And of course, there is the environmental impact of 100,000,000 TVs all hitting the landfill at the same time as people realize that it isn't cost effective to buy a box for their 5-10 year-old TV.
People who can afford new TVs are probably not the target market for most of these boxes.
while still taking a big step towards getting rid of support for those old formats entirely, which is not all that unreasonable I suppose for formats greater than 10 years old.
So is speeding, the point being that having the "crime" bit set does not automatically put something into a different category of dismissal reasons.
But even if it did, change the example slightly: instead of punching your customer, he spends the evening making fun of them and calling them names. When the client complains to you, do you:
Fire the intern immediately and apologize profusely, or
Say "it happened outside work, so it's not my problem".
99.9% of business will pick the first, barring exceptional circumstances.
But it's certainly not unknown for corporations to have rules that enforce on the employees the morals that their bosses want them to have.
Oh, I'm absolutely certain that happens. I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. Still, especially in professional settings, it's more expected (and accepted) that the people in your office will have a wide range of opinions and engage in diverse activities. I think the odds of getting fired because you're smoking meth on YouTube are much higher than being dismissed because you go to a different church than the boss. (Yes, morality != religion - that was just an example.)
A company will lose more customers by being seen as intrusive (and it will be quite a few) than those it would lose by not being intrusive (which is very likely to be zero).
I don't think you're correct. There seem to be a lot more people in this world willing to say "serves 'em right!" than are willing to say "to each their own".
And thats the fundamental problem of political rights. If they don't protect people who exercise them economically too, they are just laws that state 'you can do this or that - if you can afford it'.
If I were an employer (I'm not), then what about my economic right not to have to employee someone who does things that cost me customers? Suppose your intern gets drunk at a bar and beats up your best customer. Is it OK with you that it was after hours? Of course not; you'd fire him immediately. If I own a small business with 4 employees, I think I have the freedom to get rid of the ones who are costing me.
My question is, what kind of business would truly suffer from the off-the-clock activities of its employees?
Almost all of them. People might not like the idea of their accountant dropping acid, whether or not it has any impact on the job he performs for them. A biker might not like finding out that his tattoo artist just got back from a gay wedding. An ad agency in San Francisco might have trouble if their VP is hosting Republican fundraisers.
Any time someone departs from their expected role in life, some customer is probably going to be offended. That's not right, but you can't dictate the terms in which your customers come to you. Employers can take the moral high ground and say "it doesn't matter and if you don't like it, go somewhere else". This is admirable and the right thing to do. It will also cost them money.
Would people boycott or something the products of a software developer because Bob from Accounting has admitted to smoking pot at his home?
Things get really complicated when you factor in public investment and responsibilities to shareholders. Do you take a hit because you're standing behind Bob from Accounting and possibly risk an investor lawsuit (potentially making things very difficult for other employees), or do you tell Bob to look elsewhere?
Again, I'm not saying that it's right, but I can certainly understand the logic behind companies making the latter decision. They're not saying "act the way we want you to". They're saying "don't act in a way that will make our customers leave us".
MS Vista was the only OS showing significant growth in 2007. Linux has gained absolutely no traction in the w3Schools stats in the better part of five years.
...and Windows 98 showed 11% growth last month (from 0.9% to 1.0%). You know what they say about statistics.
We'd all be decrying the downfall of Microsoft. Does anyone realize how much 14% is?
It means that about a seventh of PC users have upgraded to it. For that to be non-sucky, it'd mean that the average user only upgrades every seven years. Since that's way longer than the actual average, it means that Vista is being adopted more slowly than computers are being replaced. In what was is that a win?
Is there anyone out there that imagines there is such a thing as a "license to read"? That when you buy a book what you're actually buying a "license to read"?
Not yet, but some day. RMS isn't just a programmer.
If the RIAA is not sleeping nights its because they're looking for another way to rip off their 20 or so clients (and fuck the listening public.
