I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Why shouldn't they? People building that close to disaster are a giant liability payout waiting to happen. This is pretty much a textbook case of "preexisting condition". If someone chooses their home's location so poorly, why should I have to subsidize their stupidity with higher premiums on my non-poorly-located property? If those builders want to take the risk, let them pay for it.
In response to this attack, the team that develops Simurgh has instituted a check that will warn the user if they are running a compromised version of the software
Ummm, and an attacker would be unable to modify the verifyIntegrity() function to return "I'm perfectly OK!"?
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV.
That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.
It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.
I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.
By the way, for those who haven't looked at it recently, MonoDevelop has come a -long- way. It's feature-comparable to Visual Studio, nowadays.
Please tell me it's not screenshot compatible, because that's the ugliest freaking mess of a horrid GUI editor that I've encountered. Otherwise, no wonder I've seen so many Windows devs with multiple huge monitors: they'd need them to be able to see a useful amount of code at one time. Seriously, those screenshots dedicate, what, 20% of the window to actual content?
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam.
How would that be? Dams don't make the water go away. Over time, the amount of water going into the reservoir equals the amount leaving, or else the water levels would either drop or overflow the dam. The only significant change I'd see is that dams increase the surface area of the water and would therefore raise evaporation, so some of the water that would normally go downstream would turn into atmospheric moisture instead. For global warming purposes, that's probably not a good thing. But would it actually have a non-negligible effect on ocean levels?
Wow, so the goal to be Green in the future is to introduce more bugs into hardware to save power. While I am sure there are limited uses of this kind of "math" in general I don't believe these chips will have widespread adoption because mathematical accuracy, at least for integer values, is kind of critical for most applications.
1) "LOL I'M WAY SMARTER THAN TEH CHIP DESIGNERS". 2) So don't use those instructions when you need IEEE 754 math. 3) But do use them in your video decoder when you can sacrifice accuracy in the 5th digital of a float for 1/15th (.06668) the power consumption.
That seems much more reasonable. But also consider that half of all users are above average. I'd be more interested to know what the standard deviation is (if it even follows a Gaussian, which seems at least possible).
That was from three years ago, which I believe to be before Netflix even offered streaming service. A lot has changed since that now-obsolete report came out.
The problem is it is not broken at all to the accountants.
Then I think those accountants are inappropriately insulated from the pain of their decisions. If decade-old software is good enough for other employees, then Office 2000 should be good enough for them.
IE6 is very, very broken. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for people who have to use it), it's also almost completely dead. The day is coming when it will be literally impossible to run an IE6-compatible system without buying expensive legacy-compatible hardware or hosting it inside an emulator.
Consider that IE6 on Windows XP was released in 2001. Two years from now, this will be as ancient as using IE5 (released in 1999) on Windows 98 would be today. Can you imagine how fun it'd be to have to support that combination in your IT department? Can you even buy new hardware that would boot Windows 98 outside of specialty orders? Would you really want to host VMWare, etc. on the desktop of every user who needed it? Well, we're within not-so-many months of that being the same situation for IE6 on XP. Yeah, I can see why someone might want to "upgrade what isn't broken", even if you miss the Good Old Days.
From the dozens of conversations I've had with Council IT teams around the country, it isn't a lack of will or of motivation or of education, but of a real (and partially justified) fear that if they upgrade to Win7, some essential legacy web based application that works flawlessly in IE6 and XP, will fall over when introduced to IE8. This has happened at various places around the country and has cost Councils a pile of money to fix the issue or to replace those legacy systems.
GOOD! Those same groups didn't want to listen when we told them that writing to a single browser with it's non-standard quirks and single-platform pathogen vector of a plugin architecture was a bad idea. I'm going to use this as a warning to my clients: "you don't want to write this to run on IE-only. Remember what happened with IE6 and how much it cost to fix that boondoggle?"
The most interesting thing to me here is, that BestBuy.com reviews can be exploited to influence Siri users....
The most interesting thing to me is that anyone would care about reviews from people who don't mind Monster Cables and being frisked on their way out the door.
You're right, as long as column order isn't used for any substantial business logic
I once told a coworker that I was going to make the database connector randomize the column ordering if it wasn't specifically set in the SELECT clause. After he kept writing code like you describe, I showed him a working implementation of my idea and told him I was pushing it to master the following week. He got the hint and started accessing columns by name.
It's a dumb argument against a strawman that no one but the pro-EULA advocates are making. Copyright law is well established, and buying an item generally does not give you the right to distribute copies of it. That "arbitrary limitation" has been law for centuries.
Without acceptance of the license, no sale has happened, therefore no right to install anything.
That's quite interesting, because this stupid ruling aside, there's little support for the theory that EULAs are legally binding and have the power to revoke purchases. Quick: which one of these things isn't like the others?
I walk into a store, hand the cashier an orange, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the orange.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a book, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the book.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a CD, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the CD.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a DVD, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the DVD.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a copy of OS X, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the copy of OS X.
Answer: none of the above. In all cases, I've exchanged money for the right to use something within the bounds of the law. "No sale has happened?" I lack the imagination to conceive of a normal, non-corporate-lawyer person who truly believes something so bizarre and unprecedented.
