Absolutely -- that's why kernel maintainers want open source -- so they can inspect everything it does.
As it stands now, you have a driver that needs unconstrained privileged access in order for it to perform optimally. Thus, if it is not open source, one can't easily tell what it does with each new release -- does it contact the "TPM" for information about how secure the OS is? Does it use that information to introduce lower visual quality on your monitor? Did they only reduce it when playing restricted output? How do we know? This stuff is hard to get right all the time (for some, it's hard to get right even most of the time!;-)).... Does it try to call network routines to validate the driver? or check for updates?...Does it try to use peer-to-peer networking ala MS style in order to circumvent firewalls w/tunneled IPV6? Etc etc etc.
I don't know why but Nvidia feels they have to keep their source proprietary -- it must really be awful in some way for them to have to hide it. If it is a proprietary and unique algorithm, patent it!... (or maybe they are using someone else's patented stuff and they don't want that known?)...
It's just awfully squirrelly for HW-Dev manufacturer to claim a need to keep their source to their driver "proprietary".
In a similar way, I ran into a weird situation with the Spyder 3 Color measuring HW -- you can't use the software w/o the device, so it's a bit like it already has a built-in HW dongle -- w/the exception that you can configure the software, then unplug the device and the SW will still run -- but you won't be able to recalibrate -- something you need to do every few months, at least.... But now they added in a full "call-home" licensing suite to the software, so you have to activate it -- even though you can't buy it or copy it without the device... Just seemed a bit paranoid to me. It seems their licensing mechanism was already guaranteed with the need for the HW for the device to function. So why a need for proprietary SW licensing?
Situations like that make you suspicious about how truthful and forthcoming they are being with you -- and if they do it there, then we know they don't have a problem putting in shady stuff when their judgment says so... so without an OpenSrc driver, you just don't know what they are doing...and many Proprietary vendors (Sony, multiple times, et al), have shown us that given the opportunity, they will put rootkits on our systems and will disable our hardware at their control (like all the MS-Media-Center users who found a popular show didn't record that week because the broadcaster (NBC of the previous MS-NBC alliance), tested the 'do not record flag' (accidently, of course!) only during this one show -- as a metric to see how well the new blocking technology worked...
Sweet.
If anything, Corporations have shown us they are not to be trusted.
It's Firmware -- and it most certainly runs on your machine.
If they implemented a callable interface in Firmware, it would be a native
code or callstack -- but worse -- they have to deliver results back to user space and transfer large amounts of data over the bus -- that means DMA access to user, and likely kernel space -- they could still write all over memory and would be no increase in security unless the code was inspectable -- in which case you are back where you started.
But the openGL standard is constantly being updated... so...you'd have to constantly ship new Firmware updates to stay up with the standard -- They would end up being 'binary blobs' as well -- so the problem would still be the same I'd think...
OpenGL Driver Support Windows driver version 280.47 and Linux drivers version 280.10.01.04 provide full support for OpenGL 4.2 and GLSL 4.20 on capable hardware. This driver also supports several new OpenGL extensions for both 4.2-capable GPUs and older GPUs. The driver download links are at the bottom of this page. (http://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver)....
If she primarily or only spoke Farsi, and little English, and made it clear that she was here on vacation and was going to go back to Iran -- then the clerk might have been doing the 'right thing'...
I.e. if the clerk was a US Citizen who was of Persian decent and spoke Farsi --- they might be extra cautious in dealing with those from Iran -- especially if they are here on a travel visa -- IF they did sell it to her, they might be accused of aiding and abetting a foreign spy.
Discrimination *may* have had nothing to do with it -- but here on/., we know how foreign speaking students have been tracked by 'Homeland Security' -- so they have to be especially cautious and be extra careful not to violate law concerning tech sales to people of their hereditary country lest the be accused of being a spy.
(Sorry for the O.T. discussion, but what we call something is often pertinent in how we perceive things, which is one basis of discrimination.)
Interesting point. I didn't know that, but it does raise a question I've had about such things.... Why do we call countries/languages, etc, by different names than those who natively live there?
I can understand it if we can't pronounce it, but Persian vs. Farsi.? Deutsch vs. German, or Francais v. French?
If we did it interpersonally, it would be like some introducing themselves as Frank or Lisa, and us calling them Joe and Sally. That just seems a bit strange, at least, and some might find it offensive.
By the same token, though, we no longer call the land there, "Persia", so maybe since Persia no longer exists, calling the language Persian might be considered antiquated by some? Just a thought.
"Problem is that a good portion of the population won't be able to afford this technology, because their jobs got automated by the very same technology."
