I 100% agree making money continually from a bit of software is screwed unless your always adding real functionality and innovation (and thats another debate).
Why shouldn't someone who buys my software in 2009 pay the same amount as someone who bought it in 2007? It does the same job, and it probably runs on less expensive hardware since it hasn't bloated beyond all reasonable size. A piece of software that does one thing and does it well doesn't need constant additions of "real functionality and innovation". That's the Microsoft "always upgrade" mindset.
I also agree there should be limits of some description (I mean after you have a couple of million - how much more do you really need, personally).
I employ ten people. I pay them well. They don't stop needing money to buy food after a year, or after the first two million in sales. Just who gives you the right to decide how much money is enough for someone else?
Good developers should get paid for developing not supporting...
So I should just sell my program and never answer the phone or emails about how to use it or whatever bugs people find? Yes, I guess so, since "a couple of million" is enough money for me, I can't afford to spend it on phone lines or network connections to provide easy access for users to ask questions.
It probably goes without saying that Red Hat engineers are generally really smart and ethical people - you don't work for an open source company otherwise.
Then it is the Red Hat lawyers prodded by the shareholders who file for patents on software, which the engineers think are bad, and expect closed-source software companies to license the IP.
If Red Hat objected to software patents in general, they'd file for the patent and then let ANYONE use it. That's what would happen if there were no software patents -- everyone can use the ideas. By limiting the users of Red Hat's IP they are making the clear statement that software patents DO have a purpose and are valuable enough to spend money getting and defending.
People, look at the date on the paper. March 31, 2006.
The summary has an update that says "we" discussed this paper last year, before it had been published. This is 2009. It was published in 2006. Last year was 2008. In which universe, other than the April Fool's universe, does 2008 come before 2006?
What have they proven? That they can define "random event" to mean "free will". You can't predict a spin, so that obviously means that the particle you are measuring had the "free will" to choose its own spin, with all the anthropomorphic implications fully attached.
That, and that people who are supposed to be smart will waste a lot of time debating philosophy as applied to the "free will" of an electron.
If software patents are bad, then they are bad. You can't claim you are doing a Good Thing by patenting something simple and obvious and then prohibiting some people from using it.
That's what they are doing by promising not to sue Open Source projects for using THEIR patented intellectual property. It's still THEIR patented intellectual property, and they'll sue closed source projects for using it.
What's even worse is they renig on their promise if an Open Source project tries to challenge Red Hat's claim to the IP. "Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit)."
That means that any project that wants to use any of Red Hat's licensed IP can't challenge ANY of Red Hat's patents for any reason, even patents that they shouldn't have because that open source project has provable, existing prior art in the area.
E-Voting is great because of the speed of vote counting and the convenience of vote logging.
Speed of vote counting is a specious and counterproductive goal. It is folly to throw away accuracy in the search for speed, although our modern society seems to value the latter more than the former.
Everybody wants to know five seconds after the poll closes who won. What difference does it make if the total isn't known for a week? Other than special elections filling a vacant seat, no election result is enacted until months after the vote. We vote for President in early November, and the electoral college doesn't meet until December to make it official. It's not until January that the new president is installed. Is a week delay in knowing the vote result going to kill us?
Gee, it's swell and exciting and all that to know who won before we go to bed on election night, but damn if the networks haven't gotten their predictions WRONG so many times that you really don't know until the next day or two anyway. And by making those WRONG predictions, they create an atmosphere where any correct data is viewed as corruption. You know, "the CBS exit poll predicted Gore wins the state of X, but the actual vote tally that comes after all the absentees and contested ballots are counted shows the winner was Bush." CORRUPTION! VOTE FRAUD! GORE WON! CBS SAID SO!
First, define a reasonable standard for a ballot paper.
Well, you run into the small problem that we are a union of states, not just one big federal government. Isn't it interesting that not even the Constitution specifies how electors will be determined, it is left up to each state. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,..." Trying to demand that a specific ballot format be used to vote for electors would be patently unconstitutional since the task is explicitly left up to the state legislatures. (And that clause was prominent in the SCOTUS decision where the Florida Supremes were slapped down for trying to change the process the legislature had directed.) In fact, I think it was Missouri where the Governor appointed the electors up until 1950 or so, because that's what the legislature directed.
... have those papers be printed automatically by a range of voter hardware. Touch screens, traditional lever booths,...
Increasing the places for failure and fraud. Is someone who can't understand a simple "fill in the circle" ballot going to actually check a machine printed form to make sure every entry is right? Why not just fill it in by hand? It's not that hard. Really. It isn't.
Full paper trail, full disclosure, completely separate machines to print and count the votes, and a complete human-readable official trail to follow later. And its simple.
Yes, fine, have a printer on site so handicapped people can vote more easily, but like I said, this really isn't an electronic voting system, it's paper balloting.
Electronic voting started because handicapped people were supposed to be able to vote without the help of a poll worker.
That's a nice goal, but it is hardly worth making the rest of the system unreliable in such new and marvelous ways. There are ways of solving the handicapped voting problem.
And elections are still being contested because all the paper ballots are confusing...
No, not all the elections are being contested and not all the paper ballots are confusing. That's a gross overstatement.
They are being contested because one party thinks that changing the rules after the election is over is a standard operating practice, and even though they agreed to the ballot before the election was held, they see an excuse to challenge a loss after the results are announced.
That is exactly what happened in Florida in 2000. That's the infamous "butterfly" ballot, which was approved by democrat election officials prior to the election and then challenged because "it was confusing". One old fart actually stood up and proclaimed to the world that he didn't need to "read no instructions" on how to fill in a ballot because he's been doing it for fifty years. Well, yes, sir, when the format of the ballot changes you might want to read the instructions how to use it or your vote might not be counted the way you want. It's that simple.
Yeah, that's a small detail that seems to get lost every time there is a challenge to a specific ballot as being confusing. It wasn't confusing before the losing party lost, only after. It was approved by both major parties before it was printed. The only thing that changed after the election was the result.
