They're trying to protect the rest of the investors who DON'T have an equal opportunity to look at those bits of data.
Yep. All the investors who don't have an internet connection, or don't know how to access Facebook, or WHO DON'T FOLLOW NETFLIX CLOSELY ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE CEO HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE. Yeah, because those investors need to be protected from, uhm, you know, something or other.
...that 200,000 people had access to this Facebook page, so it feels more "public" than "private."
Yes, I see that we actually agree on this. I just wanted to pile on the mockery of the SEC's asinine position. Meanwhile, the hedge firms and their blogger sock puppets manipulate the shit out of volatile stocks, and firms use HFT to try engage in manipulation that would require 1,000x their capital in actual trades, and the SEC does absolutely nothing. Worthless sacks of shit...
If you've invented this on your own time, money, and resources there is no way in the shady side of hell that your employer should have any ownership of it.
What your job is counts very much. What if it was in the scope of your job, and you should have been working on it at work, but decided to cut your employer out?
So, you were close. But it depends both on it being something done on your time, and that your employer was not paying you to do at work.
If a company did that to you, do you think you'd just forgive them after 20 years?
No, I certainly would not forgive that.
...and I would take it out on any company even tangentially related to them.
No, I wouldn't be that irrational, looking to punish anyone who for whatever reason happened to invest in, be a customer of, or partner with them. That's ridiculous. (Yes, some people might, but really, most, even though still carrying animosity toward Seagate, would not 20 years later be tracking every single business partner and looking to hurt them all).
It's possible that he has stayed completely obsessed with Seagate this whole time, but I think it's more likely that he didn't even know that Samsung had invested in a 10% interest in Seagate and sold their HDD business to Seagate. Think about it: hurting Samsung does not do a damn thing to Seagate--in fact, the notion is backwards; hurting Seagate would hurt Samsung in a minor way.
The jury foreman did not have a previous tangle with Samsug. He had a previous tangle with Seagate. Seagate is not a subsidiary of Samsung. Samsung has invested in Seagate to the extent of a 10% share.
It seems a stretch to claim that the foreman's anger at Seagate from 20 years ago must necessarily extend to all current investors in Seagate.
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
- It's a shitty tablet: expensive, thick, heavy, short battery life, no mobile broadband.
- If you really need one in order to run your software, then you really need a laptop (or at least an ultrabook). In my opinion, it's not a shitty laptop, but neither is it a good one, especially for that price.
So, who needs this? Almost no one. In fact, maybe no one at all.
Reagan did not win the cold war, he negotiated a peaceful end to it...
Fair point. (Unlike the other bullshit responses squawking that he had nothing to do with it.) And he couldn't have done it without Thatcher, or John Paul, or probably Walesa.
In what world does putting nukes on the moon require first detonating them on the moon? It would seem like that might make things harder.
I think the summary was poorly worded. It's not the first step to getting them on the moon; it's the first to using them as a deterrent, after siting on the moon, because it would be proof positive to the Soviets that you had actually gotten working nukes onto the moon, as opposed to some kind non-functional decoy. (Ironically, decades later, Ronald Reagan used a non-functioning decoy (SDI) to wreck the Soviet economy and win the cold war...)
Perhaps but regardless there are a number of people I can think of that we should send anyway. You know on a trial and error kind of basis "well we believe there may be oxygen their Mr Boehner but would you mind going and finding out for us? Thanks!"
In my experience, one thing blocking the adoption of Linux in corporate environments are MS-Access applications. Not only legacy ones, that could be moved, but the fact that there is nowhere to move them to. There is simply nothing that remotely approaches Access in the Linux world, and it's a pity.
Granted, my experience with Access is limited. But I do not find its lack to be a detriment for any platform.
WTF? Just recently I've been reading estimates that Microsoft's share in the Server OS market has dropped from 70% to 30% over the past several years. Where did that all go if not to Linux?