But hasn't the idea of automation doing our work for us been the grail of robotics since it was envisioned? Technology was supposed to make everyone's life easier by giving us more leisure time.
So what has happened -- instead of robots doing our work for us so we can enjoy the benefits of automation and work less, we lost out on ownership of our 'representative' part of the benefits.
Too much accumulation and concentration has been allowed such that instead of an entire society benefiting, only those who have swindled their way to the stop benefit. But it's worse -- they've created a system where, when they fail 'big-time', the failure is paid for by the masses to restore those who have concentrated the wealth back to their previously inflated wealth holding status (think of, most recently the bank bailout that gave away nearly 1/3-1/2 of our annual GDP by deflating the worth of the dollar held by everyone else.
Is it a wonder why disk prices are now double what they were 3-4 years ago when they should be halved or quartered? A perfect example of how the system was working and how it has now been made to fail: Efficiency improvements directly benefited everyone who needed space (just about all of society). with cost for storage falling at about the rate of 50%/18 months. A temporary shortage in one type of disk drives (primarily laptop drives), has been used as an excuse to drive up the prices of all disk drives, at the same time, those companies have been allowed to consolidate (IBM: gone, Hitachi: gone, etc..). Now, post recovery (of the disk flood event), rather than prices returning to normal, we hear that disk vendors are artificially holding prices high (only possible because so few vendors are in the field now) -- and now those with the most money -- the manufacturers, are soaking up the benefits of technological improvement that might otherwise benefit the masses.
Until the people institute strong government controls over wealth concentration, the problem will continue to worsen.
1. How many were NOT destroyed and were used to prosecute Americans for things unrelated spying -- including records given or shared with other domestic law enforcement groups?
2. Out of every 1000 records collected, how many had to be destroyed? Is he saying there is no accounting of 'mistakes', doesn't that open the door for destruction of records vital to safety as well? There have been spies within the NSA. If one employee statistically has a throw-away rate that is 3x or 10x the norm, I'd want to know why. I find it incomprehensible that an organization with such a strong background in mathematics wouldn't perform such statistical analysis to determine efficacy of collection as well as problems with employees.
The problem was early windows -- everything was in pixels.
Well, starting in HTML5, they redefined the pixel to be 1/100". That's right!
In order to correct for a generation (or two) of stupid programmers, (X11 programmers knew about DPI, but starting with windows... that knowledge was lost). They now pat those programmers on the head and say "there there, it's ok, you go on using your pixels... and everything will be fine...)...
Meanwhile, real pixels can start going up, without print becoming tinier...
Win7 has made a primitive start in allowing this type of magnification -- but only in post-processing -- resulting in a less than ideal result. I.e. it has Winxp compatible resizing which resizes in pre-process, but widgets and graphics may not line up, and has a post-render resize which resizes everything, but only after it has been pixelized...(sigh)...
With the new system, output goes to a virtual display first, that is later rendered at device native resolutions...but the programmers and web designers will only see the software-pixel...
Embrace use of their compilers for free SW devel, Extend it to support proprietary models, and those who grew used to the tool set will now find that the ability to develop unencumbered, useful programs has been Extinguished -- thus grabbing a large mental-share of people who would have been using Gnu tools and contributing to their development and now forcing them into a dead-end or becoming paying MS customers...
If we implement the tags, we could have computer simulations run to determine damage done instead of using real ammo that causes needless collateral damage and destruction of property. The the losers could report to death stations to be disposed off....
It would help make our society so much more tidy and efficient...
*cough*....
At least till someone came along and violated their prime directive...
They didn't have a choice -- CA badgered them into a corner and they agreed to do sales tax by 2013... Given those circumstances, slapping this shit in CA's face seems like the most expeditious thing to do...
Thing is...CA customers need to look for a new vendor to buy books from... CA sales tax is fairly high...
Most people spend their entire lives trying to earn that amount for a house. You are saying he deserves a life-time penalty for his actions.
He should be punished, but not at such an excessive rate that he'll possibly never pay it off in his entire lifetime.
(then again with the dollar shrinking -- $675K could be come worth about 1/10th that in a decade or two -- but not something to rely on).
One of the symptoms of US problems -- excessive punishment -- in terms of fines and time. Fines should be proportional to income (and/or assets), or, better -- require public service time -- and not for YEARS... and not keeping him locked up -- something like the draft, but not militarily inclined.
In this case, his main offense would be for playing with the court system -- not the song downloading -- that should be penalized at 'cost' to the studios... Otherwise, it becomes a gold mine for studios to make movies available on torrents and record IP-hits...
Seems like a new 'legal' way for organized crime to extort money....
