Ugh, single click moderation with no way to correct (besides posting a comment and undoing *all* mods on this story). Didn't mean to mark that redundant.
The problem with treating the constitution as something holy and unchanging is that this isn't 1787. It seems ludicrous to me to be obsessing about what the intent of the "founding fathers" was and using their will as an absolute basis for everything to follow. At a certain point that becomes it own quasi-religion.
Back when the constitution was written it was unlikely most people would ever interact with people from different states. Other than the rare news stories there would be no way to even know what was happening elsewhere. You couldn't hop in a car and have crossed several state boundaries in the space of a few hours. People wouldn't routinely be buying produced and shipped from a distant state.
I'm not saying that states should lose all authority to the federal government or that the balance today is exactly right, but I do think that the notion that they got it exactly right in the 18th century and that's exactly what we should be doing in the 21st century is laughable.
That's not necessarily true. Terminations can happen for a lot of reasons. Someone might have the technical skills but just not fit into the team. Or they might be good at some things, but not all of the things you need at the position they're in... they might do better at a different job more focused on the things they're good at. In a larger company you might just be able to move them to a different position, but that might not be an option at a small company.
Being fired hurts, and there might be a temporary emotional payoff to "sticking it to them", but unless there is some serious wrongdoing on their part, you'd probably want to leave on good terms, and burning your bridges would definitely be shooting yourself in the foot.
The mods seem to be on crack today^H^H^H^H^H. The parent's suggestion might be misguided and would be harmful to Google's credibility (as several people have pointed out) but there is no reason to believe he's trying to provoke a fight or troll.
Have you heard of at thing called shades of gray? You can take anything to an extreme and use it to attack something, but that doesn't make you right. Do you believe there's no difference between blowing through a stop sign at 100 mph and rolling through it at 5 mph? Do you honestly believe it's possible to draw some line where it suddenly becomes okay? It's safe at 5mph suddenly becomes dangerous at 6mph?
The fact is, this idiot chose to be "dramatic" and deploy a slide which deploys with great force and could be lethal to anybody who was caught under it, while the plane was at the gate and ground crews would be approaching the plane as a part of their jobs. Further more, unlike your "rolling stop" strawman, there's no way he could reliably tell from where he was whether or not someone was in harms way.
Maybe you believe that reckless actions that could harm others shouldn't be punished until someone actually is harmed?
Comcast does not offer their consumers a contract promising to offer them the same discounts they offer other consumers. Oracle did sign such a contract here.
Why wouldn't such a contract be enforceable? Whether a private entity could get Oracle to sign such an agreement is an entirely different question, the point is they signed the contract here and then tried to weasel their way around it.
The small charge could easily be a precursor to a large charge. Thieves will often make small purchases online to test cards before buying something of value. Obviously getting something shipped is not an option if you're using a stolen card, and they wouldn't want to attract attention to themselves in a physical store by using a card that's been reported stolen.
Think about it. It's basically a coin flip that company A buying company B will result in any benefit to the shareholders of A. If shareholders were truly wise, they'd tell management to just give them the cash they would have spent on acquiring a company. They'd make out better in the long run.
That does not follow. If half the acquired companies fail completely (i.e. produce 0 return) and the other half produce at 3x return, the shareholders of the acquiring company come out ahead too.
That's a bunch of baloney. Computer science doctorates have been available since the 60s and 70s. Just because you chose not to enroll in one because it was not "popular" doesn't mean that you're being discriminated against. Moreover, there is nothing stopping you from going and enrolling in a PhD now if you choose. You made a bunch of choices that leave you unqualified for some jobs. Maybe it's time to start taking responsibility for that instead of whining about imagined "discrimination"?
I think that wives of men that go to strip clubs feel that it is wrong in both ways
I don't think your analogy is correct. Businesses that specifically target married or otherwise attached people are comparable, but strip clubs aren't. If this were a general research service that people could abuse to get homework done that would be comparable to a stripclub that some men go to and cheat on their significant others.
Unless the vendor is working on the software in its obfuscated form rather than using a processor to generate it, they would still be violating the GPL if all they released was the obfuscated source code.
From the text of the GPL:
The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
I bet there are guys out there on the gulf coast volunteering to help clean up the oil spill so they can meet hippie chicks, and some of them are probably getting laid too.
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that you are running low on black toner WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER We noticed that yo
Is that true? Does it cost the telcos less to have all those radios and towers sitting around not doing anything? I think the cost lies in building and maintaining the capacity. Once it's there, it's most cost effective (in a bits/dollar sense) to keep your network as close to saturation as possible. Costs are not in fact proportional to volume, and they shouldn't bill as if they were.
Costs are most certainly proportional to volume. A tower has a finite capacity, and the more bandwidth people use the fewer subscribers each tower can support.
Slashdot Mirror
For normal service you get nothing, but you get a regular customer.
Correction, the owner of the establishment gets a regular customer.
Ugh, single click moderation with no way to correct (besides posting a comment and undoing *all* mods on this story). Didn't mean to mark that redundant.
The problem with treating the constitution as something holy and unchanging is that this isn't 1787. It seems ludicrous to me to be obsessing about what the intent of the "founding fathers" was and using their will as an absolute basis for everything to follow. At a certain point that becomes it own quasi-religion.
