On MacOS there's a setting, "Allow Apps Downloaded from", under the security and privacy section of the control panel that controls this behavior. If I have that set to download from anywhere, it should download from anywhere.
The question that the OP was complaining about was not "why"; the question was "how", combined with the lack of willingness to take the initiative to find out on their own. Asking how to solve a problem, because you aren't self-directed enough to figure it out on your own, is very different from asking why a problem needs to be solved, to give you a better understanding of the problem, so you can make a better solution.
You're projecting your unrelated problems onto this post.
It's not that nobody can get Fios in Boston, it's that most people can't get Fios in Boston. Fios, RCN, and Comca...::ahem:: "Xfinity" are all available in Cambridge... but 1/4 mi from MIT towards Central, and I can't get Fios or RCN.
In many fine dining kitchens the usage of the term recently has moved back towards older titles like "Chef De Partie" for line cooks, even if they don't have anybody directly under them in the brigade, and are collectively referred to as 'chefs' even though "The Chef" that is in charge of the brigade of any particular is still called "Chef." I guess if you can't get paid more than $8/hr then at least you can sound cool to people at the bar after work.
That's like saying you're going to mechanize painting pictures. Being a gourmet chef requires creativity, and good judgement. There's also a lot more variance in vegetables and meat than in pre-fab parts, and having the judgement to properly massage that variance, while maintaining it's uniqueness, is what makes gourmet food, gourmet. If that variance doesn't exist in the materials you start with, then it's decidedly not 'gourmet'. This could, and already has affected mid-sized corporate restaurants, by outsourcing food production to commissaries, only needing to be microwaved or scooped out of a steam tray.
Also, chefs, even good ones, often get paid less than factory assembly line workers.
Askjeeves tried to get people to ask their search engine questions in plain english, and through their failure, proved that people just don't like interacting with browser search engines that way. Processing queries for a service like Siri, however, would be a much better match for Watson's skills.
I'm getting a bit sick of 'smart' searches... or, rather, not being able to disable the 'smartness.' More often than not, I really don't want a search engine making assumptions about what I meant, rather than just taking what I enter completely literally, and I *never* want it to insert results that don't contain all of my search terms because it scored exponentially better with the other items in the query. Chances are, I added in the term they were ignoring, specifically, to drastically reduce the number of results I got, because I wanted to *narrow it down*.
Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I would rather tweak the search to narrow down crap results than try to outsmart the 'smartness' any day of the week. I understand that this isn't necessarily what John Q. Internetuser is looking for in search, but at least having the option there would be a big help. Google used to have a very straightforward syntax to help you modify your search results in specific, predictable ways... while much of that syntax is still valid in google searches, now it seems like everything can be arbitrarily overridden by what google thinks you 'should' have meant, rather than what you told it you meant. Very frustrating.
“Hey Folks, we’re the Nuclear Trashmen, we’re here on tour from Brooklyn, promoting our album release. This is our thirteenth show, first with this lineup. This is a song called half life.”
Absolutely. Tipping in cash is ridiculous when they're charging me for a tip on my card. That simply means that instead of the drivers being stolen from, I'm being stolen from, because they're charging me twice.
Why in the world are the credit card fees something that should be transferred to the individual employee when the company itself is a) purchasing the credit card processing service, and b) the primary benefactor from the transaction?
It's quite illegal for restaurants to deduct *anything* except taxes from a server's tips, and it should be. In most states, servers are getting paid approximately $2.50/hr based on the assumption that they'll make at least a certain percentage in tips (where I am, they automatically get taxed on an assumed 12% of sales, unless they claim higher, which that $2.50/hr generally barely covers. If someone stiffs them, they still pay taxes based on an assumed 12% tip, if they don't claim the other 8% of a 20% cash tip, they still pay based on that 12%) You're paying less for the food as a result (and you really are, restaurant profit margins, after all of the incurred expenses, are generally fairly small,) so the customer adjusts their pay directly, adjusting the amount for service... but the restaurant is still making the profit on the food, drinks, etc. and the server is a regular employee, not a contractor. CC processing fees aren't taken out of servers' pay for the same reason they aren't taken out of a Neiman Marcus employees' pay when they sell you a pair of shoes, even if they are making commission. That's a business expense, not a personal expense of the employee.
Uber takes a standard, per-booking fee from the drivers for the costs incurred as acting as a dispatch service, and a payment clearinghouse. The drivers can utilize that service as much as they want, when they want. Some drivers work for limo companies that collect the fee for the ride, and pay them their regular rates for paying limo drivers, still giving them the tip, as a tip. Some drivers use their own cars and for themselves, operating as one-person limo companies contracted by uber. It's completely appropriate for uber to charge the *company* they are contracting for the costs incurred in the CC processing, because it's the company that the service is being purchased from is the primary actor in, and benefactor of the transaction, not the employee. There are accepted ways for companies to allocate less money to an employee and more money to themselves, if they see fit: charge more and don't give more to employees, or reduce the employees pay. Charging the employees fees is absurd.
