The 2007 version is allegedly sold only stand-alone. If that's not true I'd appreciate being corrected.
No, it's you that gets to correct me. I had thought it was bundled in both the Enterprise and Ultimate editions, but I see on Microsoft's site that I was flat out wrong. I'll double-check my facts next time. Well, at least I was right about it being "part of Office".
Office validation should be concerned about office & not anything else.
I actually agree with you, but note that Visio is actually considered part of the MS Office Suite. It comes default as part of one of the more expensive "editions", but most people buy it as an add-on to a cheaper package. So, I can see why the validation routine might gack when one component of office is not activated, but that definitely doesn't make it right. And it definitely shouldn't take him to an offer to buy Office.
Actually, I don't think that's true. I believe at one point (and in particular 7 years ago), they were manufactured by various IBM subsidiaries in different countries. I saw at least one reference on the Internet to a T23 made in Mexico. Lenovo has been making them for several years now, though. However, the point of the poster was that prior to Lenovo taking over the brand, unless IBM was selling the laptops at cost, at least some of the money was going to IBM. Now it is _all_ going to Lenovo.
However, if someone wants to "vote" with their wallet, I think a more conscientious approach would be to not just look at the rare laptop purchase, but instead to avoid buying any product that was made in China when there is an alternative. That's pretty tough to do nowadays, though. It might be helpful if it were mandatory for each and every product to be labeled on the box and in the catalog (online or paper) with its country of origin and perhaps the countries of origin for its components. That's probably not going to happen anytime soon, and regulating it would probably only make already big government even bigger.
But this is a "fraud", not unlawful use of hazardous biological materials
Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly _what_ the fraud was. There is a mention of filling out a warranty card incorrectly, but it's only used as an example of how preposterous the charge is. There is also a mention that he broke the terms of the contract, which _could_ mean something like he agreed to use the bacteria in a lab at the University for certain purposes, and is instead using them in his home for completely different purposes. If that were the case, I think it's significantly more serious than making a mistake filling out information. So, I'm looking forward to a little more information to form an opinion on whether the mail and wire fraud charges are just childish reactions, or really have some merit. Do you have any more information?
You forgot one important thing... what harm _could_ have been inflicted. As the grandparent posted earlier... you don't fight a speeding ticket using the fact that nobody got hurt as a defense. A balanced jury will look at the potential outcomes.
I am not quite sure which side you are taking in the discussion, but...
Yeah, I know it was unclear based on the way that I worded my response.
True, it's not terrible, but it's not necessarily advantageous, either.
Agreed. I was actually interpreting the previous poster to be thinking that we were saying that it was bad for two parents in the family to both have careers, and was instead pointing out that we were instead saying that it was bad for two parents in the family to be compelled to have a dual-income. Regarding everything else you said, I totally agree. I'm of the opinion that, while nobody should be forced to choose one way or the other, it's far better for one of the parents to stay home and take care of domestic affairs (including the children). The whole argument about children in daycare having superior social development is a load of hogwash. While they may develop basic social skills at an earlier age, they certainly don't have superior social skills later on. In fact, many home-schooled kids who never go to institutionalized schooling have social skills far superior to their institutionalized counterparts. The truth is that your ability to interact with society is a product of many factors, and where you learn those skills is not nearly as important as what you learn. It's hard for someone to convince me that a daycare teacher, who typically is responsible for 10 children, is able to care for them better than a parent who is only responsible for two or three, and who has a vested interest in their development. Here's the scary picture. Most children require 11 or 12 hours of sleep a day. If your child is in daycare and you work full time, they will be there for at least 10 hours. That means you get 2 or 3 hours a day (during the week) with your child, most of which is spent on meals and getting ready for bed. Not the best of situations, I would guess.
Thank, BTW, for your well thought out response. Hopefully it will put the two sides of the coin in perspective for others.
Nobody is denying you the choice to have a partner stay home. Do so if you want. But it's kind of a weak argument to say that it somehow becomes the responsibility of your employer to pay you enough to do so. I want the choice of a second home in Hokkaido; that doesn't mean I can rightfully expect to get enough of a salary that I can have it.