But, that's why I said the simple "fill in the circle" style ballot where to make a black spot on a piece of paper. If this confuses you, maybe you shouldn't be helping decide the fate of the country?
And they have a number of failures as well. What do do do if someone tries to erase? Marks two?
Yes, they do. Well understood and trivially corrected failures. Let's see if we can figure out what to do if someone tries to erase... hmmm, well, maybe we just TAKE HIS SPOILED BALLOT and GIVE HIM ANOTHER ONE? Yes, that seems like a very low-tech solution. No electronic voting machine needed for that.
To pretend that one is always better than the other (from either side) is a sign that impartiality isn't a goal...
Nonsense. Low tech solutions with simple failure mechanisms that can be corrected simply are always better than high tech systems with unknown and usually hidden failure modes, and it is not a sign of a lack of impartiality. Paper ballot fraud is hardly a one-sided affair, even though the majority of such fraud has been connected to one party and one city run by one mayor who is dead. (Chicago, Daly, in case the reference is too obscure.)
If it was as easy and simple as you pretend it to be, then recounts wouldn't be necessary because it would have been right the first time.
Easy and simple aren't synonyms for "error free", simply because it is humans who do the count and they make mistakes. Any system that forgets that latter bit of critical information is going to fail. That's why there are multiple people counting paper ballots, at least when it is done right.
So you fill them with disappearing ink so that the printed ballot from the electronic system will also get wiped?
If the only action of the electronic voting system is to print a paper ballot, then it is not truly an electronic voting system.
If the system is going to print a paper ballot anyway, you might as well just use paper ballots. Not this butterfly crap that is confusing, but good old "blacken in the circle" optically-scanable paper forms. They are simple, rugged, and can be recounted a dozen times if necessary, BY HAND if necessary.
Yes, it's old technology. Funny how pencils are still being sold in the stores, huh? Paper, too.
Why is that a hard question?
Electronic voting is imminently desirable.
Why? I have no desire for electronic voting.
I much prefer a simple, paper ballot. It is a physical object that can be counted and recounted. If there is a question of ballots being lost, simply count all the ballots and see if the number matches the number of ballots that were turned in. If there is a need to recount, you can go back to the original ballot and count it again.
AND I prefer elections to be run using polling places, where a voter goes to identify himself prior to voting, thus proving that he exists and has a right to vote. Where he casts a secret ballot with nobody looking over his shoulder. Where absentee ballots are provided to ONLY those who can prove they will be away and can't make it to the poll.
AND where the polling takes place during the same time everywhere the polls are open. For obvious reasons.
The only real problem is that the software is crap
and the people certifying the crap software have been doing a crap job.
Crap job? Wasn't there a story not long ago about some precincts using OBSOLETE electronic voting software (Diebold, as I recall) with known problems? And that somehow this was Diebold's problem and fault? I remember it because I immediately thought "what would someone who reported a bug in gcc version 1.0 be told?" Would the gcc authors accept responsibility for fixing it, or would they laugh and say "dude, gcc 4 is out, update your ass."
What the fuck does facing your accusers in court have anything to do with a company syaing why someone was fired?
When YOU say there was a judgement, which there was not.
When the person about whom the statement was made challenges that statement and sues for libel.
When you want to convert "allegation" into "judgement" when talking about theft.
In my opinion, you are an idiot.
Yes, civil discourse escapes you.
That statement is a fact, even if you're not actually an idiot.
The company did not express an opinion, they stated what they claim is a fact. They can either support that fact or not. They can't just say "there can be no trial for libel because we say this is a fact", they have to prove it to make use of "the truth is an absolute defense".
The company said "we fired him because he didn't comply with policy on his expense reports".
That's right. That's different than expressing an opinion, it's making a claim about his actions. This is ALSO not a claim that he committed theft, even though you seem unable to get away from analogies that include that as a central point.
Even if he didn't intend to defraud the company,...
Awww, there you go again, making claims of criminal activity when the company didn't claim anything about fraud or theft. They said he didn't comply with policy. Not complying with company policy is not a crime.
it's a fact that that's why he was fired.
First, no it isn't. He was fired for not complying with company policy, not because he defrauded the company. Second, their allegation about his action is not a fact just because they say so, and since it was obviously intended to imply that he committed a crime (witness your willingness to assume it when they didn't say it) when there was no crime charged, it is actionable as libel.
And in this specific case, he in fact didn't comply with that policy.
Which is a matter entirely between his supervisor and him, not the whole world.
He claims no intent to defraud,
Where do you keep coming up with this "defraud" from? Who made the claim that he did defraud anyone, which is the only reason his intent not to do it would be relevant. If someone doesn't commit a crime, his intent not to commit a crime is irrelevant -- the fact that he didn't commit a crime is all that is important.
...what's important is that the company believed it to be the case when they decided to fire him.
No, what's important is that the company made a statement about this person's actions which reflect on his character, to people that didn't need that information, in a forum where the person could not defend himself, and has won the right to take the company to court for libel because of it. Your assumptions about his defrauding the company or that some judgement was issued (which is the only reason I responded to what you wrote in the first place) are just icing on the cake showing that the company intended a meaning to their statement that they are not honest enough to admit.
Assuming you are a reasonable person (a fact not in evidence, but where I started this discussion), you've proven that a reasonable person would infer from the company's statement that he committed a crime and was fired for committing a crime. If someone claims you've committed a crime when you have not, you have the right to sue for libel, and then in court they can defend themselves with "truth". They can't just claim "it's true, you can't sue me". If claiming it was true was all the was necessary to prevent a lawsuit, then every defendant would make that claim and there would never be a libel lawsuit, much less a victory for the plaintiff.
There certainly was no "judgement". There were no charges filed, no court of law, no chance for the "criminal" to face his accusers or clear his name.
The company belives their statements to be true - this isn't just one malicious manager.
