Only people won't starve or die, they will take desperate measures to avoid these outcomes which will probably impact negatively on others (ie crime etc), and will thus incur more costs to police and incarcerate these desperate individuals.
Yes this seems to be the case in many european countries with a welfare system, people choosing not to work but still have all kinds of luxury items... I don't think i've ever met anyone on welfare who didn't smoke and/or drink. A basic income for someone who is capable of working but chooses not to should just cover the basics, somewhere to live (probably just a room, not a whole apartment or house), three meals a day, basic internet, tv and phone (ie using lowend or previous generation equipment), healthcare etc. If you cant more you can work for it and your wages come on top of the basic income so you are never worse off by working. Obviously you'd need different rules for someone who isn't capable of working for whatever genuine reason.
Because the basic income is meant to be for everyone... You can get 30k for doing nothing, or you can do your back breaking job too and have 62k. Or you could work your back breaking job part time etc... The choice is yours.
If anything copyright terms should be much shorter now than envisaged in 1790...
In 1790 it would have taken years to print a book and get it widely distributed, today works can be disseminated instantly worldwide over the internet. Movies make all their money in the first year anyway, and being able to constantly re-release old stuff doesnt encourage any new works to be produced.
Copying something may have other positive effects.
Pirating can potentially result in increased sales too.
The whole point of copyright law was to encourage works to be produced by giving authors a limited period of exclusive use, these laws have now become completely corrupted to the point of absolute farce.
Only you have to go much further to commit copyright infringement against the GPL...
Most movie pirates simply make copies of the existing movies and watch them, the GPL specifically allows you to do the same with GPL code.
Even most commercial pirates just produce copies of the movies and sell them, again this behaviour is explicitly allowed with GPL software.
There are few (if any?) pirates who take commercial movies and use the content to create new works which they try to pass off as their own, indeed this would be extremely difficult beyond minor mods or parodies.
Many people pirate because legitimate options are not available to them, or because the legitimate options are significantly inferior. Some people pay for the content, but then pirate it anyway because the pirate version is more flexible in some way (e.g. i pay for satellite tv which covers most of the shows i watch, but i generally prefer to torrent the shows because its more convenient for me)
Only it's not, windows is extremely complex and was designed for geeks, its actually a very poor fit for the average user. Such users are better off with much simpler appliances like a games console or ipad.
The consumer deals with the retailer, not directly with the manufacturer, they already have contact with the retailer and it might be difficult for them to contact the manufacturer... This also comes from the days when the retailer was a physical entity based locally to you, while the manufacturer could be anywhere.
Those laws prevent the retailer from passing the buck and washing their hands of any responsibility, and provide (in theory) a local and convenient point of contact for the customer to deal with and get their complaint resolved. And you can pay US prices - import the stuff yourself, you lose the consumer protection - you will only have whatever warranty is provided in the US, and might have to send the product back there at your own expense if it's faulty.
It's also not zero risk, it's severely reduced risk which overall probably increases sales - if users were more worried about receiving faulty goods and have no recourse they would be less likely to buy and certainly wouldn't want to buy online where you can't test the product before you buy it.
Most of europe has quite tough consumer protection laws too, it's not just australia.
You can, buying from an offshore vendor bypasses your consumer rights (i'm not even sure you have whatever rights you would have had in the vendor's home country)... This only applies if the vendor has no presence in your country and doesn't market the product in your country, or they do and you intentionally buy from a foreign supplier instead of the local one.
If the vendor has a presence in the country and/or is directing marketing at residents then those people have no reason to believe they wouldn't be protected by local consumer protection laws, whereas someone who is intentionally making the choice would be fully aware and that's the difference.
Another problem is that companies often intentionally try to mislead consumers, because many simply aren't aware of what rights they have under consumer protection law. I have often had arguments with companies over this, where they intentionally don't inform the lower level staff (ignorance or lack of training isnt illegal but intentionally lying to customers is) and you have to get escalated to a manager in order to assert your rights.
If you return the empty can then you aren't returning the product, since the soda inside was the product and the can is simply the packaging.
There is no decent analogy because digital media is fundamentally different, not only could you potentially have completed the game but you could also have made a copy for yourself. That said, consumers still need to be protected - what if the game didn't work or failed to live up to the claims presented prior to sale? Consumers should absolutely have the right to receive the goods that were advertised, and thus a refund if the goods were not up to the advertised claims.
And yes consumers should be able to try something before they decide if they want to buy it, that's where brick and mortar stores come in - you can play the game in store and decide to buy it or not. For distance selling (ie ordering online, mail order etc) you can't do this, so the law in many countries provides for extra rights to give you an equivalent level of service.
