Oops, turns out I was wrong about contracts.. they can revoke rights. However, while such actions might be a violation of contract law, I maintain that that, in and of itself, does not make those acts unethical. The recent transit worker strike was illegal, but was it unethical? There are arguments to be made for each side, and it's anything but clear-cut.
Yeah.. this whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly the calls for "retribution" by making holocaust cartoons (which just emphasizes the distorted view that Israel == theWest, I think). It's sort of like some guy walks down the street and says your kids are ugly, so you turn and tell your neighbor that you nailed his wife. Your neighbor gets pissed, and the guy across the street is just bewildered.
Also ironic is the fact that people are getting violent over the fact that someone insinuated that their religion promotes violence.
Right. If children can survive waging real wars, I don't think we really need to worry about them playing violent video games, or seeing breasts when they're [greater than] 2 AND [less than] 18 years old.
Moreover, as anyone who was a kid should remember (which makes me wonder where these people come from), the more emphasis adults place on something, whether positive or negative, the more important that thing becomes to the child. "Values" aren't just transferred in the moral sense of the word, but also in the literal sense. Extreme reactions to any behavior only causes kids to place a higher value on it, because obviously their parents do as well, which makes them more likely to do it. If parents get upset when their kids curse, their kids will curse when they want to make their parents upset. The greater the reaction, the more they'll do it. I guess what I'm saying is, kids are basically little terrorists.
Your argument is shakey since it's based on the idea that Apple won't release a standalone version. While the first version will likely be tied directly to hardware, subsequent versions will almost definately be standalone, if they follow their own trend, or the trend of any other OS, ever.
If you buy a standalone version of the software, it's perfectly ethical for you to execute that software on any platform you choose. Fortunately, it's also perfectly legal. That modifications may be necessary makes it neither unethical nor illegal, since both copyright law and the DMCA allow reverse engineering for interoperability. Further, while it may be splitting hairs, it's legal to have software installed on multiple machines as long only one copy of the software is in use at any given time. (The latter may be a violation of the EULA, although the legality of EULAs has not been thoroughly tested, and in general, contracts cannot deprive you of rights.)
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
I think the theory is that a larger install base provides incentive for third parties to produce software, starting a feedback cycle. With more (better?) software, it would increase the popularity of the platform, which would lead to more software, etc. The impetus has to come from somewhere. In the short term, it doesn't really hurt Apple for people to install OS-X, and in the long term, it could work to their advantage. That's one of the theories behind the popularity of Windows anyway.
Technical advice from slashdot??
on
LCD Color Corrector?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
You forgot Love #3: You can't stand each other, but you stay together for the kids, and/or the fact that you can't afford that much alimony and child support taken out of that thing your boss calls a check, but you call a nice down payment on the power bill, and still pay for something to eat once or twice a week. A good day is when you can get up and leave for work early enough that it doesn't have a chance to nag you, and a great day is when you can get home early enough to tie one on before it arrives with some new shoes and, surprise!, her mother. Your step kids call you by your first name, and they hate your real kid, who now also calls you by your first name, just because their dad was smart enough to run while he had the chance. You'd have an affair, but an affair won't have you, and that's probably for the best since you're pretty sure your wife is paying money you don't have for a PI to watch you do things you're not doing, and you can't help but wonder if it's tax deductable. Every second Thursday, on your way to the pharmacy, you hatch a plan to collect a tidy sum from a certain life insurance policy, but then you remember you can't afford life insurance, let alone health insurance, so you crumple up the prescription and decide to take an hour vacation by sitting on a park bench and pretending to be homeless. Ah, love.
'You can know every ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake, and you still sit down and eat that chocolate cake and it's wonderful,' she said. 'In the same way, you can know all the ingredients of romantic love and still feel that passion.'
'Maybe, but once I found out what was in menudo I could never eat it again,' I said. 'In that same way, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to feel anything ever again. Thanks a lot wh...'
The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.
Man, this is giving me flashbacks. I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's definately been my experience that women do this more often (or maybe I just ignore guys more often). Anyway, I had online female friend who not only misinterpreted half of what I wrote (and took offense), but the fact that I didn't accurately predict how she would interpret my remarks was also my fault. All I said was, "You're fat.:)"
Who knew?