Thanks for twisting my words. Let me try to make it clear for you. You asked what was so bad about two people working. I assumed you meant that the parent poster thought it was a bad thing for both partners to work, so I told you that nothing was wrong with both partners working. On the chance that you somehow thought that there was nothing wrong with a situation where both partners _had_ to work to support the family, I pointed out that whereas historically families typically were able to live just fine on one salary in the past, today they aren't, and that I didn't consider that to be forward progress. Then you made a ridiculous comparison between the ability for a partner to stay at home (taking care of the kids and domestic affairs) and your desire for an extravagant second home. This would be like me saying that nobody was denying you the ability to have electricity at your house. I want a BMW SUV, but that doesn't mean I can expect my salary to be high enough to afford it.
The point is this -- it's (arguably) better for children to be taken care of by one of their parents. But if you don't buy that, it's definitely the case that, with the exception of a small overachieving amount of the population, two adults who work full time (particularly in a profession with mandatory unpaid overtime) and then come home to all the household chores and also have to take care of the kids eventually become exhausted. This situation is a far cry from your suffering over the lack of a second home.
You also made it sound like I blamed "somebody" for this situation. I don't blame anybody. But nevertheless, contrary to to your opinion, that choice is denied (by circumstances) for your average American. It is not an option for them. Your callously telling them to go ahead and make that choice doesn't make it possible for them.
Just for the record, I have chosen for my family to live on a single income, but I'm one of the fortunate few who is in a position to do so. Anecdotally, most of my friends and acquaintances do not have a sufficiently high single income to pay the bills. Their income is considered to be at a middle class level. The travesty is that sixty years ago, a middle class income would have been more than sufficient to pay the bills. Which ties us back to the main topic. This is just one of the reasons why IT workers are not satisfied with their salaries. Many of them grew up in families that lived on a single income, and they are disillusioned when unable to do the same.
but they seem to be trying to get Congress to adopt a stricter policy and not to actually file individual lawsuits against Google themselves.
I agree, but if they make claims that are untrue (i.e, falsely accusing Google of copyright infringement), they may find themselves unpleasantly entangled in legal action. Not to mention that lying to Congress isn't a good way to get them to listen to you in the future. Note that I'm not saying that Google isn't guilty -- I don't know one way or the other.
The watchdog group doesn't own any of the copyrights in question, so they cannot invoke the DMCA process.
This group had better darn well hope they are right about their assertions. Google is not like most of their victims. Google has the financial means to slap the nonsense out of them if the claims are without merit.
but, I mean, what's so terrible about both adults in the household earning a salary?
It's not terrible for two adults in the same household to be working. It's terrible for two adults in the same household to be forced to work. If you've spent 17+ years of your life in school (including kindergarten and college), it certainly makes sense that you ought to be able to earn enough money to provide food and a place to live for your family. It's the lack of choice that is so terrible. Back in the mid-20th century, when women were unable to get the same jobs that men held, women wanted to be able to make the same choices as men. And there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have had those choices available to them. Today, women (and men) still want to be able to choose, and rightly so. But now they are frequently denied the option of staying home with their children, while at the same time experiencing discrimination in hiring and salaries (albeit not as bad as in the 50's). Progress? It doesn't seem like it to me.
Bad idea for whom? The Chinese get a good virus writer to make more, as munitions against someone.
Good point, but even then, I still think it's a bad idea. Somebody like that will sell out to the highest bidder, which can easily turn a great asset into a traitor. It's kind of like making explosives. You know that at some point there will be an accident during production, and that it will be really bad. Are the risks worth the returns? You have to do the math.
On the chance that you weren't making a joke, I have to respectfully disagree. Keeping your citizens gainfully employed is a good idea for any government (otherwise anarchy and rebellion arise). However, I don't believe it's a human right. It is the responsibility of each person to strive to educate and locate themselves in such a way as to gain employment that takes care of life's necessities. It is the responsibility of society (if they have the means) to assist other members of society in this pursuit. It is not anyone's responsibility to provide a job for someone who has no interest in learning the necessary skills or performing the work required by the job.
Also, I agree that being offered a job is not a reward. However, being offered a job that pays more than ten times the average white collar salary _is_ a reward.
Am I the only one that thinks rewarding a virus writer in this manner is a really bad idea?
However, he later learned from media reports that Li, who created the virus over discontent at his failure to land a job, may not be a bad guy and "just went astray," the report said.