We may have all hated Bill Gates, but he had a vision (not that everyone liked it). Currently they have no visionary leadership. Ballmer's expertise was executive/corporate operations, but he didn't have the Bill Gates' "style" (however one might perceive that, Borg, nerd, or whatever -- he had a distinctive style/personality, just like Jobs had a distinctive style/personality). I just don't see Ballmer as being inspirational to people. That doesn't mean he's not good at doing what he does -- he's just not a charismatic figure[head]...
I don't see him as being a leader, but an executor (someone often vital to a leader to get things done, but not meant to take the place of the leader).
Yeah... what I don't understand, is do we need a special law? Can employers ask for you home keys so they can search through it -- or any other privately owned property?
So they pass a law restricting facebook passwords -- then employers require you to install a monitoring app on your iphone or gphone...that monitors who you connect to and what you download -- just so they can be sure you aren't leaking company secrets, of course.
If there are no laws controlling employer acquisition of personal information and/or property, then banning facebook is pointless, as it doesn't address the problem -- it just gives publicity to 1 website about to go public...
They moved to software as a service model in the last year.
You can now pay your adobe fees monthly (couple hundred/month) -- if you want the yearly plan, you buy all new versions at a discount.
If you don't want to upgrade right now, that's fine...
When you do, you can either pay full price (~30-50% more), OR you can pay for each upgrade between your current version and the current.
They shut down email and online support without paid contracts ON TOP of the SOFTWARE cost. (i.e. when you "buy" their software, it gives you a license to install it and they will give you help with installing it. That's it. Any bug fixes you want addressed?: you pay extra.
They also decided to merge the mac and windows support forums -- because their needs are the same (that's working out real well, ha).
And closed most of their product forums -- moving them to professional "customer handler" ("Get satisfaction")...
Yeah.. they've been pretty evil for some time now.
I've had to call and beg for 'reactivation' on windows 7 probably near a dozen times now -- because whenever win7 would hiccup, adobe's license mechanism would try to issue another license as it would think you were a different computer. Think of the MS-HW detection algorithm, but with the number of allowed changes in HW = zero or one (depending on the part).
It wouldn't be so bad if they were actually innovating, but they generated a V5.5 in between V5 and V6 just to create more revenue -- and force customers to pay double upgrade costs to get to V6 -- and it doesn't have much in the way of new features either.
Their biggest nightmare -- people weren't upgrading because their engineers stopped innovating as quickly, so people were using the same SW for 3-5 years... while adobe wants payments every year.
We were talking whether it was legal to lie to a private employer about past training -- more specifically, if you wish to be specific, about someone at Yahoo. Their offices are in California and they are incorporated in Delaware.
None of the information you supply has any bearing on the case. You are throwing out facts mindlessly in an attempt to misdirect the issue. I didn't check the laws in every state, because they don't apply to this discussion. That as many as 20% of states have such laws is still rather pathetic -- there's NO NEED for them. The person hasn't done harm against society -- they've **potentially** done harm against their employer -- BUT only if their employer judges they have done so. If they don't have issue with their performance, then it is not the place of 3rd parties (or the state) to say otherwise.
Where do you get the idea that I am at all letting out dramatic anger? I did say, "rhetorical anger"... i.e. a "simulated anger" that is shown for purposes of "rhetoric", or for the sake of argument. It's similar telling someone they broke the law, and in mock anger, telling them they will pay the full price of their misdeeds: being whipped with a wet noodle!
I'm not sure, but it sorta looks like you are taking this a bit too seriously -- just like taking Yahoo's CEO's violation 'seriously'. I don't see them as big deals. There are alot more important things going on in the world and trivia like what so-and-so did on their job application or who had an affair with who, or who did what type of non-harmful, consensual activity in their spare time are just not that that should be considered newsworthy. It's invasive and petty -- and an obvious attempt to do harm to someone. Perhaps 3rd party negative gossip and backbiting is what should be made illegal.
Lie # 2 to support your claims: how low will you go!?? (:-) )
You said:
"In fact, lying on a job application can, in fact, be a crime! When you apply for a job and are going through all of that paperwork---you sign at the bottom, and in most cases, what you're signing is to affirm the truth of what you have stated. This is true on the applicant history, your tax info, references, and so on."
Either you are blatantly lying to support your specious case, or, you really are ignorant of the law. In the above, the only one of those that is criminal is lying about tax info, and THEN, only to federal or state tax authorities.
You have to lie to *authorities*. A job application to a private company is NOT a court-held legal document. It's an agreement between two or more *private* individuals. As such, lying in that context is albeit, unethical and/or immoral, but not it is not illegal and is not a crime.