Back when the constitution was written it was unlikely most people would ever interact with people from different states. Other than the rare news stories there would be no way to even know what was happening elsewhere. You couldn't hop in a car and have crossed several state boundaries in the space of a few hours. People wouldn't routinely be buying produced and shipped from a distant state.
I'm not saying that states should lose all authority to the federal government or that the balance today is exactly right, but I do think that the notion that they got it exactly right in the 18th century and that's exactly what we should be doing in the 21st century is laughable.
That's not necessarily true. Terminations can happen for a lot of reasons. Someone might have the technical skills but just not fit into the team. Or they might be good at some things, but not all of the things you need at the position they're in... they might do better at a different job more focused on the things they're good at. In a larger company you might just be able to move them to a different position, but that might not be an option at a small company.
Being fired hurts, and there might be a temporary emotional payoff to "sticking it to them", but unless there is some serious wrongdoing on their part, you'd probably want to leave on good terms, and burning your bridges would definitely be shooting yourself in the foot.
The mods seem to be on crack today^H^H^H^H^H. The parent's suggestion might be misguided and would be harmful to Google's credibility (as several people have pointed out) but there is no reason to believe he's trying to provoke a fight or troll.
Flamebait != "I disagree"
In what way? Do you have anything meaningful to back it up or just absurd rhetoric?
Have you heard of at thing called shades of gray? You can take anything to an extreme and use it to attack something, but that doesn't make you right. Do you believe there's no difference between blowing through a stop sign at 100 mph and rolling through it at 5 mph? Do you honestly believe it's possible to draw some line where it suddenly becomes okay? It's safe at 5mph suddenly becomes dangerous at 6mph?
The fact is, this idiot chose to be "dramatic" and deploy a slide which deploys with great force and could be lethal to anybody who was caught under it, while the plane was at the gate and ground crews would be approaching the plane as a part of their jobs. Further more, unlike your "rolling stop" strawman, there's no way he could reliably tell from where he was whether or not someone was in harms way.
Maybe you believe that reckless actions that could harm others shouldn't be punished until someone actually is harmed?
(I would be all for it. I *Hate* Java. The tools make it bearable.)
What do you hate so much about it? what languages do you like?
For an action that could easily have killed someone on the ground? Seems entirely reasonable to me.
[citation needed]
Comcast does not offer their consumers a contract promising to offer them the same discounts they offer other consumers. Oracle did sign such a contract here.
Why wouldn't such a contract be enforceable? Whether a private entity could get Oracle to sign such an agreement is an entirely different question, the point is they signed the contract here and then tried to weasel their way around it.
You are still liable
The small charge could easily be a precursor to a large charge. Thieves will often make small purchases online to test cards before buying something of value. Obviously getting something shipped is not an option if you're using a stolen card, and they wouldn't want to attract attention to themselves in a physical store by using a card that's been reported stolen.
So what exactly are you proposing as your alternative to the so-called corrupted "big government", that would have prevented this problem?
How exactly does an anonymous tipoff get the OP his laptop back?
Think about it. It's basically a coin flip that company A buying company B will result in any benefit to the shareholders of A. If shareholders were truly wise, they'd tell management to just give them the cash they would have spent on acquiring a company. They'd make out better in the long run.
That does not follow. If half the acquired companies fail completely (i.e. produce 0 return) and the other half produce at 3x return, the shareholders of the acquiring company come out ahead too.
That's a bunch of baloney. Computer science doctorates have been available since the 60s and 70s. Just because you chose not to enroll in one because it was not "popular" doesn't mean that you're being discriminated against. Moreover, there is nothing stopping you from going and enrolling in a PhD now if you choose. You made a bunch of choices that leave you unqualified for some jobs. Maybe it's time to start taking responsibility for that instead of whining about imagined "discrimination"?
I think that wives of men that go to strip clubs feel that it is wrong in both ways
I don't think your analogy is correct. Businesses that specifically target married or otherwise attached people are comparable, but strip clubs aren't. If this were a general research service that people could abuse to get homework done that would be comparable to a stripclub that some men go to and cheat on their significant others.
Unless the vendor is working on the software in its obfuscated form rather than using a processor to generate it, they would still be violating the GPL if all they released was the obfuscated source code.
From the text of the GPL:
When did BP or GM ever get anyone laid?
I bet there are guys out there on the gulf coast volunteering to help clean up the oil spill so they can meet hippie chicks, and some of them are probably getting laid too.
Surely you mean:
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that you are running low on black toner
WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE RUNNING LOW ON BLACK TONER
We noticed that yo
Is that true? Does it cost the telcos less to have all those radios and towers sitting around not doing anything? I think the cost lies in building and maintaining the capacity. Once it's there, it's most cost effective (in a bits/dollar sense) to keep your network as close to saturation as possible. Costs are not in fact proportional to volume, and they shouldn't bill as if they were.
Costs are most certainly proportional to volume. A tower has a finite capacity, and the more bandwidth people use the fewer subscribers each tower can support.
How would it be "cheaper"? 4GB of RAM costs about $100. That gets you about a 32GB SSD.
Several of the other comments below address the "effective" part.
Yes