Crap, that's not what I said.. See, she's even got me remembering it wrong! Women...
Nice to know.. they almost always do that with their "$300 Full Systems." Fortunately I went along with my mom, who actually likes sending in rebates, and didn't let the salesman "upgrade" her, or sell her any additional crap*. And they sure tried. Everything from "We're out of them at this location," to "this is a much better model for your needs" to "Naturally you'll want spyware protection. You guys don't want spyware, do you?" to "You can upgrade to this DEE-LUX monitor, which is 1" larger, for only $250."
I'm not sure if I'm actually for or against their techniques. On one hand, it's clearly taking advantage of ignorant customers.. on the other hand, the truely knowledgable and frugal can profit.
*Except for the on-site service plan, which, unfortunately, she actually needs.. although I'm sure she'll get her money's worth, calling them every time anything unexpected happens.. i.e., every time she tries to do something.
Ebay is A++++++++++++++++plusplusplusplusplusplusplusplusp lusdoublegood!!!!!!!!
Or not. Actually, they suck at customer service. What they are good at is doing absolutely nothing, having good uptime, and marketing their "service." Honestly, this article is pretty spot on. It's over five years old, and things haven't changed much.
Or W, or more realistically, Y. Anyway, "luxury performance" tires are the new thing, attempting to combine a smooth quiet ride with enough grip to freak out your average passenger. Also if you buy any high end BMW, it's gonna come with Z rated tires. The only point in gov's and lesser tires is to make people feel like they're getting something of value when they buy higher models.
It's like turning off pipelines on GPUs and selling them as econo models.
No, it's more like when the buffet is all out of real potatoes, so they give you that instant crap. Then instead of telling you, they just let you eat it. The even have a measurement for it: RPPC, or Real Potatoes* Per Customer. As long as their ratio is below.25, they turn a healthy profit.
Sweet potatoes are not covered under this measurement, as they are really yams, and not potatoes at all. Additionally, studies have shown that the number of yams any one person can eat without getting sick is less than two, therefore yams are a self-limiting consumable.
I'm with you. I'm loathe to spend more money on a multicore CPU until I see ubiquitous multithreaded programming. Maybe (a lot of people) doing that will have the unintended consequence of slowing or killing the multicore market altogether, but they should have thought of that when they made the market. There should be more incentive to purchase a product than "this will be highly useful at some point in the future when programs take advantage of it, at which time you'll need to buy a new one anyway."
I was sort-of hired by a recruiter for a large defense contractor. I won't name names, but they're HQ'd in Houston, often associated with the VP, and you can probably figure it out from there.
Anyway, my field is pretty small, so it's a worker's market. As such, I felt comfortable with a verbal contract, despite the fact that I'd be, essentially, selling everything I owned and moving halfway around the world, twice: First to go to "inprocessing" in Houston for a few weeks, then on to my final destination. I discussed timelines with the recruiter, and we settled on five weeks before I started work. He discussed it with the hiring manager, and they agreed to wait. That gave me time to sell my car, sell/give away my posessions, and find a suitable home for my dogs. Five weeks is a long time, but it was over the holiday season, which is a terrible time to try to get anything done.
Fast forward three weeks; two weeks till departure. I've posted ads in most of the local newspapers for my car & moving sale, arranged less-beneficial deals with a dealership if I can't sell my car in time, and bought tickets to have my pets shipped. I've also submitted my two week notice to my current employer. That night, I got a call from the recruiter who was "sorry to tell me" that the position was no longer available due to changes in manning requirements.
I'm not sure whether they found someone else who was available sooner, or if their requirements actually changed, but that's not really important. He assured me that he had looked for alternate positions that I might be qualified for, but that nothing was available. While I consider myself adept enough that I could perform well in a wide variety of fields, I didn't press the issue because I'd lost any desire to work with a company like that, regardless of possible compensation.