Sorry, but taking your discontent out on scores of innocent victims does not strike me as merely being led astray. At best, it shows a complete failure to consider the consequences of your actions. At worst, it shows that your personality is borderline sociopathic, in that you don't actually _care_ about the consequences of your actions.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that rewarding someone who did this would simply invite others to repeat the performance. At first glance, it may seem that the price of imprisonment should be a sufficient deterrent. But the dude got five years in prison, and he now stands to make over $133,000 per year on his release. $133,000 a year is a heap of money in China. If you told me I could "play nice" and make less than $10,000 for most of the rest of my life, or I could instead spend five years in miserable conditions but not paying anything for room and board and then make $133,000 per year afterwards and live like a king, the choice would be pretty easy.
Why do people do stuff for Google for free? What do they get out of it?
They get to find out about secret new products and tell the world.;) But seriously, maybe some people do stuff like that because they want to give back; they want to see Google's ideas succeed. If spending one minute a day translating a sentence helps out, who are we to give them a hard time about it?
keep getting calls from these asshats, though I have called them and told them to take me off the list. I have filed 4 complaints about them and it hasn't done a thing.
You do realize that you can take them to small claims court yourself, right? I strongly suggest that you keep a log of their calls and anything you tell them.
Sure, they can ask for anything they want to. Doesn't mean they'll get it. CC is a private business - they can ask you to leave or they can hold you for the cops if they see you steal something (and maintain contact as you walk to the entrance).
That was part of my point. They should have called the police if they thought he stole something. But the other part of my point was questioning why Michael felt he needed to take a stand against the practice of checking receipts. It would have made far more sense to just stop shopping there. For that matter, if he was irritated about being asked for a receipt, he could have returned the merchandise and asked for his money back with the explanation that he will not patronize a store that pre-assumes that he is a shoplifter.
Instead, he took this pointless stance of ignoring the request and inviting a confrontation. There are perfectly legal ways that Circuit City could have made his life much more miserable than anything he bargained for. They could have taken the license plate of the car he drove off in, and then performed a partial "inventory" to see if anything was missing. If they "discovered" that anything was missing (and bear in mind that there is almost always SOMETHING missing when you check inventory), they could have contacted the police and he would have been a suspect. The police could have taken him into custody and produced search warrants for not only his belongings, but the home and belongings of his family members. All of this is certainly an absurd abuse of law enforcement, but there would have been little or no legal recourse for him. Ultimately, the charges would probably be dropped, or he would be acquitted (due to insufficient evidence), but it would have been unlikely that he could have had the record expunged, and the legal fees involved would have likely been much higher.
Fortunately for him, Circuit City employees seem to have been equally ignorant.
Really, this guy needs to learn to pick his battles. $7500 because he didn't want to show ID to a cop.
To be honest, I completely agree with his battle over showing his ID to the police officer. Somebody has to fight against abuses of law enforcement. In particular, it's important to fight when there is a specific law (like the one in Ohio) that is designed to protect against such abuses.
However, I'm not sure I fully understand his refusal to stop and show his receipt in the first place. Circuit City is a private place of business. If you enter their store, they can pretty much ask you to do anything that isn't illegal or a direct violation of your civil rights. Before you react negatively to my opinion, however, consider that there is already a mitigating factor in place. If Circuit City asks you to do something ridiculous or irritating, word will get around people will stop patronizing them. Asking to show your receipt doesn't seem to be a violation of civil rights. People that really oppose such practices should just avoid Circuit City altogether. The problem is that shoplifting comes with a cost that all customers have to share in the form of higher prices. Businesses need some way to relieve the financial liabilities associated with shoplifting, and the RF devices are not foolproof. Having someone at least randomly check receipts seems like a reasonable way to cut losses. Many stores use this approach. If somebody has a better idea, I'd love to hear it (as would Circuit City, I'm sure).
I believe Circuit City made their error in how they approached the situation. It's OK that they followed Michael out of the store to request his receipt, but it's absolutely not OK that they impeded his departure. They should have just contacted the police if they believed he stole something. Likewise, I believe Michael was just being an attention-seeking jerk when he ignored the request to see his receipt. He was inviting confrontation, and I really don't see what he could have hoped to gain by it (other than attention). He had absolutely no consideration for the embarrassment that it would cause his family. If he really disagreed strongly with the practice of checking receipts, then he should just refuse to shop there and encourage others to avoid the place as well.
Now, Microsoft has Windows and IE asking so many security messages, that the users automatically say yes, once again, reducing all of their efforts to ashes. And you still can't run IE under a separate user account.