Again, it's not that I'd expect their consciousness to bother them - they're not human and don't have them - but their fear that one of their victims will come back for revenge. Even if you live in a fortress, sooner or later you're going to want to go to dinner, or take a vacation, or take your kid to a movie. How much pay is it worth to never be able to feel safe again?
They see the highly-inaccurate but appealling projections made by their staff as to how much more money they could be making, and with nothing left to cling to, they sleep at night with the hope of a new day and a new fortune.
The thing is, I don't wonder how they can sleep without feeling guilty. That's easy when you're a soulless shell of protein. I just don't know how they can close their eyes at night, wondering if this will be the evening when an armed visitor comes calling.
What always surprises me a little is that none of the people they're suing have opened fire in the RIAA offices. While that would be horrible and I can't condone the taking of innocent lives (such as the Pepsi machine refill guy who happens to be there at that moment), I'm still kind of amazed that nobody's done it.
Seriously, though, how do those cretins sleep at night? Even if they don't care about the lives they've destroyed, surely they care about the idea that someone might want revenge. I could imagine someone who loses their house because they ripped a CD might feel like they don't have a lot more to lose.
There's Slackware, FreeBSD, PC-BSD, PCLinuxOS (gnome version too).
I'm quite aware that there are other Unices than Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo. What I was asking for was a recommendation; you know, along the lines of "I switched from Kubuntu to _____ and it was swell!"
Probably time to throw FreeBSD 7-BETA on there. It's good enough for production these days and I haven't run it as a desktop in year or so and am kind of missing it.
I use Kubuntu and was looking forward to the new version. What does this mean for me? Will I be stuck on the current version while the Ubuntu folks roll out a nice LTS version with nice features I won't be getting, or will there be an "unstable" version I can track?
Failing all that, what's a nice distro for KDE power users and developers? I've been using Debian for ages and I'm comfortable with Gentoo (although I'd prefer something else). Any suggestions?
I'm not sure what I said to get modded down. I was just asking if the implication was true and wasn't passing judgement on it.
It was meant in the same way that a few years ago I might have asked if people were really using botulism toxin for cosmetic treatments. It makes sense in its way and apparently the powers the be have studied the heck out of it, but it's still a little weird when you sit back and think of it.
So, does that imply that our pilots, right now, today, are flying around on meth? I realize that there's a world of difference between a monitored person in excellent health taking a medication under close medical supervision, and some junkie shooting up in an alley, but that's still a weird thought.
They claim the deprecated features will be used only for the migration of old binary formats, and that they should not be used by new documents...
Someone help me out here, for real. I think I'm missing something. What is the point of those ridiculous "backward compatibility" tags? Word's never been good enough for pixel-perfect rendering. For example, printing the same document on different printers hasn't ever been likely to give the same output. So, what on earth is the justification for maintaining a "renderLikeWord95" tag when that was never well-defined to begin with?
If the <foo> attribute originally meant "centered, bold, double-spaced", then just make the importer translate it to something like "<textblock align="center" weight="bold" height="200%"> text goes here </textblock>". Forget bug compatibility. That's a dying horse and needs killed now before we end up with something like the loose HTML parsing nightmare that browser designed are stuck with. Who cares how the document originally displayed on the original machine? MS never did before today.
Don't hide those tags - delete them. There is no rational explanation other than lock-in for having them, and as long as they're around, the IT world will know this is a joke.
I haven't used Netscape in quite a few years, but I hate seeing it die like that. It used to be a proud trademark - it stood for something - and ended up as yet another AOL castoff. I wish they'd transfer the name to the Mozilla Foundation. While I'm sure they wouldn't use it, at least it would be next to its child where it belongs.
There are horror stories for every registrar, but GoDaddy is in my opinion one of the best of the cheap ones.
I've used Domain Monger for years because of their domain ownership vs. domain rental policy. A while back, a lot of registrar contracts gave ownership of registered domains to the registrar themselves and then you just rented from them. I don't know whether that's still common or not, but anyway...
