And good riddance. "WYSIWYG" programs invariably generate a spaghetti-like mess of a page that could had no semantic logic, and could only be practically modified by using the program in question.
You don't design in code. You design with Photoshop (at least for the final version) and then hand it over to people who understand code to implement.
Which is contained precisely nowhere in the headline. I made the same mistake, particularly as Australia seems to be a bit more gung-ho about its voting policies than the US.
Then maybe he should resign from his key post in a publicly-traded company? He doesn't need to disclose any details - just say he's leaving for "personal" or "health" reasons.
Then Apple can decide who to put up next, shareholders can react accordingly, and everyone can let Steve Jobs die in peace.
If he'd quit Apple, then I'm sure we would. Meanwhile, he's the CEO of a major, publicly-held company, and he's just said he's going on indefinite leave, and no, he's not going to tell them what Apple's plans are if he leaves for good. Speculation is going to happen - moreover, it's justified while ever other people's money is invested in his company.
Typical fanboy reaction - label anyone not slotting neatly into your worshipful little reality as a "hater", and deride it as a "meme".
GP got it exactly right. Steve hasn't resigned his post, he's taken an indefinite leave of absence. If he had quit, and Apple had appointed a successor, Apple would have had a bump in their share price, and gone on their way. He didn't. When the shareholders asked for a succession plan (i.e. whose going to run the show if Steve leaves?) they got nothing.
What Apple is doing now is *building* apprehension amongst their shareholders. Steve leaving might not make much of a difference to Apple's production qualities - but everyone's afraid it will because Apple's acting so cagey. The fear Apple's behaviour is generating is certainly going to effect it's stock price because stock, in the end, is really based on nothing more than fears and hopes.
That's the end goal Assange always envisaged for Wikileaks. He wanted to make governments either become more open, or become so inefficient due to the security needed to hold their secrets, that Darwin would see them replaced with a more open one.
Was talked about in one of the interviews he gave.
No, on Appleworld, you get to pick whether Apple kicks you up the arse, or the publisher does. Either way, you get an arse-kicking. Apple just uses immaculately tailored boots instead of the publishers old hobnails.
And then everyone will get to watch their Internet bills double or triple as the ISP discovers that they're "running a server" in violation of the ISP's acceptable use policy and "helpfully" upgrades their service to business class
No, just people in the US. In countries where we pay for bandwidth used rather than an "unlimited" plan hedged around with restrictions and caveats, our ISPs don't give a stuff about servers (unless they're poorly-configured SMTP servers being used as spam relays). Every byte we use is money in the bank for them.
every number I dial, every contact I have, every app I have installed, every text message or email I send or receive, everywhere I go via the GPS receiver, every web page I visit, every photo I take
Might want to read the article, buddy. It's an implementation of Facebook's SMS API at a SIM level. It doesn't report anything, unless you, the user, uses it to explicitly send a message to Facebook.
"But that's paranoid! Facebook would never do that!"
Last I looked "Gemalto, a Dutch digital security company", wasn't Facebook.
All this without permission, or in stark contrast to denial of permission, automatically and silently.
Would you say the same thing if it was a student suspended for off-campus speach about his teachers? It seems Slashdot has a problem with punishing the students for this kind of behavior, and I don't see anything that would negate that principle here.
When you pay students a salary, you can fire them for bitching about their teachers as much as you like.
Yup yet it seems that doing it right is not profitable.. so all the reformists are taking up the old path once again
Which reformists are those? Don't know much about reformed churches in the US, but I haven't heard anything about reversion to clerical confession here.
Meh, it was more along the lines of a compromise: "I'll endorse your religion and protect you from the nasty inquisitors, if you'll let me have a divorce". The founders of the Church of England were very much concerned about reformation issues - it was just its titular head that wasn't.
So it should be. Walking up to a complete stranger and empowering them with sensitive information about your wrongdoings is bone headed. An excellent way for the clergy to keep control of their...sheep.
You know that most practicing Catholics would know their priest personally, right? They'd probably see him more often than you do most of your friends.
The OP was saying that people who bought IPv4 routers are entitled to a free upgrade to IPv6. I said that as long as the device was sold as IPv4, Cisco was under no obligation to upgrade their device.
Then you enter the discussion and say that Cisco may be committing accounting fraud for releasing a firmware update they haven't written, to add a feature they never advertised, and begin a long-winded and entirely off-topic dissertation on corporate accounting.