And the actual truth of the statement is a matter to be settled in a court of law. You can't say just any old thing and then wave away a trial by saying "it's the truth". Why should the word of the company be the final say?
If criminal charges were made, then sure, a court is part of the process,...
Since YOU used the word "judgement" then a court is part of the process. Since your allegation is of a criminal act, then a court is part of the process. Since the victim claims libel, a court is part of the process.
I see the basic concept of "analogy" escapes you.
I see the basic concept of civil discourse escapes you. I see the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty" escapes you. I see the basic concept of an accused being able to face his accusers in a court of law escapes you.
And I see the concept of analogy escapes you. An analogy has to have some relevance to the discussion or it isn't an analogy. Since there is no claim of theft, your analogies that say "if you don't want to be accused of theft" are irrelevant. He wasn't accused of theft. He was accused of failing to follow company policy. If you can't understand the difference, please look up the words.
If you want to use an analogy, here is a relevant one, although it's pretty meaningless. "If you don't want to be accused of failing to follow a policy, don't fail to follow a policy". Duh. The last time I checked, failing to follow a company policy wasn't a crime, much less 'theft', and the claims of a company auditor that something happened are just claims.
You know, I'm pretty sure if those wacky religious leaders weren't breaking the law, they'd be left alone.
You know, the Branch Davidians had a large number of weapons, all LEGAL, and were involved in firearms sales WITH A FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT. The Sheriff knew Koresh personally, and was positive that if ATF had simply asked him to meet with them, he would have shown up. As it was, Koresh was talking to the ATF agents, unarmed, in front of his building when ATF let loose and Koresh was injured.
So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".
ATF has nothing to do with "12 year old wives". They are Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their search warrant had nothing to do with "12 year old wives", it was based on an allegation already dealt with by the local sheriff that someone had heard "automatic gunfire" coming from the compound. The Sheriff had investigated and determined that nothing illegal was involved. The ATF didn't tell the court this when they got their warrant. In other words, ATF lied.
Yes, I think it is quite reasonable to blame ATF for shooting someone who is unarmed and standing on their front porch talking to them. It is also reasonable to blame ATF for trying to entrap someone into building them a cut-off shotgun, and to then shoot that person's wife for no cause. (Ruby Ridge)
Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves,
If you call following federal regulations regarding gun ownership and sales to be "a law unto themselves" because you don't like someone, pretty soon we'll have a society run by your wants and fears instead of the one run by rule of law. I'd say that you were "a law unto yourself" in that case. I know which one I prefer.
In the good old days, when cable was young, cable execs dreamed of the day when they would have 500 channels so they could have a Beverly Hillbillies channel, a Gomer Pyle channel, a Dukes of Hazzard channel, and a myriad of other specialized viewing channels all appealing to very select niche audience. Cable was to be the provider of all viewing to all people, concentrating on small populations because they could.
That started out with things like MTV (all music video all the time), which grew into VH1 (video hits). Comedy Channel. TVland (all oldies). AMC (movie classics). But then...
Times changed, and entertainment wasn't provided mainly by cable anymore. Low power TV got involved, and this thing called the Internet that Gore built, and DVD rentals. Netflix (which is NOW truly NET flix.) The execs realized that the niches they were trying to program for were TOO SMALL to support the costs of the programming, even when it was just reruns. They got bit by the "must grow to survive" bug, and the only way to expand the niche was to not serve that niche anymore. MTV started down the "reality" path, and in the process spun off MTV2 for the niche that wanted music vids, but now both have minimal music content (MTV plays videos at 6AM west coast time!). Even good ole' ESPN got into movies. AMC plays recent stuff (hardly "classic"). And for God's sake, why does G4 run marathons of "Cops"?
The niche programming market was a dream that doesn't support itself. SciFi is broadening its "niche" because "grow == success" and there just aren't than many more sci-fi people to attract.
Here's some numbers that might explain the problem better. The difference between our local basic cable and the next higher level (digital starter) is $45/month. Assuming the typical DVD box set for a series is about $30-$40 per box, you can get 15-20 COMPLETE SERIES on DVD, viewable when and where you want, with no commercials, for the same price you pay to get those one or two niche channels you were paying cable for and could never predict when they were going to show the program you wanted to see. And when you factor in Netflix, you can get even more.
Even something as basic as Food Network isn't surviving on cooking shows alone. "Will Work For Food" is "Dirty Jobs" redux. (I long for the days of Sarah Moulton. Sigh. Teach me what a roux is, and a tasty bechamel, please?) Travel Channel has people traveling -- just to eat food (Bourdain; Fiery; and "Man Vs. Food",where the focus is neither food nor travel, but whether dorkface can stuff a plateful of whatever down his gullet without puking.) I am fearful that Samantha Brown will be gone, soon -- too 'travel-centric'.
Niche programming is on the way out. Homogenization is on the way in. Drink the coolaid and be quiet, please.
The facts are not in dispute here. He did it, and the company said only what they knew he did.
The only facts are that an internal audit alleges he did something. I'm sorry that you didn't read the article and notice that tiny detail.
I'm sorry for confusing you with an analogy that did not include cars.
Are you an asshole in real life, or do you just play one on/.?
Don't want to be know as a car thief? Here's a hint: don't steal cars!
Once again, there is NO statement that he stole anything. You may like leaping to conclusions, but I prefer my court system to wait and see the facts before they make decisions. The allegation is that, well, I already covered what the allegation was and why it isn't necessarily stealing. I guess you were too busy looking for a cute way to insult someone that you overlooked the discussion taking place.
That kind of thing just doesn't seem to happen in the English-speaking world.
That's because english class for english speakers is B O R I N G. At least when I went to school, it was. Drills on diagramming sentences until your eyes fell out.
Unfortunately, much of english the language doesn't show cases (genitive, dative, etc), especially in verbs, so people who speak languages where every case has a different ending and so they NEED to know them or sound completely illiterate are a step up on knowing things about cases.