That wasn't my first experience with a recruiter though. I also did a stint in the US Navy, and while I sought them out initially, and of my own volition, I still had to deal with a recruiter for the first part of the process. In my experience (albeit limited to one of each; civilian and military), recruiters are nothing more than salesmen. Just like a typical car salesman can tell you little beyond what's on the sticker of a vehicle, these guys are almost always completely ignorant of the details of a job, from the requirements to the hours to the workload, etc. And their ignorance is compounded by their lack of authority to make (or, usually, make alterations to) any contracts or legally binding agreements. While I blame myself for accepting a position with nothing in writing other than guarantees on my part, in the future I will not deal with a recruiter, at least not beyond the initial meet & greet phase. If a company doesn't respect its workers, or care about the quality of the people it's hiring, enough to have a potential hiree meet with an actual boss/supervisor/manager, then I in turn have little respect for that company. Recruiters generally have old or incorrect information, and often make promises they're in no position to keep. While that's the typical "oversell, underdeliver" premise of marketing in general, it can only win in the short term, since most well-qualified workers will just cut and run once they find out what things are "really" like. In my opinion, if the goal is to find and keep quality employees for the long haul (or vice versa, find and keep a quality job), recruiters are the last resort.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, turns out I was wrong about contracts.. they can revoke rights. However, while such actions might be a violation of contract law, I maintain that that, in and of itself, does not make those acts unethical. The recent transit worker strike was illegal, but was it unethical? There are arguments to be made for each side, and it's anything but clear-cut.
When viewed in that context, it's even less appetizing.
Yeah.. this whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly the calls for "retribution" by making holocaust cartoons (which just emphasizes the distorted view that Israel == theWest, I think). It's sort of like some guy walks down the street and says your kids are ugly, so you turn and tell your neighbor that you nailed his wife. Your neighbor gets pissed, and the guy across the street is just bewildered.
Also ironic is the fact that people are getting violent over the fact that someone insinuated that their religion promotes violence.
Right. If children can survive waging real wars, I don't think we really need to worry about them playing violent video games, or seeing breasts when they're [greater than] 2 AND [less than] 18 years old.
Moreover, as anyone who was a kid should remember (which makes me wonder where these people come from), the more emphasis adults place on something, whether positive or negative, the more important that thing becomes to the child. "Values" aren't just transferred in the moral sense of the word, but also in the literal sense. Extreme reactions to any behavior only causes kids to place a higher value on it, because obviously their parents do as well, which makes them more likely to do it. If parents get upset when their kids curse, their kids will curse when they want to make their parents upset. The greater the reaction, the more they'll do it. I guess what I'm saying is, kids are basically little terrorists.
Your argument is shakey since it's based on the idea that Apple won't release a standalone version. While the first version will likely be tied directly to hardware, subsequent versions will almost definately be standalone, if they follow their own trend, or the trend of any other OS, ever.
If you buy a standalone version of the software, it's perfectly ethical for you to execute that software on any platform you choose. Fortunately, it's also perfectly legal. That modifications may be necessary makes it neither unethical nor illegal, since both copyright law and the DMCA allow reverse engineering for interoperability. Further, while it may be splitting hairs, it's legal to have software installed on multiple machines as long only one copy of the software is in use at any given time. (The latter may be a violation of the EULA, although the legality of EULAs has not been thoroughly tested, and in general, contracts cannot deprive you of rights.)
How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
I think the theory is that a larger install base provides incentive for third parties to produce software, starting a feedback cycle. With more (better?) software, it would increase the popularity of the platform, which would lead to more software, etc. The impetus has to come from somewhere. In the short term, it doesn't really hurt Apple for people to install OS-X, and in the long term, it could work to their advantage. That's one of the theories behind the popularity of Windows anyway.
For starters, take off your rose tinted glasses.
We're censoring contraceptives now? The far right in this country is really taking things too.. what's that?
Oh, heh.. nevermind.