One right people often forget in many countries, if you are returning goods because they are faulty or not as described then the supplier has to cover any and all costs (i.e. return shipping costs), many people don't realise this and shoulder the return costs themselves.
But because the rest of the contract remains in force, companies have no reason not to pack a contract full of unenforceable garbage... Many people simply aren't aware of their rights and will follow the unenforceable bits out of fear.
Adding clauses which are unenforceable should be seen as bad faith and result in penalties for anyone presenting such contracts.
Yes and no, the format is sufficiently opaque that it's difficult to scan for embedded files, and you could always embed something benign (eg a copy of wget) and call it with appropriate arguments to download additional malicious payloads.
A 30% efficiency gain over a plane designed in the 1960s isn't terribly impressive... There was already a model B Concorde designed and ready to be built back then which improved efficiency and range... Coupled with new lighter materials, more advanced flight control systems, newer engine designs etc it shouldn't be all that difficult to get 30% or more.
That's the whole point, your odds are better... Nothing is perfect.
With closed source only a single party really has access to the source, anyone else they grant access to will be under the terms (eg NDA) of the vendor and so may be unable to disclose finding anything bad even if they do, plus if they're working together they likely have the same agenda.
There is also the chance that source code has leaked, in which case blackhats have it, even if they do find backdoors or bugs such people are more likely to make use of them for their own nefarious purposes than disclose them to the public.
With open source the possibility exists for anyone to get their hands on the code, including multiple parties with conflicting goals. If a backdoor existed then at least some of those with access to the source are going to be against the backdoor and disclose/close it.
What chipset has your 2011 model got? Macbooks seem to switch between broadcom and atheros chipsets for wifi depending on the year, so perhaps thats what makes the difference for you.
Because it's the only platform on which to develop for iOS... Because in a lot of companies you don't get a choice of OS, so going for Apple is the only way to avoid windows. Because it's not you paying, its much easier to spend someone else's money. Because comparable hardware isn't actually any cheaper, Apple just don't have any lower end offerings.
People like what they're familiar with, and don't want to learn anything new... Everyone also has different usage requirements...
If they did take the time to actually learn something properly they might find they preferred it and/or it suited their requirements better, but people don't approach new stuff properly - they concentrate on how it's different from what they were previously used to, and use it in the same way they used the previous system rather than taking advantages of the differences - for example people familiar with windows don't make use of virtual desktops when running linux or osx.
That's why i've always tried to keep an open mind, i've heavily used various platforms (amigaos, sunos, solaris, irix, linux, freebsd, macos, macosx, windows) over the years.
Sounds like you have faulty hardware, i have a macbook air and a pro which have never frozen, my previous macbook pro used to freeze on occasion but it was one of those affected by the GPU recall from a couple of years ago.
If you develop for iOS then you will almost certainly (or must?) be using OSX to do so... If you develop for Android you have a choice of platforms. If you develop for both you might as well run OSX because the android tools run just as well on there, plus if you're employed as a developer you can justify an expensive mac over whatever bottom of the barrel junk you'd have got otherwise.
While these practical issues apply to existing projects, for new projects going forwards it's much less of a problem...
Would jointly funded code need to be released? Yes, so if you don't agree to that don't agree to partial government funding.
Release the code as soon as it exists (ie develop it in the open), maybe others will contribute towards it which saves you development time, and depending on the license under which you release it you should be able to reuse other existing open source code where applicable instead of reinventing the wheel.
There would be no obligation to update, you release what you've developed and you update it if you want.
There would be no obligation to ensure it compiles on other systems, you just provide all information necessary to replicate *your* build environment where it does compile, if users want to build it on something else that's upto them.
Host it yourself or on a publicly recognised source hosting service (github, sourceforge etc).
If the code is useful other people will take it, modify it, use bits of it, etc... If the code is of no interest to anyone then it will just sit there ignored.
Is that why MS are introducing better CLI support with each version of windows? Or why they're making CLI a requirement for some advanced administration tasks?
A server does not need a GUI, that's just a waste of resources for the 99.9% of its life when noone will be using it. And a server OS is not meant to be used by your average employee, it's meant to be used by a competent sysadmin which it seems your company lacks if it took them 19 weeks to configure RedHat.
There are also plenty of point and click linux distros if that's what you want, it's possible to configure all kinds of stuff without ever touching the CLI, that said even if it's possible do you really want staff with such a poor level of skill running your network? They won't be able to troubleshoot if something ever goes wrong, and they probably won't configure anything remotely securely.
Slashdot Mirror
Only people won't starve or die, they will take desperate measures to avoid these outcomes which will probably impact negatively on others (ie crime etc), and will thus incur more costs to police and incarcerate these desperate individuals.