Of course, the fact that the schools turn out people who sound mostly illiterate isn't fully their fault, because even the places where we do have declensions and cases aren't being taught anymore. It's culturally insensitive to teach correct english today.
If you wronged me (and I have proof, such as a judgement),...
In this case, the company did not have a judgement, only allegations. Those allegations were of the level of "failure to follow company policies", which is hardly a crime.
Further, it really was none of the other employee's business why he was fired, certainly not all 1500 of them. And finally, by using a company mailing list to which the fired employee no longer had access, the accused person had no means of challenging the claims of the company.
One comment here claimed he'd need to know why his friend "left the company" if that friend asked for a letter of recommendation to work at another company. Unless you were his supervisor where he left, you can't make any significant recommendations regarding his work anyway, and if you were his supervisor you'd know why he left.
I absolutely think this kind of behaviour by the company is actionable, whether libel is the perfect basis or just close enough.
Don't want to be known as a thief? Here's a hint: don't steal!
He wasn't shown to have stolen. The ALLEGATION was that he overbilled some expenses and didn't have receipts for others. I don't know about you, but I've lost receipts for things every so often, and instead of itemizing a whole list of nickel and dime expenses I've rolled them into one -- which would look like overbilling that one expense. I'm not a criminal, I'm just saving time and getting reimbursed for things the company would have to reimburse me for anyway. The absolute WORST that could be said about what I've done is that I didn't "follow company policy", but the result wasn't a crime and the company didn't lose anything. In fact, by processing one expense report instead of a dozen, they saved time and money, and saved MY time which they pay for.
Not because it will bite you in the ass, but because by encrypting everything you 1) give them more stuff to look at and if they are looking at you they aren't looking at me, and 2) it won't be obvious that you are trying to hide something when you DO encrypt that particularly incriminating file. They'll have to spend time decrypting your email to Mom as well as the picture of cousin Julie when she was 4.
Now I have these wonderful encrypted documents that contain proof of alien intervention with the history of our planet and I can't get at it anymore...
Just mail a copy of each one to yourself at another account and someone will decrypt them for you. I can't tell you who, I've already told you too much and I'm afraid awi3qu91 108OI)
'Distortion' generally means clipping, or in the 'old days' wow and flutter, etc. caused by mechanical artifacts in record and tape players.
Maybe I'm jaded because I used to be a tech at a high-quality electronics manufacturer, but "distortion" is a lot more than just clipping or wow. IMD (intermodulation distortion) is much more insidious than clipping (you can't just look at a scope and see it happen), and it certainly changes the amount of "harmonics" in the sound. Unless you specify what kind of distortion, the word by itself means any kind of change, usually unwanted. Since we are talking about distortion produced in MP3s, we aren't talking about either clipping or wow, since neither are inherent in lossy compression. (Although I HAVE heard what sounds very much like wow in Sony's AAC, I think it was. Whatever it was they used on the MD systems...)
Even something as simple as clipping changes the harmonics. Like a mute in a trombone.
Acoustic instruments like the trombone don't do any of that, and putting a mute in the bell doesn't either.
Well, one man's distortion is another man's "changing the timbre and harmonics..."
Just so we're clear here, those pedals and effects create a new sound. It isn't distorted in the way you seem to mean it. Yes, it distorts the 'original' string sound, but since it's an electric guitar, the pickups already 'distorted' that. 'Rendered' is a better concept.
Every change to the original sound is a "new sound", and can be called a "distortion" if the user doesn't like it or "rendering" if he does. Do the pickups "render" or "distort"? Is the e-guitar "sound" only the sound that you hear if you stick your ear up close to the strings, or is it the analog signal coming out the jack?
Where does something change from "render" into "distort"? Who decides? Is it the artist? Is the sound "rendered" if it is what the artist wants? Well, an artist that wants to sell CDs will want that digital rendering. If he wants to sell tunes on iTunes, then he's wanting the rendering of compression.
I think the point I was trying to make is that this kind of discussion is a lot like discussing the quality of power cord you use for your amps. What you call distortion is what someone else calls rendering, and vice versa. And trying to claim one sound as the pure sound is, well, so dependent on venue and expected processing that it's not much use.
Calling electric guitar distorted cannot easily be considered a criticism or complaint.
I wasn't criticizing or complaining, only pointing out the dichotomy that some distortion is expected and demanded but some distortion is unwanted, and that calling it "distortion" doesn't really say much.
Without his emotion chip he would fail to grasp the full irony of your statement.
My toaster has charm because of its shape and feel. I don't want my toaster feeling sad that it burned my toast, I just want it to try again. And if it doesn't grasp the irony of me letting it try again, that's ok by me.
Why would people prefer the distorted sound produced my MP3-128??? As I just said - it's distorted.
I am continually fascinated by the number of "pedals" and "effects" that electronic guitar players apply to the output of their instrument. Why would people prefer that distorted sound?
There are different levels of distortion. There are different kinds. The ability to detect distortion is a skill, in many cases, and in many cases 'distortion' is part of the desired sound. (Why do trombone players stuff a cone in the bell of their instrument, it's DISTORTION!?)
I prefer the uncompressed FLAC or CD because it's as close to live as one can get.
When I first read that, I assumed you meant the "made smaller" meaning of compressed, since you were talking about MP3's and a major factor in MP3 production is the "make smaller" compression. I was going to point out that very few CDs come without the "remove level excursions" kind of compression, and that this compression is hardly as close to live as you can get.
Even so, many CDs don't come out without multi-track mastering and postprocessing to include reverb and flanging and all kinds of other "effects" being added to the sound. None of those effects are what you would hear live, and some of them are digital attempts at making a studio recording sound more like live.
I can only conclude the college students are nuts to prefer the "buzz" of digital artifacts. I can tolerate digital artifacts, but I definitely do Not like them.