You forgot Love #3: You can't stand each other, but you stay together for the kids, and/or the fact that you can't afford that much alimony and child support taken out of that thing your boss calls a check, but you call a nice down payment on the power bill, and still pay for something to eat once or twice a week. A good day is when you can get up and leave for work early enough that it doesn't have a chance to nag you, and a great day is when you can get home early enough to tie one on before it arrives with some new shoes and, surprise!, her mother. Your step kids call you by your first name, and they hate your real kid, who now also calls you by your first name, just because their dad was smart enough to run while he had the chance. You'd have an affair, but an affair won't have you, and that's probably for the best since you're pretty sure your wife is paying money you don't have for a PI to watch you do things you're not doing, and you can't help but wonder if it's tax deductable. Every second Thursday, on your way to the pharmacy, you hatch a plan to collect a tidy sum from a certain life insurance policy, but then you remember you can't afford life insurance, let alone health insurance, so you crumple up the prescription and decide to take an hour vacation by sitting on a park bench and pretending to be homeless. Ah, love.
'You can know every ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake, and you still sit down and eat that chocolate cake and it's wonderful,' she said. 'In the same way, you can know all the ingredients of romantic love and still feel that passion.'
'Maybe, but once I found out what was in menudo I could never eat it again,' I said. 'In that same way, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to feel anything ever again. Thanks a lot wh...'
if theres a security bug, ALL the clients can be compromised in ONE vulnerability
There.. fixed that for you.
The reason for this is egocentrism, or the difficulty some people have detaching themselves from their own perspective, says Epley. In other words, people aren't that good at imagining how a message might be understood from another person's perspective.
:)"
Man, this is giving me flashbacks. I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's definately been my experience that women do this more often (or maybe I just ignore guys more often). Anyway, I had online female friend who not only misinterpreted half of what I wrote (and took offense), but the fact that I didn't accurately predict how she would interpret my remarks was also my fault. All I said was, "You're fat.
Who knew?
Crap, that's not what I said.. See, she's even got me remembering it wrong! Women...
Nice to know.. they almost always do that with their "$300 Full Systems." Fortunately I went along with my mom, who actually likes sending in rebates, and didn't let the salesman "upgrade" her, or sell her any additional crap*. And they sure tried. Everything from "We're out of them at this location," to "this is a much better model for your needs" to "Naturally you'll want spyware protection. You guys don't want spyware, do you?" to "You can upgrade to this DEE-LUX monitor, which is 1" larger, for only $250."
I'm not sure if I'm actually for or against their techniques. On one hand, it's clearly taking advantage of ignorant customers.. on the other hand, the truely knowledgable and frugal can profit.
*Except for the on-site service plan, which, unfortunately, she actually needs.. although I'm sure she'll get her money's worth, calling them every time anything unexpected happens.. i.e., every time she tries to do something.
It fits in that you remembered it wrong.
Ebay is A++++++++++++++++plusplusplusplusplusplusplusplusp lusdoublegood!!!!!!!!
Or not. Actually, they suck at customer service. What they are good at is doing absolutely nothing, having good uptime, and marketing their "service." Honestly, this article is pretty spot on. It's over five years old, and things haven't changed much.
Or W, or more realistically, Y. Anyway, "luxury performance" tires are the new thing, attempting to combine a smooth quiet ride with enough grip to freak out your average passenger. Also if you buy any high end BMW, it's gonna come with Z rated tires. The only point in gov's and lesser tires is to make people feel like they're getting something of value when they buy higher models.
It's like turning off pipelines on GPUs and selling them as econo models.
That's disturbing..
Ahhh, you're killing me.
No, it's more like when the buffet is all out of real potatoes, so they give you that instant crap. Then instead of telling you, they just let you eat it. The even have a measurement for it: RPPC, or Real Potatoes* Per Customer. As long as their ratio is below .25, they turn a healthy profit.
Sweet potatoes are not covered under this measurement, as they are really yams, and not potatoes at all. Additionally, studies have shown that the number of yams any one person can eat without getting sick is less than two, therefore yams are a self-limiting consumable.
I'm with you. I'm loathe to spend more money on a multicore CPU until I see ubiquitous multithreaded programming. Maybe (a lot of people) doing that will have the unintended consequence of slowing or killing the multicore market altogether, but they should have thought of that when they made the market. There should be more incentive to purchase a product than "this will be highly useful at some point in the future when programs take advantage of it, at which time you'll need to buy a new one anyway."