<rhetorical_anger>As it stands you have lied MORE than the person in question that WE can prove. What does this say about your character? Should you be allowed to hold a job? </rhetorical_anger>
Do you really want to push for the idea that inter-personal fabrication is a crime? Should you be jailed for your actions? Should you now be harassed to the ends of the earth? [oh woe is me^h^hyou]
Almost everyone, has done what you did -- misspoken, or not thoroughly vetted their facts (how often we hear about that in the news, buried under the 'obit's, on p37....;^) -- virtually never on the front page and in the same font, where the initial deed was done!).
There is a difference between criminal activity and doing "civil" wrongs. The former, is a crime. The latter, exposes you to [possible] "civil" action: something that doesn't go on a criminal record.
See the difference? But even in such matters about private matters -- there are unfortunately side-effects of laws that were never meant to be applied in a given situation. If a president is asked about non-job related activities, by congress, it **shouldn't** be a crime for them to either not-answer or to give, even a false answer to an *inappropriate* questions about their personal life (applicable to a *sitting*, or past president where they are not being 'qualified' for the post).
As for lying before they get into office -- I think that's called campaigning [?] [*sigh*!] -- something I doubt we'll ever see laws passed to control -- heck, corporations just recently got ruled that they can do unlimited lying during campaigns (besides their normal advertising) -- something that had been previously controlled, but they asserted, that "Corporations" are legal people and therefore should receive full constitutional rights.
Yeah..right. Let's see guilty ones serve time behind bars...
Generally, I agree with you, but when the degree is 30 years in the past, its not very relevant to whether or not you can do the current job. If's more important to look at whether or not he is able to do the job AT THIS POINT, than what story he made up to get their.
Second, and I can't let you get away with this... You are lying.
You said: "Lying about your job or education experience is blatantly wrong, everyone knows it, NOT everyone does it, and many people that do will get caught, just like any other crime", but the thing is lying on a job application isn't a **CRIME**, it's immoral, and unethical, but not a crime. That's the line.
How many people never go over the speed limit? It's IS wrong I won't make assertions about EVERYONE doing it, but people do get caught. But it often ISN'T unethical or immoral.
I'm not saying what he did was right. But now that the information is 'out', it doesn't matter anymore. If stock holders and co-workers have no confidence in his ability to do the job -- he will be voted out -- he doesn't need to have any extra special penalties or harassment applied by the media or general public.
It's NOT a *legal* issue, it's an issue between him and those who employ him to decide if it makes a difference, NOT you.
So stop LYING to support your arguments. I know everyone does it, and it's not illegal (it's a free country -- and people are allowed freedom of expression -- even when it includes lying -- except under oath or police (specific laws apply)). But from my perspective, you are just as guilty as he is of lying to convince people of your 'truth' -- and this was what I meant when I wrote about no one being perfect, and unless he has done something serious that society has thought was serious enough to pass a law against, you have no business as a 3rd party harassing him -- especially when you are guilty of the same type of action.
If you are a direct party who is affected by his actions, then you can seek redress by outing him from office at the next stockholder meeting or a civil suit if you can prove it has done you harm.
Holier than thou, hypocrisy SHOULD be a crime. It would create alot less need for lying and address, IMO, the worse harm of of harming people who are guilty of no crime, but of being human.
I will be recommending neither of you for the "[Boy/Girl] Scout's honesty and integrity awards"... Consider yourself disciplined.
The problem with this is anyone who gets up in the world -- even if they got off from a false basis... if they worked for 30 years, post degree -- it doesn't make a difference.
If you don't want to get strung up? Be perfect. If you are not perfect, in all ways, then you have no right to call other people on their crap (except as self defense!)...
No one is or was a saint -- not Mother Teresa (lots of stories of her misdeeds surfaced after her death -- she was a bit over the top...), and most (can't prove 'all'), and no recent presidents...(if any?)....
It's hypocrisy of the 1st degree and it stinks!
Stop holding people to unrealistic standards... Has he murder anyone?
No? Has he liked under presidential oath to congress? How can people even think of harassing him, when our country's leadership in the past few presidential terms has set an example far lower than most anyone could match!
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely -- that's why kernel maintainers want open source -- so they can inspect everything it does.
As it stands now, you have a driver that needs unconstrained privileged access in order for it to perform optimally. Thus, if it is not open source, one can't easily tell what it does with each new release -- does it contact the "TPM" for information about how secure the OS is? Does it use that information to introduce lower visual quality on your monitor? Did they only reduce it when playing restricted output? How do we know? This stuff is hard to get right all the time (for some, it's hard to get right even most of the time! ;-)).... Does it try to call network routines to validate the driver? or check for updates?...Does it try to use peer-to-peer networking ala MS style in order to circumvent firewalls w/tunneled IPV6? Etc etc etc.