Many people don't hear them (either because they aren't trained to hear them or are using less-than-gold equipment like ear-buds). They don't spend hours listening to live music in sonically pure environments so they could learn what a pure sound is. (Hearing a guitar amplified to 120dB is NOT hearing a pure sound, it's hearing your eardrums, and every loose object in the room, rattle.) What they hear on the MP3 is what they learn to expect, and if the sound is "odd" then it's a distraction.
There Job is to find way to pay for services that people demand.
No, their job is to provide the services they are supposed to be providing. They have gone so far afield in the last few decades that many people believe that "I want" is justification for the state to do something. "I want a place to live", and politicians jump to help. "I want a free college education". "I want a museum honoring left-handed butterfly collectors."
It's hard enough to tell people you need to tax for the things they want!
It's supposed to be hard to say that, and they SHOULD be saying that, but they don't. They pretend that it's "free". "Free" education. "Free" healthcare. "Free" housing. Don't ever expect to hear a politician that is in favor of spending on something to call it "taxpayer-funded" service. It's always "free".
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, how precious. A spelling flame. How novel.
Why shouldn't someone who buys my software in 2009 pay the same amount as someone who bought it in 2007? It does the same job, and it probably runs on less expensive hardware since it hasn't bloated beyond all reasonable size. A piece of software that does one thing and does it well doesn't need constant additions of "real functionality and innovation". That's the Microsoft "always upgrade" mindset.
I also agree there should be limits of some description (I mean after you have a couple of million - how much more do you really need, personally).
I employ ten people. I pay them well. They don't stop needing money to buy food after a year, or after the first two million in sales. Just who gives you the right to decide how much money is enough for someone else?
Good developers should get paid for developing not supporting ...
So I should just sell my program and never answer the phone or emails about how to use it or whatever bugs people find? Yes, I guess so, since "a couple of million" is enough money for me, I can't afford to spend it on phone lines or network connections to provide easy access for users to ask questions.
Then it is the Red Hat lawyers prodded by the shareholders who file for patents on software, which the engineers think are bad, and expect closed-source software companies to license the IP.
If Red Hat objected to software patents in general, they'd file for the patent and then let ANYONE use it. That's what would happen if there were no software patents -- everyone can use the ideas. By limiting the users of Red Hat's IP they are making the clear statement that software patents DO have a purpose and are valuable enough to spend money getting and defending.
The summary has an update that says "we" discussed this paper last year, before it had been published. This is 2009. It was published in 2006. Last year was 2008. In which universe, other than the April Fool's universe, does 2008 come before 2006?
What have they proven? That they can define "random event" to mean "free will". You can't predict a spin, so that obviously means that the particle you are measuring had the "free will" to choose its own spin, with all the anthropomorphic implications fully attached.
That, and that people who are supposed to be smart will waste a lot of time debating philosophy as applied to the "free will" of an electron.
That's what they are doing by promising not to sue Open Source projects for using THEIR patented intellectual property. It's still THEIR patented intellectual property, and they'll sue closed source projects for using it.
What's even worse is they renig on their promise if an Open Source project tries to challenge Red Hat's claim to the IP. "Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit)."
That means that any project that wants to use any of Red Hat's licensed IP can't challenge ANY of Red Hat's patents for any reason, even patents that they shouldn't have because that open source project has provable, existing prior art in the area.
Red Hat isn't defending anyone but themselves.
Speed of vote counting is a specious and counterproductive goal. It is folly to throw away accuracy in the search for speed, although our modern society seems to value the latter more than the former.
Everybody wants to know five seconds after the poll closes who won. What difference does it make if the total isn't known for a week? Other than special elections filling a vacant seat, no election result is enacted until months after the vote. We vote for President in early November, and the electoral college doesn't meet until December to make it official. It's not until January that the new president is installed. Is a week delay in knowing the vote result going to kill us?
Gee, it's swell and exciting and all that to know who won before we go to bed on election night, but damn if the networks haven't gotten their predictions WRONG so many times that you really don't know until the next day or two anyway. And by making those WRONG predictions, they create an atmosphere where any correct data is viewed as corruption. You know, "the CBS exit poll predicted Gore wins the state of X, but the actual vote tally that comes after all the absentees and contested ballots are counted shows the winner was Bush." CORRUPTION! VOTE FRAUD! GORE WON! CBS SAID SO!
First, define a reasonable standard for a ballot paper.
Well, you run into the small problem that we are a union of states, not just one big federal government. Isn't it interesting that not even the Constitution specifies how electors will be determined, it is left up to each state. "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,..." Trying to demand that a specific ballot format be used to vote for electors would be patently unconstitutional since the task is explicitly left up to the state legislatures. (And that clause was prominent in the SCOTUS decision where the Florida Supremes were slapped down for trying to change the process the legislature had directed.) In fact, I think it was Missouri where the Governor appointed the electors up until 1950 or so, because that's what the legislature directed.
Increasing the places for failure and fraud. Is someone who can't understand a simple "fill in the circle" ballot going to actually check a machine printed form to make sure every entry is right? Why not just fill it in by hand? It's not that hard. Really. It isn't.
Full paper trail, full disclosure, completely separate machines to print and count the votes, and a complete human-readable official trail to follow later. And its simple.
Yes, fine, have a printer on site so handicapped people can vote more easily, but like I said, this really isn't an electronic voting system, it's paper balloting.
That's a nice goal, but it is hardly worth making the rest of the system unreliable in such new and marvelous ways. There are ways of solving the handicapped voting problem.
And elections are still being contested because all the paper ballots are confusing ...
No, not all the elections are being contested and not all the paper ballots are confusing. That's a gross overstatement.
They are being contested because one party thinks that changing the rules after the election is over is a standard operating practice, and even though they agreed to the ballot before the election was held, they see an excuse to challenge a loss after the results are announced.