Well, OK, sometimes shops move up from Windows to Solaris--yes it really does happen--and sometimes smallish mediumish ones might put in a Mac. But I don't see anyway it could possibly be less than 90% of Windows' loss in share that has gone to Linux. So, as a rough guess, Microsoft losing 40 points equates to Linux gaining somewhere between 36 and 39.9 points. Essentially, this question, this person, and this argument seem to be 5-10 years behind.
This message brought to you by a guy who develops for Mac and (mostly) does not use Linux, BTW;-)
If by "a decade or more" they mean 25 years, then yeah, OK. Don't forget the used car market; when the first owner of a car moves to a new car, the old one does not go straight to the scrap heap, and for modern cars 25 years is pretty common.
No, but they could have met Google's demands in the short-term easily enough until they had an alternative ready for release, rather than rushing out something prematurely
Perfectly legitimate point; their replacement was released prematurely, and they apparently could have continued shipping the current one for another year.
When you're already losing market share hand over fist, why give people another reason to switch to Android?
Bullshit. Apple is not "losing market share hand over fist".
Slashdot Mirror
Truth is most certainly an absolute defence against libel in the UK.
Actually, it is not.
They're trying to protect the rest of the investors who DON'T have an equal opportunity to look at those bits of data.
Yep. All the investors who don't have an internet connection, or don't know how to access Facebook, or WHO DON'T FOLLOW NETFLIX CLOSELY ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE CEO HAS A FACEBOOK PAGE. Yeah, because those investors need to be protected from, uhm, you know, something or other.
...that 200,000 people had access to this Facebook page, so it feels more "public" than "private."
Yes, I see that we actually agree on this. I just wanted to pile on the mockery of the SEC's asinine position. Meanwhile, the hedge firms and their blogger sock puppets manipulate the shit out of volatile stocks, and firms use HFT to try engage in manipulation that would require 1,000x their capital in actual trades, and the SEC does absolutely nothing. Worthless sacks of shit...
The word "US" is nowhere in sight.. Asia and Europe.. Why am I not surprised?
Because we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Most people are probably awaiting the Surface Pro,
BWAHAHAHAHA what a laugh!
if they are thinking of buying a surface at all
Oh. OK, I'll agree with that ;-)
Why would you want live-in hookers? Isn't the whole point of hookers that they go away afterwards? ;-)
You're right. So I want $100 million, that way I can buy an estate big enough that afterwards they go away to their own guest houses ;-)
I want a million bucks and live-in hookers. Does this mean congress should provide them for me?
Is when that's not chocolate in your pocket after all ;-)
Nope. It's still yours in the U.S
No, it's not. Copyright automatically goes to your employer for anything you develop "on the clock".
Or were you talking about patents? The GP was talking about work made for hire, which is a term that only applies to copyright.
If you've invented this on your own time, money, and resources there is no way in the shady side of hell that your employer should have any ownership of it.
What your job is counts very much. What if it was in the scope of your job, and you should have been working on it at work, but decided to cut your employer out?
So, you were close. But it depends both on it being something done on your time, and that your employer was not paying you to do at work.
If a company did that to you, do you think you'd just forgive them after 20 years?
No, I certainly would not forgive that.
...and I would take it out on any company even tangentially related to them.
No, I wouldn't be that irrational, looking to punish anyone who for whatever reason happened to invest in, be a customer of, or partner with them. That's ridiculous. (Yes, some people might, but really, most, even though still carrying animosity toward Seagate, would not 20 years later be tracking every single business partner and looking to hurt them all).
It's possible that he has stayed completely obsessed with Seagate this whole time, but I think it's more likely that he didn't even know that Samsung had invested in a 10% interest in Seagate and sold their HDD business to Seagate. Think about it: hurting Samsung does not do a damn thing to Seagate--in fact, the notion is backwards; hurting Seagate would hurt Samsung in a minor way.
There's a big difference between having bought a product from one of the parties to a lawsuit and being a former employee who sued one of them.