One time I screwed up on the billing form and accidentally renewed one domain for 5 years instead of 5 domains for 1 year. When I called Domain Monger, I got a real living human on the phone who fixed the problem before the call was over. That's the only time I've ever had to use their customer service, but it sure was a pleasant change from Network Solutions (corporate motto: "we're the Internet company; we don't have to care!").
So that's 176160768/300 = 587203 seconds for an equivalent copy.
You are such a troll. Assuming 8 bits per byte, that's 176160768*8/300=4697620s=54.4 days. That means a C64 is only 879 faster than Vista, which is nowhere near the absurd number you claimed.
Slashdot Mirror
Best. Euphemism. Ever.
In other news, a woman sues McDonald's for the loss of low temperature to her legs.
People who can afford new TVs are probably not the target market for most of these boxes.
In other news, Photoshop still supports 16 year old formats.
So you can run GPGPU.
So is speeding, the point being that having the "crime" bit set does not automatically put something into a different category of dismissal reasons.
But even if it did, change the example slightly: instead of punching your customer, he spends the evening making fun of them and calling them names. When the client complains to you, do you:
99.9% of business will pick the first, barring exceptional circumstances.
Oh, I'm absolutely certain that happens. I wouldn't dream of saying otherwise. Still, especially in professional settings, it's more expected (and accepted) that the people in your office will have a wide range of opinions and engage in diverse activities. I think the odds of getting fired because you're smoking meth on YouTube are much higher than being dismissed because you go to a different church than the boss. (Yes, morality != religion - that was just an example.)
I don't think you're correct. There seem to be a lot more people in this world willing to say "serves 'em right!" than are willing to say "to each their own".
If I were an employer (I'm not), then what about my economic right not to have to employee someone who does things that cost me customers? Suppose your intern gets drunk at a bar and beats up your best customer. Is it OK with you that it was after hours? Of course not; you'd fire him immediately. If I own a small business with 4 employees, I think I have the freedom to get rid of the ones who are costing me.
Almost all of them. People might not like the idea of their accountant dropping acid, whether or not it has any impact on the job he performs for them. A biker might not like finding out that his tattoo artist just got back from a gay wedding. An ad agency in San Francisco might have trouble if their VP is hosting Republican fundraisers.
Any time someone departs from their expected role in life, some customer is probably going to be offended. That's not right, but you can't dictate the terms in which your customers come to you. Employers can take the moral high ground and say "it doesn't matter and if you don't like it, go somewhere else". This is admirable and the right thing to do. It will also cost them money.
Would people boycott or something the products of a software developer because Bob from Accounting has admitted to smoking pot at his home?Things get really complicated when you factor in public investment and responsibilities to shareholders. Do you take a hit because you're standing behind Bob from Accounting and possibly risk an investor lawsuit (potentially making things very difficult for other employees), or do you tell Bob to look elsewhere?
Again, I'm not saying that it's right, but I can certainly understand the logic behind companies making the latter decision. They're not saying "act the way we want you to". They're saying "don't act in a way that will make our customers leave us".
...and Windows 98 showed 11% growth last month (from 0.9% to 1.0%). You know what they say about statistics.
It means that about a seventh of PC users have upgraded to it. For that to be non-sucky, it'd mean that the average user only upgrades every seven years. Since that's way longer than the actual average, it means that Vista is being adopted more slowly than computers are being replaced. In what was is that a win?
Not yet, but some day. RMS isn't just a programmer.
Again, it's not that I'd expect their consciousness to bother them - they're not human and don't have them - but their fear that one of their victims will come back for revenge. Even if you live in a fortress, sooner or later you're going to want to go to dinner, or take a vacation, or take your kid to a movie. How much pay is it worth to never be able to feel safe again?
The thing is, I don't wonder how they can sleep without feeling guilty. That's easy when you're a soulless shell of protein. I just don't know how they can close their eyes at night, wondering if this will be the evening when an armed visitor comes calling.
