No, she should fight this in court on the grounds that the school has no right to limit what she does off-campus, in her own free time, even if it's illegal
That's absolutely true. It's equally true that she has no right to force a private institution to allow her to attend./p
In what universe are Powerbooks targeted only at "Pro" users? What does that even mean? They are simply targeted at users who perhaps want to use a laptop to the exclusion of a desktop.
I never said only at pro users, just that they are targeted at pro users. That's true in exactly the same universe as it's true that PowerMacs are targeted at pro users, which is to say this one. I don't see how a statement based directly off of what Steve Jobs says at every keynote where he has discussed the 4-part lineup strategy is my interpretation.
I stand by what I said. The original poster makes the claim that PowerMacs will be the last to change because they are targeted at pro users and pro users won't want to change soon. The OP also claims that PowerBooks should be the first to change. Given the fact that PowerBooks are also targeted at pro users, that whole line of reasoning is self-contradictory.
So I read the original comment a few times, and don't get where he said that laptops (even powerbooks) are targeted at Pro users - only that it is the flagship, which is true.
It doesn't say that in the original comment. It's just a fact. The 'i' line is targeted at the consumer level, and the 'Power' line at the pro level. There's a reason that apps like Aperture have recent PowerBooks included in their supported machines, and that high-resolution, wide-aspect screens are important features in the design.
Sure, some consumers buy PowerBooks, but some consumers also buy PowerMacs. Both are targeted at pro users.
despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke.
Just because you have either ignored or not bothered to look for any evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. Just off the top of my head, for example, there's this article. Heart attacks are both detectable, and consequences.
The Intel Powerbooks have to be first [...] Powermacs and xServes will be last - Pro users have a much bigger investment in software and peripherials so will be slower to move anyway.
So, pro users will be slowest to move, and thus the last targeted for transition, and the first thing to change will be the PowerBooks, which are targeted at pro users? Your logic has some internal consistency issues.
He may be a smart tech guy, but I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who is willing to simply write off 11%-40% of all potential customers.
Except that there the crime is robbery. The fact that you stole something less valuable than you intended is irrelevant--you commited robbery to do it.
Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is the sole issue here. If you didn't end up with any copyrighted material, you didn't commit copyright infringement. The act of downloading, unlike the act of robbery, does not violate any law.
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all.
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. [...] Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases
And perhaps the RIAA has a better grasp of the difference between correlation and cause-and-effect than the media that reported on the study.
If you think about it hashing your passwords in a database is almost an admittance [tha] you're database will probably be comprimised
No, it's a recognition of the fact that it's at least theoretically possible that your database might be compromised at some point in the future. And anyone who isn't an idiot will design their systems in such a way as to minimize the damage that can be caused by a single point of failure. That's not an admission of incompetence, it's plain common sense.
I am, however, curious about implications of the free speech side of this.
I am assuming, then, that you don't run any of your email through filters of any kind, so that you don't trample anyone's 'free speech'? And that you similarly read everything ever mailed to you, watch all broadcast television, stop to listen to every crackpot you pass on the street, read every flier you see or are handed, etc., etc.?
How many times must it be said: right to free speech != right to have people listen to you. Not a single email was prevented from being sent. Thus there are absolutely no free speech implications.
I would certainly be surprised if you could get a job by completely lying on your application, work for some amount of time nominally on an hourly rate but not actually doing the job, and still have legal support for getting paid, though. That seems hugely unfair to an employer, regardless of any duty to provide reasonable supervision.
Why is it unfair to the employer? What you just described is a total failure of the interview process, and a total inability of the company to handle a new employee. There are a lot of unqualified people out there, and a lot of them pass themselves off as more qualified than they are--it's the company's job to screen those people out. If you can't figure that out in advance, and you sign a contract hiring them, you are just as bound by the contract as they are. You can fire them whenever you want for incompetence or deception (assuming your contract wasn't written by a monkey), but you have to pay them the agreed-upon hourly wage until then if you are hiring them hourly, period.
Now if you contract somebody to do work with payment on delivery, and the product they try to deliver doesn't meet the specifications laid out in the contract, than sure, you don't have to pay. But that's simply not how it works with regular employees.
1) Less finger movement for typical English sentences. This is easily verifiable, and not questioned AFAIK.
2) The keycaps on typical keyboards don't match the letter assignment, so you aren't tempted to look a the keys.