Without the negatives: Whole star and the initial 1/2 star ratings are the only values which affect play time.
In other words: Duh! Sekret variable settings have no effect.
I was sort-of hired by a recruiter for a large defense contractor. I won't name names, but they're HQ'd in Houston, often associated with the VP, and you can probably figure it out from there.
Anyway, my field is pretty small, so it's a worker's market. As such, I felt comfortable with a verbal contract, despite the fact that I'd be, essentially, selling everything I owned and moving halfway around the world, twice: First to go to "inprocessing" in Houston for a few weeks, then on to my final destination. I discussed timelines with the recruiter, and we settled on five weeks before I started work. He discussed it with the hiring manager, and they agreed to wait. That gave me time to sell my car, sell/give away my posessions, and find a suitable home for my dogs. Five weeks is a long time, but it was over the holiday season, which is a terrible time to try to get anything done.
Fast forward three weeks; two weeks till departure. I've posted ads in most of the local newspapers for my car & moving sale, arranged less-beneficial deals with a dealership if I can't sell my car in time, and bought tickets to have my pets shipped. I've also submitted my two week notice to my current employer. That night, I got a call from the recruiter who was "sorry to tell me" that the position was no longer available due to changes in manning requirements.
I'm not sure whether they found someone else who was available sooner, or if their requirements actually changed, but that's not really important. He assured me that he had looked for alternate positions that I might be qualified for, but that nothing was available. While I consider myself adept enough that I could perform well in a wide variety of fields, I didn't press the issue because I'd lost any desire to work with a company like that, regardless of possible compensation.
That wasn't my first experience with a recruiter though. I also did a stint in the US Navy, and while I sought them out initially, and of my own volition, I still had to deal with a recruiter for the first part of the process. In my experience (albeit limited to one of each; civilian and military), recruiters are nothing more than salesmen. Just like a typical car salesman can tell you little beyond what's on the sticker of a vehicle, these guys are almost always completely ignorant of the details of a job, from the requirements to the hours to the workload, etc. And their ignorance is compounded by their lack of authority to make (or, usually, make alterations to) any contracts or legally binding agreements. While I blame myself for accepting a position with nothing in writing other than guarantees on my part, in the future I will not deal with a recruiter, at least not beyond the initial meet & greet phase. If a company doesn't respect its workers, or care about the quality of the people it's hiring, enough to have a potential hiree meet with an actual boss/supervisor/manager, then I in turn have little respect for that company. Recruiters generally have old or incorrect information, and often make promises they're in no position to keep. While that's the typical "oversell, underdeliver" premise of marketing in general, it can only win in the short term, since most well-qualified workers will just cut and run once they find out what things are "really" like. In my opinion, if the goal is to find and keep quality employees for the long haul (or vice versa, find and keep a quality job), recruiters are the last resort.
Though not all to the same degree
as I'm sure you would agree.
I'm not sure that I agree;
I don't see, how can it be?
That a little bit of adware
Is to blame for how it got there!
When a runner cheats at running
Do you blame the man start gunning?
And does payment by commission
Violate a prohibition?
Even lawyers and physicians,
Mathematic statisticians
Earn or supplement their pay
In such a standard-practice way
It's the actions of the student
Whose behavior was imprudent.
The network administrators
Cannot stop all infiltrators
Even patches kept updated
Can be circumnavigated
It's terriffic that your car locks
But that won't stop cinderblocks
(Or bottles thrown by drunken jocks,
Or baseball bats, or balls in socks)
In short, when one commits a crime
One must prepare to do the time
To blame another for one's wrongs
Is just like Ashlee "singing" songs;
(Not really; that's a bad example
I just chose a random sample)
Yeah, cheating always seems the best
Until you're placed under arrest
And then we hear excuses fly
But excuses are like assholes.
a parasite shown to alter the brain function of rats, inducing them into behavior that benefits the parasite but is suicidal for the rat.
I thought we called those "chromasomes in an XY arrangement."