What always surprises me a little is that none of the people they're suing have opened fire in the RIAA offices. While that would be horrible and I can't condone the taking of innocent lives (such as the Pepsi machine refill guy who happens to be there at that moment), I'm still kind of amazed that nobody's done it.
Seriously, though, how do those cretins sleep at night? Even if they don't care about the lives they've destroyed, surely they care about the idea that someone might want revenge. I could imagine someone who loses their house because they ripped a CD might feel like they don't have a lot more to lose.
I wonder if that kid got beaten up a lot. "My dad says your dad is evil!" "Oh yeah? My dad says your dad is a jackass. punch"
I'm quite aware that there are other Unices than Ubuntu, Debian, and Gentoo. What I was asking for was a recommendation; you know, along the lines of "I switched from Kubuntu to _____ and it was swell!"
Probably time to throw FreeBSD 7-BETA on there. It's good enough for production these days and I haven't run it as a desktop in year or so and am kind of missing it.
I use Kubuntu and was looking forward to the new version. What does this mean for me? Will I be stuck on the current version while the Ubuntu folks roll out a nice LTS version with nice features I won't be getting, or will there be an "unstable" version I can track?
Failing all that, what's a nice distro for KDE power users and developers? I've been using Debian for ages and I'm comfortable with Gentoo (although I'd prefer something else). Any suggestions?
I'm not sure what I said to get modded down. I was just asking if the implication was true and wasn't passing judgement on it.
It was meant in the same way that a few years ago I might have asked if people were really using botulism toxin for cosmetic treatments. It makes sense in its way and apparently the powers the be have studied the heck out of it, but it's still a little weird when you sit back and think of it.
So, does that imply that our pilots, right now, today, are flying around on meth? I realize that there's a world of difference between a monitored person in excellent health taking a medication under close medical supervision, and some junkie shooting up in an alley, but that's still a weird thought.
Someone help me out here, for real. I think I'm missing something. What is the point of those ridiculous "backward compatibility" tags? Word's never been good enough for pixel-perfect rendering. For example, printing the same document on different printers hasn't ever been likely to give the same output. So, what on earth is the justification for maintaining a "renderLikeWord95" tag when that was never well-defined to begin with?
If the <foo> attribute originally meant "centered, bold, double-spaced", then just make the importer translate it to something like "<textblock align="center" weight="bold" height="200%"> text goes here </textblock>". Forget bug compatibility. That's a dying horse and needs killed now before we end up with something like the loose HTML parsing nightmare that browser designed are stuck with. Who cares how the document originally displayed on the original machine? MS never did before today.
Don't hide those tags - delete them. There is no rational explanation other than lock-in for having them, and as long as they're around, the IT world will know this is a joke.
I haven't used Netscape in quite a few years, but I hate seeing it die like that. It used to be a proud trademark - it stood for something - and ended up as yet another AOL castoff. I wish they'd transfer the name to the Mozilla Foundation. While I'm sure they wouldn't use it, at least it would be next to its child where it belongs.
I've used Domain Monger for years because of their domain ownership vs. domain rental policy. A while back, a lot of registrar contracts gave ownership of registered domains to the registrar themselves and then you just rented from them. I don't know whether that's still common or not, but anyway...
One time I screwed up on the billing form and accidentally renewed one domain for 5 years instead of 5 domains for 1 year. When I called Domain Monger, I got a real living human on the phone who fixed the problem before the call was over. That's the only time I've ever had to use their customer service, but it sure was a pleasant change from Network Solutions (corporate motto: "we're the Internet company; we don't have to care!").
You are such a troll. Assuming 8 bits per byte, that's 176160768*8/300=4697620s=54.4 days. That means a C64 is only 879 faster than Vista, which is nowhere near the absurd number you claimed.
Sheesh. Talk about FUD.
I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic. Now I know you are. Thanks for the followup!