Why are their poor hiring practices indicative of a problem with the available degree programs to students? Of course, all in-between type jobs would be easier to train for if there was a degree specific to those jobs... but do you really think that anyone went into journalism or art history because there was no software testing degree program available? If they were interested in working with computers, why in the world would they not major (or even minor) in computer science? At best, I could see software testing being being a concentration for students with technology related degrees.
This begs the question: why aren't they hiring fresh, or underemployed CS grads, or people with unrelated engineering backgrounds, to do these jobs, to begin with, if they're finding that the people they hire don't have the appropriate technical skills? I'm guessing that they don't want to pay them well enough to use their expertise. Once they get a degree specific to that field, however, wouldn't they cost just as much as CS grads?
This article is using the fact that they hire people with no relevant training whatsoever, to advocate for a degree in something that should be purely vocational, or on-the-job training. In this job market, it must seem, to recruiters, that their wish are prospective employee and trainer commands, because people are so desperate to get an edge, even in the most basic jobs. This person airing their perspective on the matter shows how skewed their perspective is.
A *regular phone company* has a legally binding, written agreement, which a contract, that you sign, guaranteeing that you will reimburse the phone company for their expenses, primarily your phone, if you stop the service early.
What *T-Mobile* has is a legally binding, written agreement, which is NOT a contract, that you sign, guaranteeing that you will reimburse the phone company for the expense of your phone, if you stop the service early.
So, I think people who are saying that this is different from other cell phone company contracts are clearly telling the truth... not in the standard sense, where everything they say is indisputably correct... rather, in the t-mobile sense, where the "true" part is judged solely on whether or not it's true that they expressed something, and the actual veracity of their words is conveniently ignored for marketing purposes.
This isn't spraying some perfume into rabbits eyes to make sure it doesn't give people a rash, this is doing research to treat and prevent diseases that are killing and disabling an astounding number of people.
I think most people that have come to the ethical conclusion that the thousands of animals that they tested HIV and AIDS treatments on at this facility, are more important than the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that are not dead, and living their lives relatively normally because of that research, probably don't know anyone that was pushed down the terrifying, grueling, tortuous path of a slow AIDS related death.
Their efforts do reach an incredibly broad audience. The number of people that *do* have access to computers, which *do* have internet access, but are *not* running at least Windows XP SP2 (the minimum requirement for recent versions of firefox), or Linux, which the most recent version of Damn Small Linux, by any known measure (OS Market Share stats), is incredibly small.
Damn small linux, requires a 486DX with 16MB of RAM. It is small enough to download with a dial-up connection. The latest Firefox requires a P4, with 512MB RAM. Not exactly what I would call "High Spec" hardware.
So, who, *precisely*, are these people that have consistent internet access, regular access to computers, but are incapable of running any vaguely recent version of Linux, or WindowsXP?
These are the *actually* underserved groups of people, with this system:
-There are plenty of people who only have access to computers in libraries or shelters for limited amounts of time, who often do not have access for long enough, or consistently enough to take a class. -There are people who live in remote areas who are well-off enough to have computers, who either don't have internet access, or have connectivity that is not consistent enough to guarantee a connection at any given time, as is required when participating in a class. -There are many people don't have access to computers, at all.
The audience you claim to be fighting for, really, does not exist in any significant number. There *certainly are* struggling people that don't have access to this system, but the fact that some people have trouble with it when they try to use Firefox 3.6.x is not even a remotely significant contributor to the problem, and anybody making a stink about it is either really not thinking the problem through and just grumbling because it bothers them (a curmudgeon), or just trying to start trouble (a troll.)
It's not so very long since backwards compatibility was considered a good feature of software. Now, just mentioning the desirability of it seems to be a sure-fire way to collect some personal insults.
Insulting? Possibly. Accurate? Undoubtedly.
referencing:
Did their designers never hear of backwards compatibility? Or do they just want to exclude access by anybody without the latest gizmos?
Obviously, the tone of my response, especially in the passage you cited, was not directed at your want for backwards compatibility, which, stated more civilly, would have gathered a more friendly response; it was targeted at your trollish questioning of the developers and designers competence, and motives. Since I'm a software developer at Harvard (I did not work on this project,) I believe my response was quite appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Read that as 10-Year-Old Supernova Discovers 600-Million-Year-Old Boy
On MacOS there's a setting, "Allow Apps Downloaded from", under the security and privacy section of the control panel that controls this behavior. If I have that set to download from anywhere, it should download from anywhere.
Honestly now, do you really think that the NSA is operating from IP addresses that can be tied to us government domain names?
Actually, I never went to college. I'm a self-taught software engineer.