Yes this seems to be the case in many european countries with a welfare system, people choosing not to work but still have all kinds of luxury items... I don't think i've ever met anyone on welfare who didn't smoke and/or drink.
A basic income for someone who is capable of working but chooses not to should just cover the basics, somewhere to live (probably just a room, not a whole apartment or house), three meals a day, basic internet, tv and phone (ie using lowend or previous generation equipment), healthcare etc. If you cant more you can work for it and your wages come on top of the basic income so you are never worse off by working.
Obviously you'd need different rules for someone who isn't capable of working for whatever genuine reason.
Because the basic income is meant to be for everyone... You can get 30k for doing nothing, or you can do your back breaking job too and have 62k. Or you could work your back breaking job part time etc... The choice is yours.
"Piracy" is an inherent part of a free market whenever you are pricing a product significantly higher than the cost to produce it.
If anything copyright terms should be much shorter now than envisaged in 1790...
In 1790 it would have taken years to print a book and get it widely distributed, today works can be disseminated instantly worldwide over the internet. Movies make all their money in the first year anyway, and being able to constantly re-release old stuff doesnt encourage any new works to be produced.
*can* *potentially* *may* ...
Copying something may have other positive effects.
Pirating can potentially result in increased sales too.
The whole point of copyright law was to encourage works to be produced by giving authors a limited period of exclusive use, these laws have now become completely corrupted to the point of absolute farce.
Only you have to go much further to commit copyright infringement against the GPL...
Most movie pirates simply make copies of the existing movies and watch them, the GPL specifically allows you to do the same with GPL code.
Even most commercial pirates just produce copies of the movies and sell them, again this behaviour is explicitly allowed with GPL software.
There are few (if any?) pirates who take commercial movies and use the content to create new works which they try to pass off as their own, indeed this would be extremely difficult beyond minor mods or parodies.
Many people pirate because legitimate options are not available to them, or because the legitimate options are significantly inferior. Some people pay for the content, but then pirate it anyway because the pirate version is more flexible in some way (e.g. i pay for satellite tv which covers most of the shows i watch, but i generally prefer to torrent the shows because its more convenient for me)
Only it's not, windows is extremely complex and was designed for geeks, its actually a very poor fit for the average user. Such users are better off with much simpler appliances like a games console or ipad.
It doesn't become any less secure, you just become aware of the security holes that were already there
So you're running a renamed version of lync, which existed before microsoft bought skype and is not the same thing at all.
The consumer deals with the retailer, not directly with the manufacturer, they already have contact with the retailer and it might be difficult for them to contact the manufacturer... This also comes from the days when the retailer was a physical entity based locally to you, while the manufacturer could be anywhere.
Those laws prevent the retailer from passing the buck and washing their hands of any responsibility, and provide (in theory) a local and convenient point of contact for the customer to deal with and get their complaint resolved.
And you can pay US prices - import the stuff yourself, you lose the consumer protection - you will only have whatever warranty is provided in the US, and might have to send the product back there at your own expense if it's faulty.
It's also not zero risk, it's severely reduced risk which overall probably increases sales - if users were more worried about receiving faulty goods and have no recourse they would be less likely to buy and certainly wouldn't want to buy online where you can't test the product before you buy it.
Most of europe has quite tough consumer protection laws too, it's not just australia.
You can, buying from an offshore vendor bypasses your consumer rights (i'm not even sure you have whatever rights you would have had in the vendor's home country)... This only applies if the vendor has no presence in your country and doesn't market the product in your country, or they do and you intentionally buy from a foreign supplier instead of the local one.
If the vendor has a presence in the country and/or is directing marketing at residents then those people have no reason to believe they wouldn't be protected by local consumer protection laws, whereas someone who is intentionally making the choice would be fully aware and that's the difference.
Another problem is that companies often intentionally try to mislead consumers, because many simply aren't aware of what rights they have under consumer protection law. I have often had arguments with companies over this, where they intentionally don't inform the lower level staff (ignorance or lack of training isnt illegal but intentionally lying to customers is) and you have to get escalated to a manager in order to assert your rights.
If you return the empty can then you aren't returning the product, since the soda inside was the product and the can is simply the packaging.
There is no decent analogy because digital media is fundamentally different, not only could you potentially have completed the game but you could also have made a copy for yourself. That said, consumers still need to be protected - what if the game didn't work or failed to live up to the claims presented prior to sale? Consumers should absolutely have the right to receive the goods that were advertised, and thus a refund if the goods were not up to the advertised claims.
And yes consumers should be able to try something before they decide if they want to buy it, that's where brick and mortar stores come in - you can play the game in store and decide to buy it or not. For distance selling (ie ordering online, mail order etc) you can't do this, so the law in many countries provides for extra rights to give you an equivalent level of service.