You are considering becoming complacent and answering yes to all security pop-ups. Accept or Deny?
If you want something a little more convincing than an ostrich, consider the cassowary; a six-foot tall bird that can run at 30 mph, jump 5 feet high, and swim well, with a 5-inch middle claw on each foot that the bird can and will use as a weapon, disemboweling a human with a single kick.
Wow! I was just trying to be mildly funny, but most of this bird looks startlingly like the diagrams I've seen of velociraptors. Aside from the jaw area, how would the skeleton of the cassowary differ from a velociraptor?
Now - is this a problem with Ubuntu or did Dell set up a bad default configuration? It sounds to me like the latter.
I think it's both. The missing standard CODECs are the responsibility of Dell. The lack of a control app for the touchpad is also Dell's responsibility. The crashing volume control is most likely a Ubuntu community responsibility, and the poor video performance could be either, depending on whether the problem is related to something Dell did, or if the application typically performs that way. Either way, Dell is still responsible for testing and engaging the community to correct problems BEFORE they start shipping.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's you that gets to correct me. I had thought it was bundled in both the Enterprise and Ultimate editions, but I see on Microsoft's site that I was flat out wrong. I'll double-check my facts next time. Well, at least I was right about it being "part of Office".
I actually agree with you, but note that Visio is actually considered part of the MS Office Suite. It comes default as part of one of the more expensive "editions", but most people buy it as an add-on to a cheaper package. So, I can see why the validation routine might gack when one component of office is not activated, but that definitely doesn't make it right. And it definitely shouldn't take him to an offer to buy Office.
Actually, I don't think that's true. I believe at one point (and in particular 7 years ago), they were manufactured by various IBM subsidiaries in different countries. I saw at least one reference on the Internet to a T23 made in Mexico. Lenovo has been making them for several years now, though. However, the point of the poster was that prior to Lenovo taking over the brand, unless IBM was selling the laptops at cost, at least some of the money was going to IBM. Now it is _all_ going to Lenovo.
However, if someone wants to "vote" with their wallet, I think a more conscientious approach would be to not just look at the rare laptop purchase, but instead to avoid buying any product that was made in China when there is an alternative. That's pretty tough to do nowadays, though. It might be helpful if it were mandatory for each and every product to be labeled on the box and in the catalog (online or paper) with its country of origin and perhaps the countries of origin for its components. That's probably not going to happen anytime soon, and regulating it would probably only make already big government even bigger.
Actually, I'm having trouble figuring out exactly _what_ the fraud was. There is a mention of filling out a warranty card incorrectly, but it's only used as an example of how preposterous the charge is. There is also a mention that he broke the terms of the contract, which _could_ mean something like he agreed to use the bacteria in a lab at the University for certain purposes, and is instead using them in his home for completely different purposes. If that were the case, I think it's significantly more serious than making a mistake filling out information. So, I'm looking forward to a little more information to form an opinion on whether the mail and wire fraud charges are just childish reactions, or really have some merit. Do you have any more information?
You forgot one important thing... what harm _could_ have been inflicted. As the grandparent posted earlier... you don't fight a speeding ticket using the fact that nobody got hurt as a defense. A balanced jury will look at the potential outcomes.
Yeah, I know it was unclear based on the way that I worded my response.
Agreed. I was actually interpreting the previous poster to be thinking that we were saying that it was bad for two parents in the family to both have careers, and was instead pointing out that we were instead saying that it was bad for two parents in the family to be compelled to have a dual-income. Regarding everything else you said, I totally agree. I'm of the opinion that, while nobody should be forced to choose one way or the other, it's far better for one of the parents to stay home and take care of domestic affairs (including the children). The whole argument about children in daycare having superior social development is a load of hogwash. While they may develop basic social skills at an earlier age, they certainly don't have superior social skills later on. In fact, many home-schooled kids who never go to institutionalized schooling have social skills far superior to their institutionalized counterparts. The truth is that your ability to interact with society is a product of many factors, and where you learn those skills is not nearly as important as what you learn. It's hard for someone to convince me that a daycare teacher, who typically is responsible for 10 children, is able to care for them better than a parent who is only responsible for two or three, and who has a vested interest in their development. Here's the scary picture. Most children require 11 or 12 hours of sleep a day. If your child is in daycare and you work full time, they will be there for at least 10 hours. That means you get 2 or 3 hours a day (during the week) with your child, most of which is spent on meals and getting ready for bed. Not the best of situations, I would guess.