That is exactly what happened in Florida in 2000. That's the infamous "butterfly" ballot, which was approved by democrat election officials prior to the election and then challenged because "it was confusing". One old fart actually stood up and proclaimed to the world that he didn't need to "read no instructions" on how to fill in a ballot because he's been doing it for fifty years. Well, yes, sir, when the format of the ballot changes you might want to read the instructions how to use it or your vote might not be counted the way you want. It's that simple.
Yeah, that's a small detail that seems to get lost every time there is a challenge to a specific ballot as being confusing. It wasn't confusing before the losing party lost, only after. It was approved by both major parties before it was printed. The only thing that changed after the election was the result.
But, that's why I said the simple "fill in the circle" style ballot where to make a black spot on a piece of paper. If this confuses you, maybe you shouldn't be helping decide the fate of the country?
And they have a number of failures as well. What do do do if someone tries to erase? Marks two?
Yes, they do. Well understood and trivially corrected failures. Let's see if we can figure out what to do if someone tries to erase... hmmm, well, maybe we just TAKE HIS SPOILED BALLOT and GIVE HIM ANOTHER ONE? Yes, that seems like a very low-tech solution. No electronic voting machine needed for that.
To pretend that one is always better than the other (from either side) is a sign that impartiality isn't a goal...
Nonsense. Low tech solutions with simple failure mechanisms that can be corrected simply are always better than high tech systems with unknown and usually hidden failure modes, and it is not a sign of a lack of impartiality. Paper ballot fraud is hardly a one-sided affair, even though the majority of such fraud has been connected to one party and one city run by one mayor who is dead. (Chicago, Daly, in case the reference is too obscure.)
If it was as easy and simple as you pretend it to be, then recounts wouldn't be necessary because it would have been right the first time.
Easy and simple aren't synonyms for "error free", simply because it is humans who do the count and they make mistakes. Any system that forgets that latter bit of critical information is going to fail. That's why there are multiple people counting paper ballots, at least when it is done right.
If the only action of the electronic voting system is to print a paper ballot, then it is not truly an electronic voting system.
If the system is going to print a paper ballot anyway, you might as well just use paper ballots. Not this butterfly crap that is confusing, but good old "blacken in the circle" optically-scanable paper forms. They are simple, rugged, and can be recounted a dozen times if necessary, BY HAND if necessary.
Yes, it's old technology. Funny how pencils are still being sold in the stores, huh? Paper, too.
Why? I have no desire for electronic voting.
I much prefer a simple, paper ballot. It is a physical object that can be counted and recounted. If there is a question of ballots being lost, simply count all the ballots and see if the number matches the number of ballots that were turned in. If there is a need to recount, you can go back to the original ballot and count it again.
AND I prefer elections to be run using polling places, where a voter goes to identify himself prior to voting, thus proving that he exists and has a right to vote. Where he casts a secret ballot with nobody looking over his shoulder. Where absentee ballots are provided to ONLY those who can prove they will be away and can't make it to the poll.
AND where the polling takes place during the same time everywhere the polls are open. For obvious reasons.
The only real problem is that the software is crap and the people certifying the crap software have been doing a crap job.
Crap job? Wasn't there a story not long ago about some precincts using OBSOLETE electronic voting software (Diebold, as I recall) with known problems? And that somehow this was Diebold's problem and fault? I remember it because I immediately thought "what would someone who reported a bug in gcc version 1.0 be told?" Would the gcc authors accept responsibility for fixing it, or would they laugh and say "dude, gcc 4 is out, update your ass."
In my opinion, you are an idiot.
Yes, civil discourse escapes you.
That statement is a fact, even if you're not actually an idiot.
The company did not express an opinion, they stated what they claim is a fact. They can either support that fact or not. They can't just say "there can be no trial for libel because we say this is a fact", they have to prove it to make use of "the truth is an absolute defense".
The company said "we fired him because he didn't comply with policy on his expense reports".
That's right. That's different than expressing an opinion, it's making a claim about his actions. This is ALSO not a claim that he committed theft, even though you seem unable to get away from analogies that include that as a central point.
Even if he didn't intend to defraud the company, ...
Awww, there you go again, making claims of criminal activity when the company didn't claim anything about fraud or theft. They said he didn't comply with policy. Not complying with company policy is not a crime.
it's a fact that that's why he was fired.
First, no it isn't. He was fired for not complying with company policy, not because he defrauded the company. Second, their allegation about his action is not a fact just because they say so, and since it was obviously intended to imply that he committed a crime (witness your willingness to assume it when they didn't say it) when there was no crime charged, it is actionable as libel.
And in this specific case, he in fact didn't comply with that policy.
Which is a matter entirely between his supervisor and him, not the whole world.
He claims no intent to defraud,
Where do you keep coming up with this "defraud" from? Who made the claim that he did defraud anyone, which is the only reason his intent not to do it would be relevant. If someone doesn't commit a crime, his intent not to commit a crime is irrelevant -- the fact that he didn't commit a crime is all that is important.
No, what's important is that the company made a statement about this person's actions which reflect on his character, to people that didn't need that information, in a forum where the person could not defend himself, and has won the right to take the company to court for libel because of it. Your assumptions about his defrauding the company or that some judgement was issued (which is the only reason I responded to what you wrote in the first place) are just icing on the cake showing that the company intended a meaning to their statement that they are not honest enough to admit.
Assuming you are a reasonable person (a fact not in evidence, but where I started this discussion), you've proven that a reasonable person would infer from the company's statement that he committed a crime and was fired for committing a crime. If someone claims you've committed a crime when you have not, you have the right to sue for libel, and then in court they can defend themselves with "truth". They can't just claim "it's true, you can't sue me". If claiming it was true was all the was necessary to prevent a lawsuit, then every defendant would make that claim and there would never be a libel lawsuit, much less a victory for the plaintiff.
No, there wasn't.
There certainly was no "judgement". There were no charges filed, no court of law, no chance for the "criminal" to face his accusers or clear his name.
The company belives their statements to be true - this isn't just one malicious manager.
And the actual truth of the statement is a matter to be settled in a court of law. You can't say just any old thing and then wave away a trial by saying "it's the truth". Why should the word of the company be the final say?
