I think it's safe to assume the comment refers to 14pt Times New Roman being more pages that 12 pt in the same font. Your post is very informative, but a tad beligerent, and I think it worth noting that 14pt is a slightly excessive font size when most people can read 12pt TNR quite comfortably.
I see your point, but on the other hand, I was driving to work this morning and the BBC said the dollar is down against "the Yen, the pound and the unified European currency, the Euro." Perhaps there are people who don't know what the Euro is, but they don't know what the BBC is, either.
My point is journalism often panders to stupidity, likely due to its remarkable prevalence.
That is correct. "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (taken from the Library of Congress website). The whole "Copyright 2003 Michael Gibson" thing is referred to as a "notice of copyright" and is now optional (see another page on the LOC website). Take note of the terminology... it's not called "deed of copyright," "contract of copyright," it's called notice of copyright, as in "This is already the state of things, but I am putting this notice here to appraise you of that fact."
This statement is SOP for any publicly traded company. You see, a company makes a statement, an investor acts based upon that statement, and if the stock ends up going south because the statement proves false somehow (a merger doesn't go through, product delay, whatever) the investor might think he can sue the company. Therefore, all publicly traded companies have some sort of "forward looking statement" disclaimer that says "hey... we're just guessing, here." It's a very complex way of abdicating responsibility.
My wife is an investment banker, and she sent me an email telling me to pick up milk on the way home from work, and the server automatically appended that disclaimer onto the bottom of the message. Trust me, my milk purchasing habits are not pending SEC approval.
My guess is that our "outrage" is derived from what we perceive to be a transgression against a historically established standard of justice (specifically, the justice of civil detention). I think it's safe to say Russians were never given the opportunity to develop the same standard we have.
If we remove the "limited liability" of a corporation, don't we have just a big partnership? A bunch of people investing in something together? I mean, you make a very good point, and it is well thought-out, but subtracting limited liability from a corporation leaves you with what, exactly? In the UK they call them a Limited Partnership, abbreviated Ltd. -- so that's, like, half the concept.
I feel compelled to point out the wisdom of your first bullet point... most of us, as high-technology professionals, are in a state of relative fiscal solvency (broadly speaking). Talking with the night staff offers the opportunity to interact with those who have a different perspective on life, and who I find to have perhaps better perspective on life. With all that many of us have, we often get preocuppied with things a few conversations with those less fortunate would prove to be truly trifling.
No, it certainly isn't an Enterprise Calibre solution... I'd say it's hardly a legally-sane calibre solution. But this is a technical decission made with no technical rationale whatsoever. This was made as a business decission. While that is obviously not the way to look at things, it is the way they did look at things... and looking at them that way, their choice makies emminent sense. Using your own product in-house is a good (if not the only) idea on SO many levels, from morale to culture to image to press to marketing to compatability... while they asked the wrong question, they answered it right.
While I certainly believe that AOL is evil, I fell that, to a degree, the complaints regarding its implementation are somewhat hair-splitting. I find, for instance, Sun's prohibition of M$ Office a much more damaging business decission.
Using AOL for AOL-TW's corporate email is obviously not the best technical decission. It is not, however, a hellaciously bad technical decission. And it's a very good business decission.
Consider the possible implications this may have for customer service. As it stands now, we purchase a software license for a fixed price, say, $500. M$ has now made their money. Until you upgrade, all you do is cut into that price. Every download, every update, every call to support... costing them money.
While it's not a guarantee, this model has the possibility of changing that. If we're renting the license, we are therefore providing a constant revenue stream. Now, customer support isn't cutting into a fixed purchase price, but essentially pre-sales on the next license.
It's like when I go to a restaurant. I may pay the bill 15 minutes before I leave, but I never leave the tip until I've stood up. Otherwise, what incentive do they have to continue taking care of me?
Regarding productivity increasing with shorter work-weeks... I've also read that many comparisons of how many hours from arriving at work to departing work don't take into account the question of how much of that time is actual work. That is, I'm at work right now, and posting to/. is not a part of my job description, unfortunately enough.
A friend of mine visitted Germany, and said that while they only work 45/50 hours a week at rough companies, they barely have a non-work related thought, much less a non-work related action. a more interesting comparisson would not be how many hours we're at work, but how many hours we're actually working.
You make an intelligent point. The article seems to be taking the perspective of the consumer, who they are presuming to be somewhat dull and therefore ignorant to the origin of but simply noticing the result of the feature-leaveout, or the glitch, or the bug... whatever. They're ignoring, however, the bigger corporate-level picture that bugs occur due to indirect management decission (the decission to rush) whereas feature leaveout is due to direct management decission (the decission to omit certain items).
You offer the Justice Department too much credit by enumerating the things they DID do that make them colosally moronic re: the Microsoft anti-trust case.
You could just as simply have proved the same point by listing the one thing they didn't do... they didn't convict. A stupid three year-old would not be intellectually challenged by the task of proving that Microsoft engages in predatory and exclusionary business practices that harm competition and discourage business innovation.