Try the same experiment with "buy autocad", "buy photoshop", and... wait for it... "buy os x". None of those companies say "buy a limited, EULA-bound license to use $foo as we see fit!"
The keen observer will note that Apple only sells OSX under two licences:
The keener observer will note that Apple used to sell anyone off the street a full copy of OS X, all without requiring them to sign a contract that would limit their otherwise-permitted use of the product they'd just purchased.
What do you do when the stupid consumer shows up at the Genius Bar and demand that their hackintosh be fixed because it's an Apple computer?
Apple would have my complete support in turning those requests away: "I'm sorry, but we didn't make that and can't support it at all. Can I interest you in a Genuine Apple Product that would be fully supported and warrantied?" If we're going on the bizarre theory that EULAs are actual contracts, then they could formalize that in the agreement: we don't support any system not manufactured and distributed by Apple, Inc.
Apple pays for R&D costs on OSX form hardware sales primarily
...which sounds a lot like Apple's problem and not anyone else's. I know what you're getting at, but I don't believe that's a justifiable defense of Apple. For many months after launch, Sony and Microsoft subsidized the price of their gaming consoles with the expectation that buyers would purchase other high-margin games and peripherals to make up the difference. Well, some people used their consoles for media centers or integrated them into computing clusters. In those cases, Sony/MS lost on those sales. Did the buyers do anything wrong? No: they just took advantage of a favorable price point.
That Apple (or Sony or Microsoft or a razor blade manufacturer) expects me to buy and use their products in a certain way is their issue to deal with.
EULA is a legally binding contract, period. Breaking that contract is illegal, period.
Yeah, and how we've affirmed that for one of the first times ever. If that doesn't horrify you, then you demonstrate an incredible lack of insight into why a company being allowed to dictate how you use their product after accepting your money and sending you home with it is a Bad Thing.
To save us both the time, do not reply by mentioning copyright. I only bring this up because it seems like the standard response here is "you're not allowed to use it however you want! You can't sell copies of it!", and no one is saying that or suggesting otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like MS was selling a smartphone OS for nearly a decade before the iPhone existed.
Correct. Today's market looks almost exactly as if MS was not selling smartphones before iPhone came along.
I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Why shouldn't they? People building that close to disaster are a giant liability payout waiting to happen. This is pretty much a textbook case of "preexisting condition". If someone chooses their home's location so poorly, why should I have to subsidize their stupidity with higher premiums on my non-poorly-located property? If those builders want to take the risk, let them pay for it.
Ummm, and an attacker would be unable to modify the verifyIntegrity() function to return "I'm perfectly OK!"?
It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV.
That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.
It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.
I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.
By the way, for those who haven't looked at it recently, MonoDevelop has come a -long- way. It's feature-comparable to Visual Studio, nowadays.
Please tell me it's not screenshot compatible, because that's the ugliest freaking mess of a horrid GUI editor that I've encountered. Otherwise, no wonder I've seen so many Windows devs with multiple huge monitors: they'd need them to be able to see a useful amount of code at one time. Seriously, those screenshots dedicate, what, 20% of the window to actual content?
Strange to me that I do not recall writing this, but it's an almost perfect description of my upbringing and later re-evaluation.
I assure you you're not alone in your experience.
It would be even worse if we weren't also locking up lots of water from rivers behind dams like the Hoover Dam.
How would that be? Dams don't make the water go away. Over time, the amount of water going into the reservoir equals the amount leaving, or else the water levels would either drop or overflow the dam. The only significant change I'd see is that dams increase the surface area of the water and would therefore raise evaporation, so some of the water that would normally go downstream would turn into atmospheric moisture instead. For global warming purposes, that's probably not a good thing. But would it actually have a non-negligible effect on ocean levels?
Wow, so the goal to be Green in the future is to introduce more bugs into hardware to save power. While I am sure there are limited uses of this kind of "math" in general I don't believe these chips will have widespread adoption because mathematical accuracy, at least for integer values, is kind of critical for most applications.
1) "LOL I'M WAY SMARTER THAN TEH CHIP DESIGNERS". 2) So don't use those instructions when you need IEEE 754 math. 3) But do use them in your video decoder when you can sacrifice accuracy in the 5th digital of a float for 1/15th (.06668) the power consumption.
That seems much more reasonable. But also consider that half of all users are above average. I'd be more interested to know what the standard deviation is (if it even follows a Gaussian, which seems at least possible).
That was from three years ago, which I believe to be before Netflix even offered streaming service. A lot has changed since that now-obsolete report came out.
I hate you for that.
The problem is it is not broken at all to the accountants.
Then I think those accountants are inappropriately insulated from the pain of their decisions. If decade-old software is good enough for other employees, then Office 2000 should be good enough for them.
1) feels the need to upgrade what isn't broken
IE6 is very, very broken. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for people who have to use it), it's also almost completely dead. The day is coming when it will be literally impossible to run an IE6-compatible system without buying expensive legacy-compatible hardware or hosting it inside an emulator.