True, but he's not a former employee of Samsung ;-)
The jury foreman did not have a previous tangle with Samsug. He had a previous tangle with Seagate. Seagate is not a subsidiary of Samsung. Samsung has invested in Seagate to the extent of a 10% share.
It seems a stretch to claim that the foreman's anger at Seagate from 20 years ago must necessarily extend to all current investors in Seagate.
If you need both devices...
Yeah, right ;-)
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
But it is NOT part of science education, as little as turning water into wine by magic is in a brewers course.
Of course not you idiot, that would be a vintner's course. It's an established scientific fact that Jesus never turned water into beer ;-)
- It's a shitty tablet: expensive, thick, heavy, short battery life, no mobile broadband.
- If you really need one in order to run your software, then you really need a laptop (or at least an ultrabook). In my opinion, it's not a shitty laptop, but neither is it a good one, especially for that price.
So, who needs this? Almost no one. In fact, maybe no one at all.
Reagan did not win the cold war, he negotiated a peaceful end to it...
Fair point. (Unlike the other bullshit responses squawking that he had nothing to do with it.) And he couldn't have done it without Thatcher, or John Paul, or probably Walesa.
In what world does putting nukes on the moon require first detonating them on the moon? It would seem like that might make things harder.
I think the summary was poorly worded. It's not the first step to getting them on the moon; it's the first to using them as a deterrent, after siting on the moon, because it would be proof positive to the Soviets that you had actually gotten working nukes onto the moon, as opposed to some kind non-functional decoy. (Ironically, decades later, Ronald Reagan used a non-functioning decoy (SDI) to wreck the Soviet economy and win the cold war...)
Here, let me fix that for you:
Perhaps but regardless there are a number of people I can think of that we should send anyway. You know on a trial and error kind of basis "well we believe there may be oxygen their Mr Boehner but would you mind going and finding out for us? Thanks!"
In my experience, one thing blocking the adoption of Linux in corporate environments are MS-Access applications. Not only legacy ones, that could be moved, but the fact that there is nowhere to move them to. There is simply nothing that remotely approaches Access in the Linux world, and it's a pity.
Granted, my experience with Access is limited. But I do not find its lack to be a detriment for any platform.
WTF? Just recently I've been reading estimates that Microsoft's share in the Server OS market has dropped from 70% to 30% over the past several years. Where did that all go if not to Linux?
Well, OK, sometimes shops move up from Windows to Solaris--yes it really does happen--and sometimes smallish mediumish ones might put in a Mac. But I don't see anyway it could possibly be less than 90% of Windows' loss in share that has gone to Linux. So, as a rough guess, Microsoft losing 40 points equates to Linux gaining somewhere between 36 and 39.9 points. Essentially, this question, this person, and this argument seem to be 5-10 years behind.
This message brought to you by a guy who develops for Mac and (mostly) does not use Linux, BTW ;-)
If by "a decade or more" they mean 25 years, then yeah, OK. Don't forget the used car market; when the first owner of a car moves to a new car, the old one does not go straight to the scrap heap, and for modern cars 25 years is pretty common.
I'm attracted to the robust correctness requirements of PostgreSQL, but there don't seem to be many prospective employers using it.
Look harder; they're plenty of them out there.
Haven't heard anything about google demanding more data.
Then you weren't paying attention, because that's been reported all over the place.
And, why would apple be so concerned about not sharing their user data? They suddenly started taking an interest in user's privacy?
They've always had much stronger protection for user privacy than google. Like their walled garden or hate it, but don't deny the facts.
No, but they could have met Google's demands in the short-term easily enough until they had an alternative ready for release, rather than rushing out something prematurely
Perfectly legitimate point; their replacement was released prematurely, and they apparently could have continued shipping the current one for another year.
When you're already losing market share hand over fist, why give people another reason to switch to Android?
Bullshit. Apple is not "losing market share hand over fist".