And regarding Ashcroft? Bill Gates is more likely to bundle Windows with GIMP over Paint than pro-business conservative-lapdog Ashcroft is to prosecute M$.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to assume the comment refers to 14pt Times New Roman being more pages that 12 pt in the same font. Your post is very informative, but a tad beligerent, and I think it worth noting that 14pt is a slightly excessive font size when most people can read 12pt TNR quite comfortably.
I see your point, but on the other hand, I was driving to work this morning and the BBC said the dollar is down against "the Yen, the pound and the unified European currency, the Euro." Perhaps there are people who don't know what the Euro is, but they don't know what the BBC is, either.
My point is journalism often panders to stupidity, likely due to its remarkable prevalence.
That is correct. "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (taken from the Library of Congress website). The whole "Copyright 2003 Michael Gibson" thing is referred to as a "notice of copyright" and is now optional (see another page on the LOC website). Take note of the terminology... it's not called "deed of copyright," "contract of copyright," it's called notice of copyright, as in "This is already the state of things, but I am putting this notice here to appraise you of that fact."
This statement is SOP for any publicly traded company. You see, a company makes a statement, an investor acts based upon that statement, and if the stock ends up going south because the statement proves false somehow (a merger doesn't go through, product delay, whatever) the investor might think he can sue the company. Therefore, all publicly traded companies have some sort of "forward looking statement" disclaimer that says "hey... we're just guessing, here." It's a very complex way of abdicating responsibility.
My wife is an investment banker, and she sent me an email telling me to pick up milk on the way home from work, and the server automatically appended that disclaimer onto the bottom of the message. Trust me, my milk purchasing habits are not pending SEC approval.
My guess is that our "outrage" is derived from what we perceive to be a transgression against a historically established standard of justice (specifically, the justice of civil detention). I think it's safe to say Russians were never given the opportunity to develop the same standard we have.
michael
What, then, would a corporation be for?
If we remove the "limited liability" of a corporation, don't we have just a big partnership? A bunch of people investing in something together? I mean, you make a very good point, and it is well thought-out, but subtracting limited liability from a corporation leaves you with what, exactly? In the UK they call them a Limited Partnership, abbreviated Ltd. -- so that's, like, half the concept.
michael
I feel compelled to point out the wisdom of your first bullet point... most of us, as high-technology professionals, are in a state of relative fiscal solvency (broadly speaking). Talking with the night staff offers the opportunity to interact with those who have a different perspective on life, and who I find to have perhaps better perspective on life. With all that many of us have, we often get preocuppied with things a few conversations with those less fortunate would prove to be truly trifling.
michael
No, it certainly isn't an Enterprise Calibre solution... I'd say it's hardly a legally-sane calibre solution. But this is a technical decission made with no technical rationale whatsoever. This was made as a business decission. While that is obviously not the way to look at things, it is the way they did look at things... and looking at them that way, their choice makies emminent sense. Using your own product in-house is a good (if not the only) idea on SO many levels, from morale to culture to image to press to marketing to compatability... while they asked the wrong question, they answered it right.
While I certainly believe that AOL is evil, I fell that, to a degree, the complaints regarding its implementation are somewhat hair-splitting. I find, for instance, Sun's prohibition of M$ Office a much more damaging business decission.
Using AOL for AOL-TW's corporate email is obviously not the best technical decission. It is not, however, a hellaciously bad technical decission. And it's a very good business decission.
michael
Consider the possible implications this may have for customer service. As it stands now, we purchase a software license for a fixed price, say, $500. M$ has now made their money. Until you upgrade, all you do is cut into that price. Every download, every update, every call to support... costing them money.
While it's not a guarantee, this model has the possibility of changing that. If we're renting the license, we are therefore providing a constant revenue stream. Now, customer support isn't cutting into a fixed purchase price, but essentially pre-sales on the next license.
It's like when I go to a restaurant. I may pay the bill 15 minutes before I leave, but I never leave the tip until I've stood up. Otherwise, what incentive do they have to continue taking care of me?
Regarding productivity increasing with shorter work-weeks... I've also read that many comparisons of how many hours from arriving at work to departing work don't take into account the question of how much of that time is actual work. That is, I'm at work right now, and posting to /. is not a part of my job description, unfortunately enough.
A friend of mine visitted Germany, and said that while they only work 45/50 hours a week at rough companies, they barely have a non-work related thought, much less a non-work related action. a more interesting comparisson would not be how many hours we're at work, but how many hours we're actually working.
You make an intelligent point. The article seems to be taking the perspective of the consumer, who they are presuming to be somewhat dull and therefore ignorant to the origin of but simply noticing the result of the feature-leaveout, or the glitch, or the bug... whatever. They're ignoring, however, the bigger corporate-level picture that bugs occur due to indirect management decission (the decission to rush) whereas feature leaveout is due to direct management decission (the decission to omit certain items).
You offer the Justice Department too much credit by enumerating the things they DID do that make them colosally moronic re: the Microsoft anti-trust case.
You could just as simply have proved the same point by listing the one thing they didn't do... they didn't convict. A stupid three year-old would not be intellectually challenged by the task of proving that Microsoft engages in predatory and exclusionary business practices that harm competition and discourage business innovation.
And regarding Ashcroft? Bill Gates is more likely to bundle Windows with GIMP over Paint than pro-business conservative-lapdog Ashcroft is to prosecute M$.