun, and educated for armed. When you apply the arguments used against the second amendment to the revised one, you see how ludicrous they are and that the arguments are not about the meaning of the amendment but instead are about banning guns.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is nothing but an underhanded attempt by Symantec to push a political agenda. The fact that it is done silently, and that CIPA mandates use of software like this, only makes it more offensive.
Well regulated meaning well trained and proficient, of course. Thanks for playing, now go and read the writings of the people that WROTE the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Of course, having an opinion with no knowledge hasn't stopped anyone else...
I recently purchased a Toshiba notebook. It was sealed in cellophane, with a label that declared that the complete system is a bundle and that Toshiba would not honor requests for partial refunds of the system price for components that were not used/desired. The customer was directed to return the system to the place of purchase for a comnplete refund, if desired. It was my thought that this policy was directly implemented in respone to customers that might wish a refund of the cost of Windows.
And most vendors around here charge a 15% restocking fee for notebooks, so you can see how far you would get.
As has been suggested before, if you do not want a given item (Windows or whatever), then either look for a system that does not include it, build your own, or have someone build one to your specs. This will enable you to get exactly what you want and no more at a price you are willing to pay, and it will also provide an incentive for the manufacturers to provide systems that meet your desire so that they can get your business.
I consider the refund day concept to be little more than a minor publicity prank and of little practical value. What might make it beneficial would be for a group of users to purchase a product, refuse to accept the EULA, and then demand refunds per the instructions included in the EULA (supposedly this has happened with the people that would be participating in the refund day). Microsoft would probably point the users to the vendor, and the vendors would probably stand on their return policies. An ambitious and capable law firm might be able to make a case out of this, but the outcome would probably be along the lines of prohibiting vendors from charging restocking fees on items where the customer refuses to accept the EULA unless it was presented prior to purchase. The law firm wouyld also rack up fees to be paid by someone, probably the vendors. This would not amount to a significant change.
If you REALLY want to make a change in the marketplace, don't give your money to companies that you do not agree with or whose policies you dislike. If enough people do this it will force changes in the market. And if not enough people do this to make a difference, then you need to accept that you hold a minority viewpoint and are a niche customer.
IANAL, and you should pay for legal advice rather than believe anything you read here.
Attorneys can withdraw from representing a client, but not as informally as just telling the client to hit the bricks. Once they have agreed to represent, they are obligated to represent until a judge has granted their motion to withdraw as attorney, IIRC.
Of course, I have seen instances where it appeared that the attorney just chose to do such a lame job that the client left of his/her own volition.
IANAL, but I may go to law school next year. Midlife career change and all.
It would, however, be covered by Article 134, the general article; I used to joke that it read "Anything not expressly prohibited elsewhere is hereby prohibited."
Shashdot seems to be about technology, and like it or not, military uses have driven much of the technology that we all take for granted. The early computers were first used to calculate firing tables for artillery and naval guns.
Like others, I think the reason this article made it to Slahdot was the cool factor of engineers that could build a reliable product without all of the latest tools. It was good work, of the sort not often seen today.
I had two problems with them, and their responses in both cases were inadequate.
I directed them to close my account after someone had tried to change the password, since I was not using it anyway. We had a protracted exchange before they finally agreed to close it. About six months later I received a message from someone wanting to know when he would receive the baseball cards that he had purchased from me. I checked it out and my old account was active, with several card auctions going. I complained to E-Bay and copied the victim in. I never did get a response from E-Bay.
Coincidently, about a week before this there was a fraud attempt on the credit card that E-Bay knew about...
Slashdot Mirror
I have one. I purchased it for browsing and watching streamed videos. The trackpad sucks, but it works well for online use, and it has a larger screen than tablets. I was using a Kindle Fire HD for wireless browsing, and this beats it hands down.
I toyed with the idea of replacing ChromeOS, but I'm not so interested in tinkering any more.
No. The National Guard has always has dual missions, state and federal. National guard troops even get extra training during their basic training, to cover dealing with riots. The feds fund the majority of the costs so that the guard is available in case of need, but they still have to request the guard from the governor. They get around that "nicety" by threatening to take away federal funding.
What they were not intended for was long term recurring deployments outside of declared wars.
For most people in government, that is worse than stealing the $80 million.
From my experience, that is also the pattern in the US. Accenture has repeatedly made the news here for failed projects, yet the governments still turn to them for project work. Accenture must have really good sales people.
Ask and ye shall receive...