If criminal charges were made, then sure, a court is part of the process, ...
Since YOU used the word "judgement" then a court is part of the process. Since your allegation is of a criminal act, then a court is part of the process. Since the victim claims libel, a court is part of the process.
I see the basic concept of "analogy" escapes you.
I see the basic concept of civil discourse escapes you. I see the basic concept of "innocent until proven guilty" escapes you. I see the basic concept of an accused being able to face his accusers in a court of law escapes you.
And I see the concept of analogy escapes you. An analogy has to have some relevance to the discussion or it isn't an analogy. Since there is no claim of theft, your analogies that say "if you don't want to be accused of theft" are irrelevant. He wasn't accused of theft. He was accused of failing to follow company policy. If you can't understand the difference, please look up the words.
If you want to use an analogy, here is a relevant one, although it's pretty meaningless. "If you don't want to be accused of failing to follow a policy, don't fail to follow a policy". Duh. The last time I checked, failing to follow a company policy wasn't a crime, much less 'theft', and the claims of a company auditor that something happened are just claims.
You know, the Branch Davidians had a large number of weapons, all LEGAL, and were involved in firearms sales WITH A FEDERAL FIREARMS DEALER PERMIT. The Sheriff knew Koresh personally, and was positive that if ATF had simply asked him to meet with them, he would have shown up. As it was, Koresh was talking to the ATF agents, unarmed, in front of his building when ATF let loose and Koresh was injured.
So don't go blaming the ATF for the suicidal things nutballs do when the cops come to say no you can't have dozens of 12 year old "wives".
ATF has nothing to do with "12 year old wives". They are Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Their search warrant had nothing to do with "12 year old wives", it was based on an allegation already dealt with by the local sheriff that someone had heard "automatic gunfire" coming from the compound. The Sheriff had investigated and determined that nothing illegal was involved. The ATF didn't tell the court this when they got their warrant. In other words, ATF lied.
Yes, I think it is quite reasonable to blame ATF for shooting someone who is unarmed and standing on their front porch talking to them. It is also reasonable to blame ATF for trying to entrap someone into building them a cut-off shotgun, and to then shoot that person's wife for no cause. (Ruby Ridge)
Because if you think we should just let people willing to kill themselves be a law unto themselves,
If you call following federal regulations regarding gun ownership and sales to be "a law unto themselves" because you don't like someone, pretty soon we'll have a society run by your wants and fears instead of the one run by rule of law. I'd say that you were "a law unto yourself" in that case. I know which one I prefer.
That started out with things like MTV (all music video all the time), which grew into VH1 (video hits). Comedy Channel. TVland (all oldies). AMC (movie classics). But then ...
Times changed, and entertainment wasn't provided mainly by cable anymore. Low power TV got involved, and this thing called the Internet that Gore built, and DVD rentals. Netflix (which is NOW truly NET flix.) The execs realized that the niches they were trying to program for were TOO SMALL to support the costs of the programming, even when it was just reruns. They got bit by the "must grow to survive" bug, and the only way to expand the niche was to not serve that niche anymore. MTV started down the "reality" path, and in the process spun off MTV2 for the niche that wanted music vids, but now both have minimal music content (MTV plays videos at 6AM west coast time!). Even good ole' ESPN got into movies. AMC plays recent stuff (hardly "classic"). And for God's sake, why does G4 run marathons of "Cops"?
The niche programming market was a dream that doesn't support itself. SciFi is broadening its "niche" because "grow == success" and there just aren't than many more sci-fi people to attract.
Here's some numbers that might explain the problem better. The difference between our local basic cable and the next higher level (digital starter) is $45/month. Assuming the typical DVD box set for a series is about $30-$40 per box, you can get 15-20 COMPLETE SERIES on DVD, viewable when and where you want, with no commercials, for the same price you pay to get those one or two niche channels you were paying cable for and could never predict when they were going to show the program you wanted to see. And when you factor in Netflix, you can get even more.
Even something as basic as Food Network isn't surviving on cooking shows alone. "Will Work For Food" is "Dirty Jobs" redux. (I long for the days of Sarah Moulton. Sigh. Teach me what a roux is, and a tasty bechamel, please?) Travel Channel has people traveling -- just to eat food (Bourdain; Fiery; and "Man Vs. Food",where the focus is neither food nor travel, but whether dorkface can stuff a plateful of whatever down his gullet without puking.) I am fearful that Samantha Brown will be gone, soon -- too 'travel-centric'.
Niche programming is on the way out. Homogenization is on the way in. Drink the coolaid and be quiet, please.
The only facts are that an internal audit alleges he did something. I'm sorry that you didn't read the article and notice that tiny detail.
I'm sorry for confusing you with an analogy that did not include cars.
Are you an asshole in real life, or do you just play one on /.?
Don't want to be know as a car thief? Here's a hint: don't steal cars!
Once again, there is NO statement that he stole anything. You may like leaping to conclusions, but I prefer my court system to wait and see the facts before they make decisions. The allegation is that, well, I already covered what the allegation was and why it isn't necessarily stealing. I guess you were too busy looking for a cute way to insult someone that you overlooked the discussion taking place.
That's because english class for english speakers is B O R I N G. At least when I went to school, it was. Drills on diagramming sentences until your eyes fell out.
Unfortunately, much of english the language doesn't show cases (genitive, dative, etc), especially in verbs, so people who speak languages where every case has a different ending and so they NEED to know them or sound completely illiterate are a step up on knowing things about cases.
Of course, the fact that the schools turn out people who sound mostly illiterate isn't fully their fault, because even the places where we do have declensions and cases aren't being taught anymore. It's culturally insensitive to teach correct english today.
In this case, the company did not have a judgement, only allegations. Those allegations were of the level of "failure to follow company policies", which is hardly a crime.