I think you missed the point. If Cisco is delivering new features in free-as-in-beer firmware updates to those older routers, then those people paid for those features when they bought the product initially while Cisco hasn't actually delivered them yet.
No they didn't. They paid for what the specs on the box said. If the box said IPv4, they paid for IPv4. If it didn't say IPv6, they have no entitlement to IPv6 functionality. What Cisco may or may not do, for free, outside the scope of the purchase, doesn't retroactively entitle people to more than they paid for. If the goods didn't match the spec, they'd be entitled to a refund, and maybe a class action lawsuit. Neither of which would, in any shape or form, preclude Cisco from recording revenue from units sold.
If what you suggest were actually the case, then a company would be unable to earn any money from a product until they EOLed it, and stopped distributing patches.
Some of us remember how to draw relevant parallels too. There's a difference between recording revenue for services/goods you haven't sold, and goods you have sold which later need an update.
Depends on the rules used to govern.us domains. I'd expect not, if they're incorporated in the US. Everything else about corporations is a legal fiction, I'm sure their nationality follows suit.
Yannow, he probably wouldn't be if people weren't so determined to see him hung. Wikileaks released heaps of stuff prior to the diplomatic cables, but it wasn't until they pissed off the US that Assange started being harassed, and media attention shifted to him.
As it is, I'm glad he's getting the increased exposure. The more press attention he gets, the less likely it is for him to be disappeared.
One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.
It is. Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. If someone's telling me to inject this cocktail of drugs and denatured organisms into my kids' bloodstream, I'm going to want some sort of assurance that it's not going to do harm. It's the reason the US has the FDA. So that drug companies can't just go off propounding their latest money-spinner without verifying that it doesn't cause irreparable harm to those that take them.
That said, I think most commonly-used vaccinations have long since proved themselves in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
And good riddance. "WYSIWYG" programs invariably generate a spaghetti-like mess of a page that could had no semantic logic, and could only be practically modified by using the program in question.
You don't design in code. You design with Photoshop (at least for the final version) and then hand it over to people who understand code to implement.
Which is contained precisely nowhere in the headline. I made the same mistake, particularly as Australia seems to be a bit more gung-ho about its voting policies than the US.
Then maybe he should resign from his key post in a publicly-traded company? He doesn't need to disclose any details - just say he's leaving for "personal" or "health" reasons.
Then Apple can decide who to put up next, shareholders can react accordingly, and everyone can let Steve Jobs die in peace.
Actually, your command of language is wrong.
This:
not
is a negation. You should look out for them when they crop up. Noticing them might stop you looking like an arrogant twat on public forums.
If he'd quit Apple, then I'm sure we would. Meanwhile, he's the CEO of a major, publicly-held company, and he's just said he's going on indefinite leave, and no, he's not going to tell them what Apple's plans are if he leaves for good. Speculation is going to happen - moreover, it's justified while ever other people's money is invested in his company.
Typical fanboy reaction - label anyone not slotting neatly into your worshipful little reality as a "hater", and deride it as a "meme".
GP got it exactly right. Steve hasn't resigned his post, he's taken an indefinite leave of absence. If he had quit, and Apple had appointed a successor, Apple would have had a bump in their share price, and gone on their way. He didn't. When the shareholders asked for a succession plan (i.e. whose going to run the show if Steve leaves?) they got nothing.
What Apple is doing now is *building* apprehension amongst their shareholders. Steve leaving might not make much of a difference to Apple's production qualities - but everyone's afraid it will because Apple's acting so cagey. The fear Apple's behaviour is generating is certainly going to effect it's stock price because stock, in the end, is really based on nothing more than fears and hopes.
I sorta see people who call someone else a "hater" and think that's an argument the same way.
That's the end goal Assange always envisaged for Wikileaks. He wanted to make governments either become more open, or become so inefficient due to the security needed to hold their secrets, that Darwin would see them replaced with a more open one.
Was talked about in one of the interviews he gave.
No, on Appleworld, you get to pick whether Apple kicks you up the arse, or the publisher does. Either way, you get an arse-kicking. Apple just uses immaculately tailored boots instead of the publishers old hobnails.
And then everyone will get to watch their Internet bills double or triple as the ISP discovers that they're "running a server" in violation of the ISP's acceptable use policy and "helpfully" upgrades their service to business class
No, just people in the US. In countries where we pay for bandwidth used rather than an "unlimited" plan hedged around with restrictions and caveats, our ISPs don't give a stuff about servers (unless they're poorly-configured SMTP servers being used as spam relays). Every byte we use is money in the bank for them.