Thank, BTW, for your well thought out response. Hopefully it will put the two sides of the coin in perspective for others.
Thanks for twisting my words. Let me try to make it clear for you. You asked what was so bad about two people working. I assumed you meant that the parent poster thought it was a bad thing for both partners to work, so I told you that nothing was wrong with both partners working. On the chance that you somehow thought that there was nothing wrong with a situation where both partners _had_ to work to support the family, I pointed out that whereas historically families typically were able to live just fine on one salary in the past, today they aren't, and that I didn't consider that to be forward progress. Then you made a ridiculous comparison between the ability for a partner to stay at home (taking care of the kids and domestic affairs) and your desire for an extravagant second home. This would be like me saying that nobody was denying you the ability to have electricity at your house. I want a BMW SUV, but that doesn't mean I can expect my salary to be high enough to afford it.
The point is this -- it's (arguably) better for children to be taken care of by one of their parents. But if you don't buy that, it's definitely the case that, with the exception of a small overachieving amount of the population, two adults who work full time (particularly in a profession with mandatory unpaid overtime) and then come home to all the household chores and also have to take care of the kids eventually become exhausted. This situation is a far cry from your suffering over the lack of a second home.
You also made it sound like I blamed "somebody" for this situation. I don't blame anybody. But nevertheless, contrary to to your opinion, that choice is denied (by circumstances) for your average American. It is not an option for them. Your callously telling them to go ahead and make that choice doesn't make it possible for them.
Just for the record, I have chosen for my family to live on a single income, but I'm one of the fortunate few who is in a position to do so. Anecdotally, most of my friends and acquaintances do not have a sufficiently high single income to pay the bills. Their income is considered to be at a middle class level. The travesty is that sixty years ago, a middle class income would have been more than sufficient to pay the bills. Which ties us back to the main topic. This is just one of the reasons why IT workers are not satisfied with their salaries. Many of them grew up in families that lived on a single income, and they are disillusioned when unable to do the same.
I agree, but if they make claims that are untrue (i.e, falsely accusing Google of copyright infringement), they may find themselves unpleasantly entangled in legal action. Not to mention that lying to Congress isn't a good way to get them to listen to you in the future. Note that I'm not saying that Google isn't guilty -- I don't know one way or the other.
This group had better darn well hope they are right about their assertions. Google is not like most of their victims. Google has the financial means to slap the nonsense out of them if the claims are without merit.
It's not terrible for two adults in the same household to be working. It's terrible for two adults in the same household to be forced to work. If you've spent 17+ years of your life in school (including kindergarten and college), it certainly makes sense that you ought to be able to earn enough money to provide food and a place to live for your family. It's the lack of choice that is so terrible. Back in the mid-20th century, when women were unable to get the same jobs that men held, women wanted to be able to make the same choices as men. And there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have had those choices available to them. Today, women (and men) still want to be able to choose, and rightly so. But now they are frequently denied the option of staying home with their children, while at the same time experiencing discrimination in hiring and salaries (albeit not as bad as in the 50's). Progress? It doesn't seem like it to me.
Yeah, except the "live like a king" part afterwards.
Good point, but even then, I still think it's a bad idea. Somebody like that will sell out to the highest bidder, which can easily turn a great asset into a traitor. It's kind of like making explosives. You know that at some point there will be an accident during production, and that it will be really bad. Are the risks worth the returns? You have to do the math.
On the chance that you weren't making a joke, I have to respectfully disagree. Keeping your citizens gainfully employed is a good idea for any government (otherwise anarchy and rebellion arise). However, I don't believe it's a human right. It is the responsibility of each person to strive to educate and locate themselves in such a way as to gain employment that takes care of life's necessities. It is the responsibility of society (if they have the means) to assist other members of society in this pursuit. It is not anyone's responsibility to provide a job for someone who has no interest in learning the necessary skills or performing the work required by the job.
Also, I agree that being offered a job is not a reward. However, being offered a job that pays more than ten times the average white collar salary _is_ a reward.