Further, it really was none of the other employee's business why he was fired, certainly not all 1500 of them. And finally, by using a company mailing list to which the fired employee no longer had access, the accused person had no means of challenging the claims of the company.
One comment here claimed he'd need to know why his friend "left the company" if that friend asked for a letter of recommendation to work at another company. Unless you were his supervisor where he left, you can't make any significant recommendations regarding his work anyway, and if you were his supervisor you'd know why he left.
I absolutely think this kind of behaviour by the company is actionable, whether libel is the perfect basis or just close enough.
Don't want to be known as a thief? Here's a hint: don't steal!
He wasn't shown to have stolen. The ALLEGATION was that he overbilled some expenses and didn't have receipts for others. I don't know about you, but I've lost receipts for things every so often, and instead of itemizing a whole list of nickel and dime expenses I've rolled them into one -- which would look like overbilling that one expense. I'm not a criminal, I'm just saving time and getting reimbursed for things the company would have to reimburse me for anyway. The absolute WORST that could be said about what I've done is that I didn't "follow company policy", but the result wasn't a crime and the company didn't lose anything. In fact, by processing one expense report instead of a dozen, they saved time and money, and saved MY time which they pay for.
Not because it will bite you in the ass, but because by encrypting everything you 1) give them more stuff to look at and if they are looking at you they aren't looking at me, and 2) it won't be obvious that you are trying to hide something when you DO encrypt that particularly incriminating file. They'll have to spend time decrypting your email to Mom as well as the picture of cousin Julie when she was 4.
Just mail a copy of each one to yourself at another account and someone will decrypt them for you. I can't tell you who, I've already told you too much and I'm afraid awi3qu91 108OI)
[NO CARRIER]
Not the world wide what, the world wide has. If you elide the prepositional (of) clause, you get "The inventor pointed out...".
Maybe I'm jaded because I used to be a tech at a high-quality electronics manufacturer, but "distortion" is a lot more than just clipping or wow. IMD (intermodulation distortion) is much more insidious than clipping (you can't just look at a scope and see it happen), and it certainly changes the amount of "harmonics" in the sound. Unless you specify what kind of distortion, the word by itself means any kind of change, usually unwanted. Since we are talking about distortion produced in MP3s, we aren't talking about either clipping or wow, since neither are inherent in lossy compression. (Although I HAVE heard what sounds very much like wow in Sony's AAC, I think it was. Whatever it was they used on the MD systems...)
Even something as simple as clipping changes the harmonics. Like a mute in a trombone.
Acoustic instruments like the trombone don't do any of that, and putting a mute in the bell doesn't either.
Well, one man's distortion is another man's "changing the timbre and harmonics..."
Every change to the original sound is a "new sound", and can be called a "distortion" if the user doesn't like it or "rendering" if he does. Do the pickups "render" or "distort"? Is the e-guitar "sound" only the sound that you hear if you stick your ear up close to the strings, or is it the analog signal coming out the jack?
Where does something change from "render" into "distort"? Who decides? Is it the artist? Is the sound "rendered" if it is what the artist wants? Well, an artist that wants to sell CDs will want that digital rendering. If he wants to sell tunes on iTunes, then he's wanting the rendering of compression.
I think the point I was trying to make is that this kind of discussion is a lot like discussing the quality of power cord you use for your amps. What you call distortion is what someone else calls rendering, and vice versa. And trying to claim one sound as the pure sound is, well, so dependent on venue and expected processing that it's not much use.
Calling electric guitar distorted cannot easily be considered a criticism or complaint.
I wasn't criticizing or complaining, only pointing out the dichotomy that some distortion is expected and demanded but some distortion is unwanted, and that calling it "distortion" doesn't really say much.
My toaster has charm because of its shape and feel. I don't want my toaster feeling sad that it burned my toast, I just want it to try again. And if it doesn't grasp the irony of me letting it try again, that's ok by me.
I am continually fascinated by the number of "pedals" and "effects" that electronic guitar players apply to the output of their instrument. Why would people prefer that distorted sound?
There are different levels of distortion. There are different kinds. The ability to detect distortion is a skill, in many cases, and in many cases 'distortion' is part of the desired sound. (Why do trombone players stuff a cone in the bell of their instrument, it's DISTORTION!?)
I prefer the uncompressed FLAC or CD because it's as close to live as one can get.
When I first read that, I assumed you meant the "made smaller" meaning of compressed, since you were talking about MP3's and a major factor in MP3 production is the "make smaller" compression. I was going to point out that very few CDs come without the "remove level excursions" kind of compression, and that this compression is hardly as close to live as you can get.
Even so, many CDs don't come out without multi-track mastering and postprocessing to include reverb and flanging and all kinds of other "effects" being added to the sound. None of those effects are what you would hear live, and some of them are digital attempts at making a studio recording sound more like live.
I can only conclude the college students are nuts to prefer the "buzz" of digital artifacts. I can tolerate digital artifacts, but I definitely do Not like them.
Many people don't hear them (either because they aren't trained to hear them or are using less-than-gold equipment like ear-buds). They don't spend hours listening to live music in sonically pure environments so they could learn what a pure sound is. (Hearing a guitar amplified to 120dB is NOT hearing a pure sound, it's hearing your eardrums, and every loose object in the room, rattle.) What they hear on the MP3 is what they learn to expect, and if the sound is "odd" then it's a distraction.
No, their job is to provide the services they are supposed to be providing. They have gone so far afield in the last few decades that many people believe that "I want" is justification for the state to do something. "I want a place to live", and politicians jump to help. "I want a free college education". "I want a museum honoring left-handed butterfly collectors."
It's hard enough to tell people you need to tax for the things they want!
It's supposed to be hard to say that, and they SHOULD be saying that, but they don't. They pretend that it's "free". "Free" education. "Free" healthcare. "Free" housing. Don't ever expect to hear a politician that is in favor of spending on something to call it "taxpayer-funded" service. It's always "free".
That's why it was stated as an assumption and not a fact. Duh!