Those that practice paranoia without comprehension are doomed to be hanging around subway stations wearing sandwich boards
every number I dial, every contact I have, every app I have installed, every text message or email I send or receive, everywhere I go via the GPS receiver, every web page I visit, every photo I take
Might want to read the article, buddy. It's an implementation of Facebook's SMS API at a SIM level. It doesn't report anything, unless you, the user, uses it to explicitly send a message to Facebook.
"But that's paranoid! Facebook would never do that!"
Last I looked "Gemalto, a Dutch digital security company", wasn't Facebook.
All this without permission, or in stark contrast to denial of permission, automatically and silently.
Now you're just pulling things out of your arse.
Would you say the same thing if it was a student suspended for off-campus speach about his teachers? It seems Slashdot has a problem with punishing the students for this kind of behavior, and I don't see anything that would negate that principle here.
When you pay students a salary, you can fire them for bitching about their teachers as much as you like.
Yup yet it seems that doing it right is not profitable.. so all the reformists are taking up the old path once again
Which reformists are those? Don't know much about reformed churches in the US, but I haven't heard anything about reversion to clerical confession here.
Meh, it was more along the lines of a compromise: "I'll endorse your religion and protect you from the nasty inquisitors, if you'll let me have a divorce". The founders of the Church of England were very much concerned about reformation issues - it was just its titular head that wasn't.
So it should be. Walking up to a complete stranger and empowering them with sensitive information about your wrongdoings is bone headed. An excellent way for the clergy to keep control of their...sheep.
You know that most practicing Catholics would know their priest personally, right? They'd probably see him more often than you do most of your friends.
No, you've missed the entire point.
The OP was saying that people who bought IPv4 routers are entitled to a free upgrade to IPv6.
I said that as long as the device was sold as IPv4, Cisco was under no obligation to upgrade their device.
Then you enter the discussion and say that Cisco may be committing accounting fraud for releasing a firmware update they haven't written, to add a feature they never advertised, and begin a long-winded and entirely off-topic dissertation on corporate accounting.
I think you missed the point. If Cisco is delivering new features in free-as-in-beer firmware updates to those older routers, then those people paid for those features when they bought the product initially while Cisco hasn't actually delivered them yet.
No they didn't. They paid for what the specs on the box said. If the box said IPv4, they paid for IPv4. If it didn't say IPv6, they have no entitlement to IPv6 functionality. What Cisco may or may not do, for free, outside the scope of the purchase, doesn't retroactively entitle people to more than they paid for. If the goods didn't match the spec, they'd be entitled to a refund, and maybe a class action lawsuit. Neither of which would, in any shape or form, preclude Cisco from recording revenue from units sold.
If what you suggest were actually the case, then a company would be unable to earn any money from a product until they EOLed it, and stopped distributing patches.
Some of us remember how to draw relevant parallels too. There's a difference between recording revenue for services/goods you haven't sold, and goods you have sold which later need an update.
No. people paid money to Cisco for features they got, now they've changed their minds and want different features!
Those routers were never advertised with IPv6 support, so why should they be upgraded for free?
I know CAD is not usually a /. source, deferring to the more prestigious journals such as xkcd or Dilbert, but:
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110209/
Like the removal of those annoying sunset provisions?
Depends on the rules used to govern .us domains. I'd expect not, if they're incorporated in the US. Everything else about corporations is a legal fiction, I'm sure their nationality follows suit.
Yannow, he probably wouldn't be if people weren't so determined to see him hung. Wikileaks released heaps of stuff prior to the diplomatic cables, but it wasn't until they pissed off the US that Assange started being harassed, and media attention shifted to him.
As it is, I'm glad he's getting the increased exposure. The more press attention he gets, the less likely it is for him to be disappeared.
I agreed with most of your post except this:
One of the anti-vaccine idiots even had the balls to say that it was up to the scientific community to disprove that vaccines are dangerous.
It is. Or if not prove, at least demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt. If someone's telling me to inject this cocktail of drugs and denatured organisms into my kids' bloodstream, I'm going to want some sort of assurance that it's not going to do harm. It's the reason the US has the FDA. So that drug companies can't just go off propounding their latest money-spinner without verifying that it doesn't cause irreparable harm to those that take them.
That said, I think most commonly-used vaccinations have long since proved themselves in that regard.