Sorry, but taking your discontent out on scores of innocent victims does not strike me as merely being led astray. At best, it shows a complete failure to consider the consequences of your actions. At worst, it shows that your personality is borderline sociopathic, in that you don't actually _care_ about the consequences of your actions.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think that rewarding someone who did this would simply invite others to repeat the performance. At first glance, it may seem that the price of imprisonment should be a sufficient deterrent. But the dude got five years in prison, and he now stands to make over $133,000 per year on his release. $133,000 a year is a heap of money in China. If you told me I could "play nice" and make less than $10,000 for most of the rest of my life, or I could instead spend five years in miserable conditions but not paying anything for room and board and then make $133,000 per year afterwards and live like a king, the choice would be pretty easy.
What? Is my hair parted?
Yeah, but this is Microsoft. They should consider themselves lucky to get 15 minutes.
They get to find out about secret new products and tell the world.
Don't tase me, bro!
You do realize that you can take them to small claims court yourself, right? I strongly suggest that you keep a log of their calls and anything you tell them.
That was part of my point. They should have called the police if they thought he stole something. But the other part of my point was questioning why Michael felt he needed to take a stand against the practice of checking receipts. It would have made far more sense to just stop shopping there. For that matter, if he was irritated about being asked for a receipt, he could have returned the merchandise and asked for his money back with the explanation that he will not patronize a store that pre-assumes that he is a shoplifter.
Instead, he took this pointless stance of ignoring the request and inviting a confrontation. There are perfectly legal ways that Circuit City could have made his life much more miserable than anything he bargained for. They could have taken the license plate of the car he drove off in, and then performed a partial "inventory" to see if anything was missing. If they "discovered" that anything was missing (and bear in mind that there is almost always SOMETHING missing when you check inventory), they could have contacted the police and he would have been a suspect. The police could have taken him into custody and produced search warrants for not only his belongings, but the home and belongings of his family members. All of this is certainly an absurd abuse of law enforcement, but there would have been little or no legal recourse for him. Ultimately, the charges would probably be dropped, or he would be acquitted (due to insufficient evidence), but it would have been unlikely that he could have had the record expunged, and the legal fees involved would have likely been much higher.
Fortunately for him, Circuit City employees seem to have been equally ignorant.
To be honest, I completely agree with his battle over showing his ID to the police officer. Somebody has to fight against abuses of law enforcement. In particular, it's important to fight when there is a specific law (like the one in Ohio) that is designed to protect against such abuses.
However, I'm not sure I fully understand his refusal to stop and show his receipt in the first place. Circuit City is a private place of business. If you enter their store, they can pretty much ask you to do anything that isn't illegal or a direct violation of your civil rights. Before you react negatively to my opinion, however, consider that there is already a mitigating factor in place. If Circuit City asks you to do something ridiculous or irritating, word will get around people will stop patronizing them. Asking to show your receipt doesn't seem to be a violation of civil rights. People that really oppose such practices should just avoid Circuit City altogether. The problem is that shoplifting comes with a cost that all customers have to share in the form of higher prices. Businesses need some way to relieve the financial liabilities associated with shoplifting, and the RF devices are not foolproof. Having someone at least randomly check receipts seems like a reasonable way to cut losses. Many stores use this approach. If somebody has a better idea, I'd love to hear it (as would Circuit City, I'm sure).
I believe Circuit City made their error in how they approached the situation. It's OK that they followed Michael out of the store to request his receipt, but it's absolutely not OK that they impeded his departure. They should have just contacted the police if they believed he stole something. Likewise, I believe Michael was just being an attention-seeking jerk when he ignored the request to see his receipt. He was inviting confrontation, and I really don't see what he could have hoped to gain by it (other than attention). He had absolutely no consideration for the embarrassment that it would cause his family. If he really disagreed strongly with the practice of checking receipts, then he should just refuse to shop there and encourage others to avoid the place as well.
You are considering becoming complacent and answering yes to all security pop-ups. Accept or Deny?
Wow! I was just trying to be mildly funny, but most of this bird looks startlingly like the diagrams I've seen of velociraptors. Aside from the jaw area, how would the skeleton of the cassowary differ from a velociraptor?
My theory is that the 'raptor wasn't a dinosaur at all. It was just a really big ostrich. OK... a really big, really smart ostrich.
I think it's both. The missing standard CODECs are the responsibility of Dell. The lack of a control app for the touchpad is also Dell's responsibility. The crashing volume control is most likely a Ubuntu community responsibility, and the poor video performance could be either, depending on whether the problem is related to something Dell did, or if the application typically performs that way. Either way, Dell is still responsible for testing and engaging the community to correct problems BEFORE they start shipping.