3) It is supported by modern operating systems and can be used with readily available keyboards.
You forgot:
4) That look on your coworkers' faces when they lean past you and try to do something on your computer without asking (which would give you the chance to easily flip the layout for them).
Mostly that article seems to say that there has been almost no high-quality, scientific study that says Dvorak lets you type substantially faster than QWERTY. That's not the same as a demonstration that there is no benefit. Besides, it talks primarily about typing speed, which isn't the only consideration for someone who is going to be using a keyboard for extended periods of time.
Also, from the article:
For optimal typing speed. keyboards should be designed so that:
A. The loads on the right and left hands are equalized.
B. The load on the home (middle) row is maximized.
C. The frequency of alternating hand sequences is maximized and the frequency of same-finger typing is minimized.
The Dvorak keyboard does a good job on these variables, especially A and B: 67% of the typing is done on the home row and the left-right hand balance is 47-53%. Although the Sholes (Qwerty) keyboard fails at conditions A and B (most typing is done on the top row and the balance between the two hands is 57% and 43%), the policy to put successively typed keys as far apart as possible favors factor C, thus leading to relatively rapid typing.
So according to the article, Dvorak meets two of three conditions, and Qwerty fails two and meets one. What they don't mention is that Dvorak is pretty good at C by virtue of having all the vowels on one side, meaning that there is a very large amount of hand-switching during typing. The gist of the studies they refer to seems to be that Dvorak sounds like it should be really great, but they haven't been able to prove that it's as good as you might expect. That doesn't sound like "pure hype" to me.
Ok, I'll correct you: This is not only great news for Mozilla, but excellent news for Safari, which draws a lot of technology from Mozilla. That's completely wrong, since Safari isn't even remotely based on Mozilla. Thus, your post is not insightful, thus there's no reason it should be modded as such, and the "idiot moderators" are doing the right thing.
Driving slightly below the speed limit in snow is more dangerous than slightly above on a clear day with an empty road. However, only speeding is punished. No consideration of just how dangerous speeding was is taken into account.
I understand your point, but that's not entirely true--all (or at least most) states have a basic speed law. Driving below the maximum posted limit, but still faster than is safe for conditions, will get you a ticket if a cop thinks your speed is dangerous.
There is never a speed at which driving abruptly changes from "safe" to "dangerous"
There's never an age where a child suddenly becomes an adult either... does that mean we should eliminate statutory rape laws, let 10-year-olds drive, and let cigarrette companies sell to grade-schoolers?
Laws are about reasonable compromise; there are always cases where the line seems wrong, but overall you just have to pick a reasonably good place. Likewise, something doesn't have to be the "be-all end-all of road safety" to regulate it. That's why we havea variety of traffic laws.
You are assuming that a) it's a one-lane road b) there are no passing zones c) there are no pull-offs where people
I understand your point, but it's quite possible to drive safely and still obey the speed limit most or all of the time--and finding ways to let the rest of traffic move past you is far safer than allowing people behind you to force you to drive faster than you/your car is comfortable going.
Sorry folks, but the roads are for people like me to get safely from one place to another.
No, the roads are for people like me to get from one place to another as efficiently as possible, not for people like you who can barely see over the steering wheel to go at 20mph on the motorway on the way to bingo.
Since when are straw-man attacks insightful? Just because someone finds the 65 and 75 MPH interstate speed limits pervasive in the US reasonable doesn't make that person a Sunday driver. Stick to arguing your points, not insulting people for made-up traits.
The iPod Shuffle, meanwhile, is the same player feature-for-feature as the Creative MuVo that was released three years ago.
Really? Including great software for managing playlists and seamless integration with the largest online music store? iPods are about more than just the hardware; many users like having an end-to-end experience.
For all those people out there who constantly parrot "OMG, it's not stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue.
Notice that that has exactly as much merit as an argument as your version--absolutely none.
See, when you have an issue that reasonable people can disagree on (e.g., how applicable the word theft is to copyright infringement) saying that all the arguments against your viewpoint are just parroted manipulative crap makes you look stupid, because it demonstrates that you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as mentally inferior without actually thinking about what they are saying, which is far more likely to kill discussion. If you want productive discussion, try sticking more to arguing your opinions in a reasonable manner, based on facts (like you started to), and spend less time degenerating into insults.