The question that the OP was complaining about was not "why"; the question was "how", combined with the lack of willingness to take the initiative to find out on their own. Asking how to solve a problem, because you aren't self-directed enough to figure it out on your own, is very different from asking why a problem needs to be solved, to give you a better understanding of the problem, so you can make a better solution.
You're projecting your unrelated problems onto this post.
It's not that nobody can get Fios in Boston, it's that most people can't get Fios in Boston. Fios, RCN, and Comca... ::ahem:: "Xfinity" are all available in Cambridge... but 1/4 mi from MIT towards Central, and I can't get Fios or RCN.
Guess so.
Donky Mark?
(though probably anybody who's hanging out in a bar where a bunch of line cooks hang out at after work probably knows the difference)
In many fine dining kitchens the usage of the term recently has moved back towards older titles like "Chef De Partie" for line cooks, even if they don't have anybody directly under them in the brigade, and are collectively referred to as 'chefs' even though "The Chef" that is in charge of the brigade of any particular is still called "Chef." I guess if you can't get paid more than $8/hr then at least you can sound cool to people at the bar after work.
That's like saying you're going to mechanize painting pictures. Being a gourmet chef requires creativity, and good judgement. There's also a lot more variance in vegetables and meat than in pre-fab parts, and having the judgement to properly massage that variance, while maintaining it's uniqueness, is what makes gourmet food, gourmet. If that variance doesn't exist in the materials you start with, then it's decidedly not 'gourmet'.
This could, and already has affected mid-sized corporate restaurants, by outsourcing food production to commissaries, only needing to be microwaved or scooped out of a steam tray.
Also, chefs, even good ones, often get paid less than factory assembly line workers.
Askjeeves tried to get people to ask their search engine questions in plain english, and through their failure, proved that people just don't like interacting with browser search engines that way. Processing queries for a service like Siri, however, would be a much better match for Watson's skills.
I'm getting a bit sick of 'smart' searches... or, rather, not being able to disable the 'smartness.' More often than not, I really don't want a search engine making assumptions about what I meant, rather than just taking what I enter completely literally, and I *never* want it to insert results that don't contain all of my search terms because it scored exponentially better with the other items in the query. Chances are, I added in the term they were ignoring, specifically, to drastically reduce the number of results I got, because I wanted to *narrow it down*.
Maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but I would rather tweak the search to narrow down crap results than try to outsmart the 'smartness' any day of the week. I understand that this isn't necessarily what John Q. Internetuser is looking for in search, but at least having the option there would be a big help. Google used to have a very straightforward syntax to help you modify your search results in specific, predictable ways... while much of that syntax is still valid in google searches, now it seems like everything can be arbitrarily overridden by what google thinks you 'should' have meant, rather than what you told it you meant. Very frustrating.
Yep:
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/dec2010/sb20101210_839038.htm
“Hey Folks, we’re the Nuclear Trashmen, we’re here on tour from Brooklyn, promoting our album release. This is our thirteenth show, first with this lineup. This is a song called half life.”
Absolutely. Tipping in cash is ridiculous when they're charging me for a tip on my card. That simply means that instead of the drivers being stolen from, I'm being stolen from, because they're charging me twice.
Why in the world are the credit card fees something that should be transferred to the individual employee when the company itself is a) purchasing the credit card processing service, and b) the primary benefactor from the transaction?
It's quite illegal for restaurants to deduct *anything* except taxes from a server's tips, and it should be. In most states, servers are getting paid approximately $2.50/hr based on the assumption that they'll make at least a certain percentage in tips (where I am, they automatically get taxed on an assumed 12% of sales, unless they claim higher, which that $2.50/hr generally barely covers. If someone stiffs them, they still pay taxes based on an assumed 12% tip, if they don't claim the other 8% of a 20% cash tip, they still pay based on that 12%) You're paying less for the food as a result (and you really are, restaurant profit margins, after all of the incurred expenses, are generally fairly small,) so the customer adjusts their pay directly, adjusting the amount for service... but the restaurant is still making the profit on the food, drinks, etc. and the server is a regular employee, not a contractor. CC processing fees aren't taken out of servers' pay for the same reason they aren't taken out of a Neiman Marcus employees' pay when they sell you a pair of shoes, even if they are making commission. That's a business expense, not a personal expense of the employee.
Uber takes a standard, per-booking fee from the drivers for the costs incurred as acting as a dispatch service, and a payment clearinghouse. The drivers can utilize that service as much as they want, when they want. Some drivers work for limo companies that collect the fee for the ride, and pay them their regular rates for paying limo drivers, still giving them the tip, as a tip. Some drivers use their own cars and for themselves, operating as one-person limo companies contracted by uber. It's completely appropriate for uber to charge the *company* they are contracting for the costs incurred in the CC processing, because it's the company that the service is being purchased from is the primary actor in, and benefactor of the transaction, not the employee. There are accepted ways for companies to allocate less money to an employee and more money to themselves, if they see fit: charge more and don't give more to employees, or reduce the employees pay. Charging the employees fees is absurd.