. htm
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/battleofathens
RTFC, I didn't say they have a right to money... they have a right to choose to offer that music for a price that you and others are free to pay or to pass on. If people choose to pay their price then they get money; if people decide it isn't worth it then they don't get money. Simple concept; they have the right to the earnings, which in that case amount to zero. But people that choose not to pay the price do not have the right to make a copy of the music to listen to if the artist/owner does not permit it, any more than a company has the right to take GPL code in violation of the license.
A person/entity has the right to the earnings from its labor; they do not belong to society to meet some vague notion of a "greater good". Society might be enrichened if Jimmy Buffet performed concerts with no admission charge, but the decision to do that is his. It might benefit the "greater good" if Oracle gave away their database, but it is their choice to do so. Frank Lloyd Wright built homes that many consider to be great works of art, but he definately did not do so for free.
The creator of the work, or the entity that funded its creation and gained control over it, has the right to decide how others may use it. The controller may decide that all are free to appreciate it for no charge, or may set a price which individuals are free to choose to pay or not use the item. But society at large is not free to declare that it wants access to a given item for free and therefore take control (or possession) of the item from its owner or creator (emminent domain notwithstanding).
If you choose to create paintings and give them away, write GPL code, or provide free medical assistance to others, more power to you; I think it's great. But don't try to insist that all others also do so, or insist that one answer fits all circumstances.
It is horribly annoying, isn't it? I do not believe I've completely read a single article of his, because of that. Yes, I could ignore it, but my time is valuable enough that I will go elesewhere.
I suspect that without that inanity, he could probalby write fairly well.
In the title, effects is used as a verb, which is incorrect.
C'mon, editors; it's basic English. Many on this site like to bag on Microsoft for poor coding; that is little different from misue of the English language, although it can have more severe effects.
and understand the criminal's need to victimize others. Sheesh, no wonder you posted AC. Dealing with conditions that lead to crime is a good thing, but it is not terribly relevant at the instant you are faced with an attack. Studies have repeatedly shown that people that resist are less likely to be injured than those that meekly submit. If you want cites, do your own homework; it's trivial nowadays. Search for Kleck, an anti-firearm ownership researcher that changed his views after gathering and analyzing the evidence.
I support the Salvation Army, other homeless shelters and food pantries, but that doesn't mean I'll choose to roll over the next time someone tries to break into my house.
My wife was burglarized while I was on an unaccompanied tour in Korea. A month later she heard someone trying to pry a window open about 2 AM. She chambered a round in her handgun and said she'd shoot if he(presumably) came through the window. She heard someone drop to the ground and run, and never had another problem. I too have used a firearm to defend myself. I didn't have to fire, but it helped convince two punks to leave me be.
You may choose to be victimized if you wish. Don't project your sheephood onto others, however.
Those are the only two movies I've ever walked out on. For most of the movies that have been listed here, I could at least sit through it and laugh at the director. My two choices lacked even that draw. In fact, I left Chariots of Fire during a rainstorm, prefering a long walk back to my car in the rain to waiting out the rain watching the movie.
Sigh...
Yet another slashbot clueless about the topic, yet willing to state as "fact" silly misperceptions...
The fact is, sometimes workers DO vote not to be represented by a union. And, hard as you may find it to believe, sometimes they vote to decertify the existing union.
Unions are not automatic. If the employees of a company are not represented, and wish to be, the union will conduct an organizing campaign. They attempt to get more than half (IIRC) of the employees to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them. If the union gains that many signatures, and the count survives challenge by the employer, the union becomes the designated representative of the employees without it being put to a vote.
And, as happened here about 8 years ago, if the employees get fed up with the union officers living well off of the unoin dues while being perceived as not doing enough for the members, they can vote the union out (in effect, fire the union).
It does not happen often, but it DOES happen.
No, it's not. The "Open Source movement", such as it is, is about developing software that meets your need and making it available to others so that they may also benefit from it and possibly extend/improve it.
I see your claim repeated often, and it annoys me each time; it looks/sounds/feels like a religious crusade. If a business demands a given piece of software, they can fund its development. They can hire or divert their programmers to develop the project, or they can pay others to develop it. Seriously. Open Source software allows people/organizations to benefit from the charity of others; that does not mean that they have any "right" to demand any piece of software. They may ask, but they can also chip in and contribute themselves. And if they refuse to switch to Open Source software because an application that they want is not available, so what?
Businesses do not have to run Open Source software. If they are satisfied with their current solutions, more power to them.
That being said, you do have a point about the lack of polish in many Open Source applications. More attention to usability and missing features would probably entice more users to switch to it, but that is more of a concern for companies that want to make money from it than for developers that are donating their time to write the apps.