One right people often forget in many countries, if you are returning goods because they are faulty or not as described then the supplier has to cover any and all costs (i.e. return shipping costs), many people don't realise this and shoulder the return costs themselves.
But because the rest of the contract remains in force, companies have no reason not to pack a contract full of unenforceable garbage... Many people simply aren't aware of their rights and will follow the unenforceable bits out of fear.
Adding clauses which are unenforceable should be seen as bad faith and result in penalties for anyone presenting such contracts.
He also said "Linus allows", Linus only has control over what goes *in* the kernel...
Yes and no, the format is sufficiently opaque that it's difficult to scan for embedded files, and you could always embed something benign (eg a copy of wget) and call it with appropriate arguments to download additional malicious payloads.
A 30% efficiency gain over a plane designed in the 1960s isn't terribly impressive... There was already a model B Concorde designed and ready to be built back then which improved efficiency and range... Coupled with new lighter materials, more advanced flight control systems, newer engine designs etc it shouldn't be all that difficult to get 30% or more.
That's the whole point, your odds are better... Nothing is perfect.
With closed source only a single party really has access to the source, anyone else they grant access to will be under the terms (eg NDA) of the vendor and so may be unable to disclose finding anything bad even if they do, plus if they're working together they likely have the same agenda.
There is also the chance that source code has leaked, in which case blackhats have it, even if they do find backdoors or bugs such people are more likely to make use of them for their own nefarious purposes than disclose them to the public.
With open source the possibility exists for anyone to get their hands on the code, including multiple parties with conflicting goals. If a backdoor existed then at least some of those with access to the source are going to be against the backdoor and disclose/close it.
What chipset has your 2011 model got?
Macbooks seem to switch between broadcom and atheros chipsets for wifi depending on the year, so perhaps thats what makes the difference for you.
Because it's the only platform on which to develop for iOS...
Because in a lot of companies you don't get a choice of OS, so going for Apple is the only way to avoid windows.
Because it's not you paying, its much easier to spend someone else's money.
Because comparable hardware isn't actually any cheaper, Apple just don't have any lower end offerings.
People like what they're familiar with, and don't want to learn anything new...
Everyone also has different usage requirements...
If they did take the time to actually learn something properly they might find they preferred it and/or it suited their requirements better, but people don't approach new stuff properly - they concentrate on how it's different from what they were previously used to, and use it in the same way they used the previous system rather than taking advantages of the differences - for example people familiar with windows don't make use of virtual desktops when running linux or osx.
That's why i've always tried to keep an open mind, i've heavily used various platforms (amigaos, sunos, solaris, irix, linux, freebsd, macos, macosx, windows) over the years.
Sounds like you have faulty hardware, i have a macbook air and a pro which have never frozen, my previous macbook pro used to freeze on occasion but it was one of those affected by the GPU recall from a couple of years ago.
If you develop for iOS then you will almost certainly (or must?) be using OSX to do so...
If you develop for Android you have a choice of platforms.
If you develop for both you might as well run OSX because the android tools run just as well on there, plus if you're employed as a developer you can justify an expensive mac over whatever bottom of the barrel junk you'd have got otherwise.
While these practical issues apply to existing projects, for new projects going forwards it's much less of a problem...
Would jointly funded code need to be released? Yes, so if you don't agree to that don't agree to partial government funding.
Release the code as soon as it exists (ie develop it in the open), maybe others will contribute towards it which saves you development time, and depending on the license under which you release it you should be able to reuse other existing open source code where applicable instead of reinventing the wheel.
There would be no obligation to update, you release what you've developed and you update it if you want.
There would be no obligation to ensure it compiles on other systems, you just provide all information necessary to replicate *your* build environment where it does compile, if users want to build it on something else that's upto them.
Host it yourself or on a publicly recognised source hosting service (github, sourceforge etc).
If the code is useful other people will take it, modify it, use bits of it, etc... If the code is of no interest to anyone then it will just sit there ignored.
Is that why MS are introducing better CLI support with each version of windows? Or why they're making CLI a requirement for some advanced administration tasks?
A server does not need a GUI, that's just a waste of resources for the 99.9% of its life when noone will be using it. And a server OS is not meant to be used by your average employee, it's meant to be used by a competent sysadmin which it seems your company lacks if it took them 19 weeks to configure RedHat.
There are also plenty of point and click linux distros if that's what you want, it's possible to configure all kinds of stuff without ever touching the CLI, that said even if it's possible do you really want staff with such a poor level of skill running your network? They won't be able to troubleshoot if something ever goes wrong, and they probably won't configure anything remotely securely.