I'd say being able to flash someone's headlights if they're driving on a winding, unlit road, at night, could most certainly be catastrophic.
like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYNnPx8fZBs
Shell scripting, learned out of necessity, working as a sys admin. Now, years later, I am web developer working primarily with PHP and Perl.
Why are their poor hiring practices indicative of a problem with the available degree programs to students? Of course, all in-between type jobs would be easier to train for if there was a degree specific to those jobs... but do you really think that anyone went into journalism or art history because there was no software testing degree program available? If they were interested in working with computers, why in the world would they not major (or even minor) in computer science? At best, I could see software testing being being a concentration for students with technology related degrees.
This begs the question: why aren't they hiring fresh, or underemployed CS grads, or people with unrelated engineering backgrounds, to do these jobs, to begin with, if they're finding that the people they hire don't have the appropriate technical skills? I'm guessing that they don't want to pay them well enough to use their expertise. Once they get a degree specific to that field, however, wouldn't they cost just as much as CS grads?
This article is using the fact that they hire people with no relevant training whatsoever, to advocate for a degree in something that should be purely vocational, or on-the-job training. In this job market, it must seem, to recruiters, that their wish are prospective employee and trainer commands, because people are so desperate to get an edge, even in the most basic jobs. This person airing their perspective on the matter shows how skewed their perspective is.
A *regular phone company* has a legally binding, written agreement, which a contract, that you sign, guaranteeing that you will reimburse the phone company for their expenses, primarily your phone, if you stop the service early.
What *T-Mobile* has is a legally binding, written agreement, which is NOT a contract, that you sign, guaranteeing that you will reimburse the phone company for the expense of your phone, if you stop the service early.
So, I think people who are saying that this is different from other cell phone company contracts are clearly telling the truth... not in the standard sense, where everything they say is indisputably correct... rather, in the t-mobile sense, where the "true" part is judged solely on whether or not it's true that they expressed something, and the actual veracity of their words is conveniently ignored for marketing purposes.
This isn't spraying some perfume into rabbits eyes to make sure it doesn't give people a rash, this is doing research to treat and prevent diseases that are killing and disabling an astounding number of people.
I think most people that have come to the ethical conclusion that the thousands of animals that they tested HIV and AIDS treatments on at this facility, are more important than the tens or hundreds of thousands of people that are not dead, and living their lives relatively normally because of that research, probably don't know anyone that was pushed down the terrifying, grueling, tortuous path of a slow AIDS related death.
Their efforts do reach an incredibly broad audience. The number of people that *do* have access to computers, which *do* have internet access, but are *not* running at least Windows XP SP2 (the minimum requirement for recent versions of firefox), or Linux, which the most recent version of Damn Small Linux, by any known measure (OS Market Share stats), is incredibly small.
Damn small linux, requires a 486DX with 16MB of RAM. It is small enough to download with a dial-up connection.
The latest Firefox requires a P4, with 512MB RAM. Not exactly what I would call "High Spec" hardware.
So, who, *precisely*, are these people that have consistent internet access, regular access to computers, but are incapable of running any vaguely recent version of Linux, or WindowsXP?
These are the *actually* underserved groups of people, with this system:
-There are plenty of people who only have access to computers in libraries or shelters for limited amounts of time, who often do not have access for long enough, or consistently enough to take a class.
-There are people who live in remote areas who are well-off enough to have computers, who either don't have internet access, or have connectivity that is not consistent enough to guarantee a connection at any given time, as is required when participating in a class.
-There are many people don't have access to computers, at all.
The audience you claim to be fighting for, really, does not exist in any significant number. There *certainly are* struggling people that don't have access to this system, but the fact that some people have trouble with it when they try to use Firefox 3.6.x is not even a remotely significant contributor to the problem, and anybody making a stink about it is either really not thinking the problem through and just grumbling because it bothers them (a curmudgeon), or just trying to start trouble (a troll.)
It's not so very long since backwards compatibility was considered a good feature of software. Now, just mentioning the desirability of it seems to be a sure-fire way to collect some personal insults.
Insulting? Possibly. Accurate? Undoubtedly.
referencing:
Did their designers never hear of backwards compatibility? Or do they just want to exclude access by anybody without the latest gizmos?
Obviously, the tone of my response, especially in the passage you cited, was not directed at your want for backwards compatibility, which, stated more civilly, would have gathered a more friendly response; it was targeted at your trollish questioning of the developers and designers competence, and motives. Since I'm a software developer at Harvard (I did not work on this project,) I believe my response was quite appropriate.