I don't know why but Nvidia feels they have to keep their source proprietary -- it must really be awful in some way for them to have to hide it. If it is a proprietary and unique algorithm, patent it!... (or maybe they are using someone else's patented stuff and they don't want that known?)...
It's just awfully squirrelly for HW-Dev manufacturer to claim a need to keep their source to their driver "proprietary".
In a similar way, I ran into a weird situation with the Spyder 3 Color measuring HW -- you can't use the software w/o the device, so it's a bit like it already has a built-in HW dongle -- w/the exception that you can configure
the software, then unplug the device and the SW will still run -- but you won't be able to recalibrate -- something you need to do every few months, at least.... But now they added in a full "call-home" licensing suite to the software, so you have to activate it -- even though you can't buy it or copy it without the device... Just seemed a bit paranoid to me. It seems their licensing mechanism was already guaranteed with the need for the HW for the device to function. So why a need for proprietary SW licensing?
Situations like that make you suspicious about how truthful and forthcoming they are being with you -- and if they do it there, then we know they don't have a problem putting in shady stuff when their judgment says so... so without an OpenSrc driver, you just don't know what they are doing...and many Proprietary vendors (Sony, multiple times, et al), have shown us that given the opportunity, they will put rootkits on our systems and will disable our hardware at their control (like all the MS-Media-Center users who found a popular show didn't record that week because the broadcaster (NBC of the previous MS-NBC alliance), tested the 'do not record flag' (accidently, of course!) only during this one show -- as a metric to see how well the new blocking technology worked...
Sweet.
If anything, Corporations have shown us they are not to be trusted.
What do you think your ROM BIOS is?
It's Firmware -- and it most certainly runs on your machine.
If they implemented a callable interface in Firmware, it would be a native
code or callstack -- but worse -- they have to deliver results back to user space and transfer large amounts of data over the bus -- that means DMA access to user, and likely kernel space -- they could still write all over memory and would be no increase in security unless the code was inspectable -- in which case you are back where you started.
But the openGL standard is constantly being updated... so ...you'd have to constantly ship new Firmware updates to stay up with the standard --
They would end up being 'binary blobs' as well -- so the problem would still be the same I'd think...
Um:
OpenGL Driver Support
Windows driver version 280.47 and Linux drivers version 280.10.01.04 provide full support for OpenGL 4.2 and GLSL 4.20 on capable hardware. This driver also supports several new OpenGL extensions for both 4.2-capable GPUs and older GPUs. The driver download links are at the bottom of this page.
(http://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver)....
Apparently, OpenGL support isn't enough...
If she primarily or only spoke Farsi, and little English, and made it clear that she was here on vacation and was going to go back to Iran -- then the clerk might have been doing the 'right thing'...
I.e. if the clerk was a US Citizen who was of Persian decent and spoke Farsi --- they might be extra cautious in dealing with those from Iran -- especially if they are here on a travel visa -- IF they did sell it to her, they might be accused of aiding and abetting a foreign spy.
Discrimination *may* have had nothing to do with it -- but here on /., we know how foreign speaking students have been tracked by 'Homeland Security' -- so they have to be especially cautious and be extra careful not to violate law concerning tech sales to people of their hereditary country lest the be accused of being a spy.
(Sorry for the O.T. discussion, but what we call something is often pertinent in how we perceive things, which is one basis of discrimination.)
Interesting point. I didn't know that, but it does raise a question I've had about such things.... Why do we call countries/languages, etc, by different names than those who natively live there?
I can understand it if we can't pronounce it, but Persian vs. Farsi.?
Deutsch vs. German, or Francais v. French?
If we did it interpersonally, it would be like some introducing themselves as Frank or Lisa, and us calling them Joe and Sally. That just seems a bit strange, at least, and some might find it offensive.
By the same token, though, we no longer call the land there, "Persia", so maybe since Persia no longer exists, calling the language Persian might be considered antiquated by some? Just a thought.
"Problem is that a good portion of the population won't be able to afford this technology, because their jobs got automated by the very same technology."
But hasn't the idea of automation doing our work for us been the grail of robotics since it was envisioned? Technology was supposed to make everyone's life easier by giving us more leisure time.
So what has happened -- instead of robots doing our work for us so we can enjoy the benefits of automation and work less, we lost out on ownership of our 'representative' part of the benefits.
Too much accumulation and concentration has been allowed such that instead of an entire society benefiting, only those who have swindled their way to the stop benefit. But it's worse -- they've created a system where, when they fail 'big-time', the failure is paid for by the masses to restore those who have concentrated the wealth back to their previously inflated wealth holding status (think of, most recently the bank bailout that gave away nearly 1/3-1/2 of our annual GDP by deflating the worth of the dollar held by everyone else.