Consider that IE6 on Windows XP was released in 2001. Two years from now, this will be as ancient as using IE5 (released in 1999) on Windows 98 would be today. Can you imagine how fun it'd be to have to support that combination in your IT department? Can you even buy new hardware that would boot Windows 98 outside of specialty orders? Would you really want to host VMWare, etc. on the desktop of every user who needed it? Well, we're within not-so-many months of that being the same situation for IE6 on XP. Yeah, I can see why someone might want to "upgrade what isn't broken", even if you miss the Good Old Days.
From the dozens of conversations I've had with Council IT teams around the country, it isn't a lack of will or of motivation or of education, but of a real (and partially justified) fear that if they upgrade to Win7, some essential legacy web based application that works flawlessly in IE6 and XP, will fall over when introduced to IE8. This has happened at various places around the country and has cost Councils a pile of money to fix the issue or to replace those legacy systems.
GOOD! Those same groups didn't want to listen when we told them that writing to a single browser with it's non-standard quirks and single-platform pathogen vector of a plugin architecture was a bad idea. I'm going to use this as a warning to my clients: "you don't want to write this to run on IE-only. Remember what happened with IE6 and how much it cost to fix that boondoggle?"
Pardon me while I get off your lawn.
The most interesting thing to me here is, that BestBuy.com reviews can be exploited to influence Siri users....
The most interesting thing to me is that anyone would care about reviews from people who don't mind Monster Cables and being frisked on their way out the door.
You're right, as long as column order isn't used for any substantial business logic
I once told a coworker that I was going to make the database connector randomize the column ordering if it wasn't specifically set in the SELECT clause. After he kept writing code like you describe, I showed him a working implementation of my idea and told him I was pushing it to master the following week. He got the hint and started accessing columns by name.
His parents named him "Haskell". It was inevitable.
It's a dumb argument against a strawman that no one but the pro-EULA advocates are making. Copyright law is well established, and buying an item generally does not give you the right to distribute copies of it. That "arbitrary limitation" has been law for centuries.
Without acceptance of the license, no sale has happened, therefore no right to install anything.
That's quite interesting, because this stupid ruling aside, there's little support for the theory that EULAs are legally binding and have the power to revoke purchases. Quick: which one of these things isn't like the others?
I walk into a store, hand the cashier an orange, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the orange.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a book, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the book.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a CD, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the CD.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a DVD, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the DVD.
I walk into a store, hand the cashier a copy of OS X, pay for it, and leave. I've purchased the copy of OS X.
Answer: none of the above. In all cases, I've exchanged money for the right to use something within the bounds of the law. "No sale has happened?" I lack the imagination to conceive of a normal, non-corporate-lawyer person who truly believes something so bizarre and unprecedented.
Stop claiming that you 'buy' a software product - you don't.
I'll stop "claiming" that I buy copies of software when the vendors stop telling me that I do. Google for "buy windows 7" and see that the first links are to "Buy Windows 7 or upgrade to another edition", "Buying Windows 7: top questions", "Find great prices & selection on Microsoft Windows software; shop & buy Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, & more." with a banner ad reading "Buy Windows® 7 Now - Fast, Easy Download. Official Site.". You're awfully certain of your specious hypothesis given that Microsoft themselves contradict you.
Try the same experiment with "buy autocad", "buy photoshop", and... wait for it... "buy os x". None of those companies say "buy a limited, EULA-bound license to use $foo as we see fit!"
The keen observer will note that Apple only sells OSX under two licences:
The keener observer will note that Apple used to sell anyone off the street a full copy of OS X, all without requiring them to sign a contract that would limit their otherwise-permitted use of the product they'd just purchased.
What do you do when the stupid consumer shows up at the Genius Bar and demand that their hackintosh be fixed because it's an Apple computer?
Apple would have my complete support in turning those requests away: "I'm sorry, but we didn't make that and can't support it at all. Can I interest you in a Genuine Apple Product that would be fully supported and warrantied?" If we're going on the bizarre theory that EULAs are actual contracts, then they could formalize that in the agreement: we don't support any system not manufactured and distributed by Apple, Inc.
Apple pays for R&D costs on OSX form hardware sales primarily
...which sounds a lot like Apple's problem and not anyone else's. I know what you're getting at, but I don't believe that's a justifiable defense of Apple. For many months after launch, Sony and Microsoft subsidized the price of their gaming consoles with the expectation that buyers would purchase other high-margin games and peripherals to make up the difference. Well, some people used their consoles for media centers or integrated them into computing clusters. In those cases, Sony/MS lost on those sales. Did the buyers do anything wrong? No: they just took advantage of a favorable price point.
That Apple (or Sony or Microsoft or a razor blade manufacturer) expects me to buy and use their products in a certain way is their issue to deal with.
EULA is a legally binding contract, period. Breaking that contract is illegal, period.
Yeah, and how we've affirmed that for one of the first times ever. If that doesn't horrify you, then you demonstrate an incredible lack of insight into why a company being allowed to dictate how you use their product after accepting your money and sending you home with it is a Bad Thing.
To save us both the time, do not reply by mentioning copyright. I only bring this up because it seems like the standard response here is "you're not allowed to use it however you want! You can't sell copies of it!", and no one is saying that or suggesting otherwise.