Sheesh... yet another twit heard from. Go read the decisions yourself, without a hoplophobic filter. The main decision cited is Miller, where the SCOTUS held that shotguns with sawed-off barrels (less than 13" in this case, IIRC) could be banned as they were not suitable for use by militia. This decision would tend to support the argument that people should be allowed to own cannons and hand grenades, so be careful in using it to support your agenda.
Since you fouled the last one off so badly, want to try again? How can you claim that the word people, when used in the Second Amendment, means something totally different from its meaning in every other amendment? You cannot, logically. And before you trot out that old cannard about militia, note that the phrase containing militia is a subordinate clause; that means it is used to support the sentence. To be logically consistent, which is more than I expect, you would have to argue that the idea of free speech only applies to organized news agencies and that individuals have no right to express their opinions.
There was an interesting exercise done a few years back, where the word book was substituted for the word gun, and educated for armed. When you apply the arguments used against the second amendment to the revised one, you see how ludicrous they are and that the arguments are not about the meaning of the amendment but instead are about banning guns.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is nothing but an underhanded attempt by Symantec to push a political agenda. The fact that it is done silently, and that CIPA mandates use of software like this, only makes it more offensive.
Well regulated meaning well trained and proficient, of course. Thanks for playing, now go and read the writings of the people that WROTE the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Of course, having an opinion with no knowledge hasn't stopped anyone else...
I would post anonymously too, if I could not perform basic math.
$950/month post-tax equates to approximately $1667 pre-tax (@ 43% total tax). Since we have 12 months per year, that works out to $20,000 per year.
As the original poster wrote.
And most vendors around here charge a 15% restocking fee for notebooks, so you can see how far you would get.
As has been suggested before, if you do not want a given item (Windows or whatever), then either look for a system that does not include it, build your own, or have someone build one to your specs. This will enable you to get exactly what you want and no more at a price you are willing to pay, and it will also provide an incentive for the manufacturers to provide systems that meet your desire so that they can get your business.
I consider the refund day concept to be little more than a minor publicity prank and of little practical value. What might make it beneficial would be for a group of users to purchase a product, refuse to accept the EULA, and then demand refunds per the instructions included in the EULA (supposedly this has happened with the people that would be participating in the refund day). Microsoft would probably point the users to the vendor, and the vendors would probably stand on their return policies. An ambitious and capable law firm might be able to make a case out of this, but the outcome would probably be along the lines of prohibiting vendors from charging restocking fees on items where the customer refuses to accept the EULA unless it was presented prior to purchase. The law firm wouyld also rack up fees to be paid by someone, probably the vendors. This would not amount to a significant change.
If you REALLY want to make a change in the marketplace, don't give your money to companies that you do not agree with or whose policies you dislike. If enough people do this it will force changes in the market. And if not enough people do this to make a difference, then you need to accept that you hold a minority viewpoint and are a niche customer.
IANAL, and you should pay for legal advice rather than believe anything you read here.
Attorneys can withdraw from representing a client, but not as informally as just telling the client to hit the bricks. Once they have agreed to represent, they are obligated to represent until a judge has granted their motion to withdraw as attorney, IIRC.
Of course, I have seen instances where it appeared that the attorney just chose to do such a lame job that the client left of his/her own volition.
IANAL, but I may go to law school next year. Midlife career change and all.
It does not appear to meet the elements specified for the crime of larceny...
Article 121
It would, however, be covered by Article 134, the general article; I used to joke that it read "Anything not expressly prohibited elsewhere is hereby prohibited."
Article 134
And another...
BSD: Baoshan, China
But now the trolls will post that Baoshan, China, is dying...
Shashdot seems to be about technology, and like it or not, military uses have driven much of the technology that we all take for granted. The early computers were first used to calculate firing tables for artillery and naval guns.
Like others, I think the reason this article made it to Slahdot was the cool factor of engineers that could build a reliable product without all of the latest tools. It was good work, of the sort not often seen today.
I had two problems with them, and their responses in both cases were inadequate.
I directed them to close my account after someone had tried to change the password, since I was not using it anyway. We had a protracted exchange before they finally agreed to close it. About six months later I received a message from someone wanting to know when he would receive the baseball cards that he had purchased from me. I checked it out and my old account was active, with several card auctions going. I complained to E-Bay and copied the victim in. I never did get a response from E-Bay.
Coincidently, about a week before this there was a fraud attempt on the credit card that E-Bay knew about...