Is it a wonder why disk prices are now double what they were 3-4 years ago when they should be halved or quartered? A perfect example of how the system was working and how it has now been made to fail: Efficiency improvements directly benefited everyone who needed space (just about all of society). with cost for storage falling at about the rate of 50%/18 months. A temporary shortage in one type of disk drives (primarily laptop drives), has been used as an excuse to drive up the prices of all disk drives, at the same time, those companies have been allowed to consolidate (IBM: gone, Hitachi: gone, etc..). Now, post recovery (of the disk flood event), rather than prices returning to normal, we hear that disk vendors are artificially holding prices high (only possible because so few vendors are in the field now) -- and now those with the most money -- the manufacturers, are soaking up the benefits of technological improvement that might otherwise benefit the masses.
Until the people institute strong government controls over wealth concentration, the problem will continue to worsen.
Your dad well avoids the real questions.
1. How many were NOT destroyed and were used to prosecute Americans for things unrelated spying -- including records given or shared with other domestic law enforcement groups?
2. Out of every 1000 records collected, how many had to be destroyed? Is he saying there is no accounting of 'mistakes', doesn't that open the door for destruction of records vital to safety as well? There have been spies within the NSA. If one employee statistically has a throw-away rate that is 3x or 10x the norm, I'd want to know why. I find it incomprehensible that an organization with such a strong background in mathematics wouldn't perform such statistical analysis to determine efficacy of collection as well as problems with employees.
HTML5 and Win7 are fixing this....
The problem was early windows -- everything was in pixels.
Well, starting in HTML5, they redefined the pixel to be 1/100". That's right!
In order to correct for a generation (or two) of stupid programmers, (X11 programmers knew about DPI, but starting with windows ... that knowledge was lost). They now pat those programmers on the head and say "there there, it's ok, you go on using your pixels... and everything will be fine...)...
Meanwhile, real pixels can start going up, without print becoming tinier...
Win7 has made a primitive start in allowing this type of magnification -- but only in post-processing -- resulting in a less than ideal result. I.e. it has Winxp compatible resizing which resizes in pre-process, but widgets and graphics may not line up, and has a post-render resize which resizes everything, but only after it has been pixelized...(sigh)...
With the new system, output goes to a virtual display first, that is later rendered at device native resolutions...but the programmers and web designers will only see the software-pixel...
How is this not extortion?
That used to be illegal.
Embrace use of their compilers for free SW devel, Extend it to support proprietary models, and those who grew used to the tool set will now find that the ability to develop unencumbered, useful programs has been Extinguished -- thus grabbing a large mental-share of people who would have been using Gnu tools and contributing to their development and now forcing them into a dead-end or becoming paying MS customers...
Beware of Geeks baring gifts...
Yeah -- looks like a blatant form of censorship to me -- a violation of freedom of expression.
The Republicans are the new fascists and the Dems are becoming the new totalitarians...
If we implement the tags, we could have computer simulations run to determine damage done instead of using real ammo that causes needless collateral damage and destruction of property. The the losers could report to death stations to be disposed off....
It would help make our society so much more tidy and efficient...
*cough*....
At least till someone came along and violated their prime directive...
hmmm
They didn't have a choice -- CA badgered them into a corner and they agreed to do sales tax by 2013... Given those circumstances,
slapping this shit in CA's face seems like the most expeditious thing to do...
Thing is...CA customers need to look for a new vendor to buy books from...
CA sales tax is fairly high...
You are an idiot.
Most people spend their entire lives trying to earn that amount for a house. You are saying he deserves a life-time penalty for his actions.
He should be punished, but not at such an excessive rate that he'll possibly never pay it off in his entire lifetime.
(then again with the dollar shrinking -- $675K could be come worth about 1/10th that in a decade or two -- but not something to rely on).
One of the symptoms of US problems -- excessive punishment -- in terms of fines and time. Fines should be proportional to income (and/or assets), or, better -- require public service time -- and not for YEARS... and not keeping him locked up -- something like the draft, but not militarily inclined.
In this case, his main offense would be for playing with the court system -- not the song downloading -- that should be penalized at 'cost' to the studios... Otherwise, it becomes a gold mine for studios to make movies available on torrents and record IP-hits...
Seems like a new 'legal' way for organized crime to extort money ....
MS's leadership was questioned in MS's forums some time ago:
Does MS need new leadership to fix problems w/Win7---Oct 1, 2011 (
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/does-ms-need-new-leadership-to-fix-problems-wwin7/0b7c745b-da66-4b76-a83b-f74a6c22fefd)
.