Slashdot Mirror
No, she should fight this in court on the grounds that the school has no right to limit what she does off-campus, in her own free time, even if it's illegal
That's absolutely true. It's equally true that she has no right to force a private institution to allow her to attend./p
In what universe are Powerbooks targeted only at "Pro" users? What does that even mean? They are simply targeted at users who perhaps want to use a laptop to the exclusion of a desktop.
I never said only at pro users, just that they are targeted at pro users. That's true in exactly the same universe as it's true that PowerMacs are targeted at pro users, which is to say this one. I don't see how a statement based directly off of what Steve Jobs says at every keynote where he has discussed the 4-part lineup strategy is my interpretation.
I stand by what I said. The original poster makes the claim that PowerMacs will be the last to change because they are targeted at pro users and pro users won't want to change soon. The OP also claims that PowerBooks should be the first to change. Given the fact that PowerBooks are also targeted at pro users, that whole line of reasoning is self-contradictory.
So I read the original comment a few times, and don't get where he said that laptops (even powerbooks) are targeted at Pro users - only that it is the flagship, which is true.
It doesn't say that in the original comment. It's just a fact. The 'i' line is targeted at the consumer level, and the 'Power' line at the pro level. There's a reason that apps like Aperture have recent PowerBooks included in their supported machines, and that high-resolution, wide-aspect screens are important features in the design.
Sure, some consumers buy PowerBooks, but some consumers also buy PowerMacs. Both are targeted at pro users.
despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that there are any detectable consequences to periodic outdoor exposure, or occasional indoor exposure to secondhand smoke.
Just because you have either ignored or not bothered to look for any evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. Just off the top of my head, for example, there's this article. Heart attacks are both detectable, and consequences.
The Intel Powerbooks have to be first [...] Powermacs and xServes will be last - Pro users have a much bigger investment in software and peripherials so will be slower to move anyway.
So, pro users will be slowest to move, and thus the last targeted for transition, and the first thing to change will be the PowerBooks, which are targeted at pro users? Your logic has some internal consistency issues.
He may be a smart tech guy, but I have to wonder about the business acumen of someone who is willing to simply write off 11%-40% of all potential customers.
Except that there the crime is robbery. The fact that you stole something less valuable than you intended is irrelevant--you commited robbery to do it. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, is the sole issue here. If you didn't end up with any copyrighted material, you didn't commit copyright infringement. The act of downloading, unlike the act of robbery, does not violate any law.
Would you like to back that claim up, or are you just repeating the often-debunked urban legend?
Not to sound harsh, but I guess the submitter never saw why the RIAA should care. [...] Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases
And perhaps the RIAA has a better grasp of the difference between correlation and cause-and-effect than the media that reported on the study.
If you think about it hashing your passwords in a database is almost an admittance [tha] you're database will probably be comprimised
No, it's a recognition of the fact that it's at least theoretically possible that your database might be compromised at some point in the future. And anyone who isn't an idiot will design their systems in such a way as to minimize the damage that can be caused by a single point of failure. That's not an admission of incompetence, it's plain common sense.
No, it suggests that it is in the title of an article, where almost all words are capitalized.
I am, however, curious about implications of the free speech side of this.
I am assuming, then, that you don't run any of your email through filters of any kind, so that you don't trample anyone's 'free speech'? And that you similarly read everything ever mailed to you, watch all broadcast television, stop to listen to every crackpot you pass on the street, read every flier you see or are handed, etc., etc.?
How many times must it be said: right to free speech != right to have people listen to you. Not a single email was prevented from being sent. Thus there are absolutely no free speech implications.
This just makes no sense. A website that is properly designed should not have to get ready for any version of a web browser
Yep--it's a good thing that all websites are properly designed, so there won't be any problems.
I would certainly be surprised if you could get a job by completely lying on your application, work for some amount of time nominally on an hourly rate but not actually doing the job, and still have legal support for getting paid, though. That seems hugely unfair to an employer, regardless of any duty to provide reasonable supervision.
Why is it unfair to the employer? What you just described is a total failure of the interview process, and a total inability of the company to handle a new employee. There are a lot of unqualified people out there, and a lot of them pass themselves off as more qualified than they are--it's the company's job to screen those people out. If you can't figure that out in advance, and you sign a contract hiring them, you are just as bound by the contract as they are. You can fire them whenever you want for incompetence or deception (assuming your contract wasn't written by a monkey), but you have to pay them the agreed-upon hourly wage until then if you are hiring them hourly, period.
Now if you contract somebody to do work with payment on delivery, and the product they try to deliver doesn't meet the specifications laid out in the contract, than sure, you don't have to pay. But that's simply not how it works with regular employees.
Some benefits of Dvoark:
1) Less finger movement for typical English sentences. This is easily verifiable, and not questioned AFAIK.
2) The keycaps on typical keyboards don't match the letter assignment, so you aren't tempted to look a the keys.
3) It is supported by modern operating systems and can be used with readily available keyboards.
You forgot:
4) That look on your coworkers' faces when they lean past you and try to do something on your computer without asking (which would give you the chance to easily flip the layout for them).
Mostly that article seems to say that there has been almost no high-quality, scientific study that says Dvorak lets you type substantially faster than QWERTY. That's not the same as a demonstration that there is no benefit. Besides, it talks primarily about typing speed, which isn't the only consideration for someone who is going to be using a keyboard for extended periods of time.
Also, from the article:
So according to the article, Dvorak meets two of three conditions, and Qwerty fails two and meets one. What they don't mention is that Dvorak is pretty good at C by virtue of having all the vowels on one side, meaning that there is a very large amount of hand-switching during typing. The gist of the studies they refer to seems to be that Dvorak sounds like it should be really great, but they haven't been able to prove that it's as good as you might expect. That doesn't sound like "pure hype" to me.
Ok, I'll correct you: This is not only great news for Mozilla, but excellent news for Safari, which draws a lot of technology from Mozilla. That's completely wrong, since Safari isn't even remotely based on Mozilla. Thus, your post is not insightful, thus there's no reason it should be modded as such, and the "idiot moderators" are doing the right thing.
Driving slightly below the speed limit in snow is more dangerous than slightly above on a clear day with an empty road. However, only speeding is punished. No consideration of just how dangerous speeding was is taken into account.
I understand your point, but that's not entirely true--all (or at least most) states have a basic speed law. Driving below the maximum posted limit, but still faster than is safe for conditions, will get you a ticket if a cop thinks your speed is dangerous.
There is never a speed at which driving abruptly changes from "safe" to "dangerous"
There's never an age where a child suddenly becomes an adult either... does that mean we should eliminate statutory rape laws, let 10-year-olds drive, and let cigarrette companies sell to grade-schoolers?
Laws are about reasonable compromise; there are always cases where the line seems wrong, but overall you just have to pick a reasonably good place. Likewise, something doesn't have to be the "be-all end-all of road safety" to regulate it. That's why we havea variety of traffic laws.
Whoops, missed the end of c: c) there are no pull-offs where you can let people go around you
You are assuming that
a) it's a one-lane road
b) there are no passing zones
c) there are no pull-offs where people
I understand your point, but it's quite possible to drive safely and still obey the speed limit most or all of the time--and finding ways to let the rest of traffic move past you is far safer than allowing people behind you to force you to drive faster than you/your car is comfortable going.
No, the roads are for people like me to get from one place to another as efficiently as possible, not for people like you who can barely see over the steering wheel to go at 20mph on the motorway on the way to bingo.
Since when are straw-man attacks insightful? Just because someone finds the 65 and 75 MPH interstate speed limits pervasive in the US reasonable doesn't make that person a Sunday driver. Stick to arguing your points, not insulting people for made-up traits.
Bullshit. The speed limits havn't changed since the 50s, cars have.
How about human reaction times?
The iPod Shuffle, meanwhile, is the same player feature-for-feature as the Creative MuVo that was released three years ago.
Really? Including great software for managing playlists and seamless integration with the largest online music store? iPods are about more than just the hardware; many users like having an end-to-end experience.
For all those people out there who constantly parrot "OMG, it's not stealing" whenever the subject comes up, do stop. It makes you look stupid, it's rather offensive to regurgitate such transparently manipulative crap in a forum that's presumably frequented by more intelligent people, and it rather quickly kills any discussion of the real issue.
Notice that that has exactly as much merit as an argument as your version--absolutely none.
See, when you have an issue that reasonable people can disagree on (e.g., how applicable the word theft is to copyright infringement) saying that all the arguments against your viewpoint are just parroted manipulative crap makes you look stupid, because it demonstrates that you are just going to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as mentally inferior without actually thinking about what they are saying, which is far more likely to kill discussion. If you want productive discussion, try sticking more to arguing your opinions in a reasonable manner, based on facts (like you started to), and spend less time degenerating into insults.