We may have all hated Bill Gates, but he had a vision (not that everyone liked it). Currently they have no visionary leadership. Ballmer's expertise was executive/corporate operations, but he didn't have the Bill Gates' "style" (however one might perceive that, Borg, nerd, or whatever -- he had a distinctive style/personality, just like Jobs had a distinctive style/personality). I just don't see Ballmer as being inspirational to people. That doesn't mean he's not good at doing what he does -- he's just not a charismatic figure[head]...
I don't see him as being a leader, but an executor (someone often vital to a leader to get things done, but not meant to take the place of the leader).
Why should they pay for it when they can get laws passed to require the government and the taxpayers pay for policing themselves?
Yeah... what I don't understand, is do we need a special law? Can employers ask for you home keys so they can search through it -- or any other privately owned property?
So they pass a law restricting facebook passwords -- then employers require you to install a monitoring app on your iphone or gphone...that monitors who you connect to and what you download -- just so they can be sure you aren't leaking company secrets, of course.
If there are no laws controlling employer acquisition of personal information and/or property, then banning facebook is pointless, as it doesn't address the problem -- it just gives publicity to 1 website about to go public...
Wonderful...
They moved to software as a service model in the last year.
You can now pay your adobe fees monthly (couple hundred/month) -- if you want the yearly plan, you buy all new versions at a discount.
If you don't want to upgrade right now, that's fine...
When you do, you can either pay full price (~30-50% more), OR you can pay for each upgrade between your current version and the current.
They shut down email and online support without paid contracts ON TOP of the SOFTWARE cost. (i.e. when you "buy" their software, it gives you a license to install it and they will give you help with installing it. That's it. Any bug fixes you want addressed?: you pay extra.
They also decided to merge the mac and windows support forums -- because their needs are the same (that's working out real well, ha).
And closed most of their product forums -- moving them to professional "customer handler" ("Get satisfaction")...
Yeah.. they've been pretty evil for some time now.
I've had to call and beg for 'reactivation' on windows 7 probably near a dozen times now -- because whenever win7 would hiccup, adobe's license mechanism would try to issue another license as it would think you were a different computer. Think of the MS-HW detection algorithm, but with the number of allowed changes in HW = zero or one (depending on the part).
It wouldn't be so bad if they were actually innovating, but they generated a V5.5 in between V5 and V6 just to create more revenue -- and force customers to pay double upgrade costs to get to V6 -- and it doesn't have much in the way of new features either.
Their biggest nightmare -- people weren't upgrading because their engineers stopped innovating as quickly, so people were using the same SW for 3-5 years... while adobe wants payments every year.
We were talking whether it was legal to lie to a private employer about past training -- more specifically, if you wish to be specific, about someone at Yahoo. Their offices are in California and they are incorporated in Delaware.
None of the information you supply has any bearing on the case. You are throwing out facts mindlessly in an attempt to misdirect the issue. I didn't check the laws in every state, because they don't apply to this discussion. That as many as 20% of states have such laws is still rather pathetic -- there's NO NEED for them. The person hasn't done harm against society -- they've **potentially** done harm against their employer -- BUT only if their employer judges they have done so. If they don't have issue with their performance, then it is not the place of 3rd parties (or the state) to say otherwise.
Where do you get the idea that I am at all letting out dramatic anger?
I did say, "rhetorical anger"... i.e. a "simulated anger" that is shown for purposes of "rhetoric", or for the sake of argument. It's similar telling someone they broke the law, and in mock anger, telling them they will pay the full price of their misdeeds: being whipped with a wet noodle!
I'm not sure, but it sorta looks like you are taking this a bit too seriously -- just like taking Yahoo's CEO's violation 'seriously'. I don't see them as big deals. There are alot more important things going on in the world and trivia like what so-and-so did on their job application or who had an affair with who, or who did what type of non-harmful, consensual activity in their spare time are just not that that should be considered newsworthy. It's invasive and petty -- and an obvious attempt to do harm to someone. Perhaps 3rd party negative gossip and backbiting is what should be made illegal.
Huh? I don't get what you are saying? What do you think will happen?
The downside I see -- some of these can be very expensive, and if available without prescription won't be covered by insurance.
This isn't necessarily going to make things cheaper for patients.
Availability of high-speed RF link to shore?
Ability for owners to have easy access?
Ability to be close to shore for repairs (workers get a vacation)...
My big Q: will this be the next server co-lo for the Pirate Bay??
You said:
"In fact, lying on a job application can, in fact, be a crime! When you apply for a job and are going through all of that paperwork---you sign at the bottom, and in most cases, what you're signing is to affirm the truth of what you have stated. This is true on the applicant history, your tax info, references, and so on."
Either you are blatantly lying to support your specious case, or, you really are ignorant of the law. In the above, the only one of those that is criminal is lying about tax info, and THEN, only to federal or state tax authorities.
You have to lie to *authorities*. A job application to a private company is NOT a court-held legal document. It's an agreement between two or more *private* individuals. As such, lying in that context is albeit, unethical and/or immoral, but not it is not illegal and is not a crime.
<rhetorical_anger>As it stands you have lied MORE than the person in question that WE can prove. What does this say about your character? Should you be allowed to hold a job? </rhetorical_anger>
Do you really want to push for the idea that inter-personal fabrication is a crime? Should you be jailed for your actions? Should you now be harassed to the ends of the earth? [oh woe is me^h^hyou]
Almost everyone, has done what you did -- misspoken, or not thoroughly vetted their facts (how often we hear about that in the news, buried under the 'obit's, on p37....;^) -- virtually never on the front page and in the same font, where the initial deed was done!).
There is a difference between criminal activity and doing "civil" wrongs. The former, is a crime. The latter, exposes you to [possible] "civil" action: something that doesn't go on a criminal record.
See the difference? But even in such matters about private matters -- there are unfortunately side-effects of laws that were never meant to be applied in a given situation. If a president is asked about non-job related activities, by congress, it **shouldn't** be a crime for them to either not-answer or to give, even a false answer to an *inappropriate* questions about their personal life (applicable to a *sitting*, or past president where they are not being 'qualified' for the post).
As for lying before they get into office -- I think that's called campaigning [?] [*sigh*!] -- something I doubt we'll ever see laws passed to control -- heck, corporations just recently got ruled that they can do unlimited lying during campaigns (besides their normal advertising) -- something that had been previously controlled, but they asserted, that "Corporations" are legal people and therefore should receive full constitutional rights.
Yeah..right. Let's see guilty ones serve time behind bars...
Generally, I agree with you, but when the degree is 30 years in the past, its not very relevant to whether or not you can do the current job. If's more important to look at whether or not he is able to do the job AT THIS POINT, than what story he made up to get their.
Second, and I can't let you get away with this... You are lying.
You said: "Lying about your job or education experience is blatantly wrong, everyone knows it, NOT everyone does it, and many people that do will get caught, just like any other crime", but the thing is lying on a job application isn't a **CRIME**, it's immoral, and unethical, but not a crime. That's the line.
How many people never go over the speed limit? It's IS wrong I won't make assertions about EVERYONE doing it, but people do get caught. But it often ISN'T unethical or immoral.
I'm not saying what he did was right. But now that the information is 'out', it doesn't matter anymore. If stock holders and co-workers have no confidence in his ability to do the job -- he will be voted out -- he doesn't need to have any extra special penalties or harassment applied by the media or general public.
It's NOT a *legal* issue, it's an issue between him and those who employ him to decide if it makes a difference, NOT you.
So stop LYING to support your arguments. I know everyone does it, and it's not illegal (it's a free country -- and people are allowed freedom of expression -- even when it includes lying -- except under oath or police (specific laws apply)). But from my perspective, you are just as guilty as he is of lying to convince people of your 'truth' -- and this was what I meant when I wrote about no one being perfect, and unless he has done something serious that society has thought was serious enough to pass a law against, you have no business as a 3rd party harassing him -- especially when you are guilty of the same type of action.
If you are a direct party who is affected by his actions, then you can seek redress by outing him from office at the next stockholder meeting or a civil suit if you can prove it has done you harm.
Holier than thou, hypocrisy SHOULD be a crime. It would create alot less need for lying and address, IMO, the worse harm of of harming people who are guilty of no crime, but of being human.
I will be recommending neither of you for the "[Boy/Girl] Scout's honesty and integrity awards"... Consider yourself disciplined.
This is bull.
The problem with this is anyone who gets up in the world -- even if they got off from a false basis... if they worked for 30 years, post degree -- it doesn't make a difference.
If you don't want to get strung up? Be perfect. If you are not perfect, in all ways, then you have no right to call other people on their crap (except as self defense!)...
No one is or was a saint -- not Mother Teresa (lots of stories of her misdeeds surfaced after her death -- she was a bit over the top...), and most (can't prove 'all'), and no recent presidents...(if any?)....
It's hypocrisy of the 1st degree and it stinks!
Stop holding people to unrealistic standards...
Has he murder anyone?
No? Has he liked under presidential oath to congress? How can people even think of harassing him, when our country's leadership in the past few presidential terms has set an example far lower than most anyone could match!
Hold the leaders accountable first.