Then you are seriously insecure. Just ignore it. If you don't like it, leave. Firing someone for telling a joke is indicates far less maturity and self control than telling jokes.
One instance isn't 'constantly' and certainly does not justify a firing. Telling a joke is not the same thing as groping people, though feminists like Richards work very hard to make us think otherwise and lobby the law into compliance. That's why they take every opportunity to bitch about every innocuous action or statement they don't like, labeling it as 'misogyny' or 'discrimination', using it as justification for their extreme approach.
She should get over it and tell her own jokes if she feels that intimidated..and the white knights who actually fired someone for telling jokes are the truly pathetic ones. At least she got fired for trolling up a teacup tempest into a full blown storm. They usually don't.. They're usually rewarded and patted on the head as 'victims' by mangina management.
Uptight? You mean where every little thing someone says 'offends' you to the point where you feel justified in watching/enabling the destruction of their careers?
No, no they shouldn't. They're not drones.. They're not slaves. They're employees. There's supposed to be a difference.. Telling jokes should not get you fired. Bad performance at your job should get you fired.
These PC pantywaists are going to be the ruin of us all. Telling a joke based on stereotypes is not 'sexism.' Deciding (not) to hire or fire someone based on gender is sexism. Of course, insecure people like Richards rule the roost now so now suddenly we're all responsible for HER feelings.
thats just it.. theyve proven they cant operate within a budget. most of the things they do that affect me are negative... they take more and more of my money, and waste it on idiotic adolescent style peer pressure driven garbage. they drive up prices at the pump, at the grocery store with their market monkeying, and now they want their grubby hand in internet commerce. oh goody i cant wait for more of the status quo policy making this will fund while i have even less money to go around.
That is a good approach.. to get yourself a lawsuit if/when a legit user's machine fails a check, loses data, and finds out that it was your program. Hostile code like this does not belong in ANY application. hell, there are enough laws that might be bent into defending even a pirate from such obnoxious code.
I did. I quote and pasted a link to apples eula to demonstrate this. Unless you're telling me it doesn't apply to OSX itunes purchases.. I did not see that language anywhere. If the code exists in ios it likely exists in the osx itunes application as well.. You'd be a fool to assume otherwise.
This is tangential to my point about control over software purchases, which is not debatable. It is fact. app stores routinely set limits on what functionality the apps are allowed, and no this is not limited to malware behavior, but also anything that competes with apple's bottom line or corporate political stance, and the license agreement clearly suggests they've reserved the ability and right to yank whatever they want from wherever they want within their own ecosystem. Even if they (or the authors) yank the app from the store (or update it into uselessness) and choose not to yank it from your device, how will you get it back later or install it elsewhere? Go outside the walled garden? That defeats the purpose and makes my point for me. As long as it's setup so I cannot retain control over my purchase beyond their good graces, anything sold there is of little value. If I need it badly enough to want to pay for it, I might as well just pirate it then, because at least that grants me access control, but it it does deny the author payment which was my point to the OP.
1. I'm sure the code is there, and even if not, you can't tell me it's not coming for OSX eventually. 2. authors can release 'updates' that yank functionality. At least with the traditional desktop I'd have to install them manually, and I have a way out should I need to get the old version back. 3. why would apple have this functionality if they never intended to use it or allow 'rights holders' to use it?
yeah hi, as a potential customer, 'web apps' are worth precisely $0. Why? I could wake up tomorrow and find that it's gone, or altered such that a much needed part of my workflow has been obliterated by your marketing department. No thanks.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any iTunes Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the iTunes Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the iTunes Service, in any case and without notice or liability.
I'm sure google has a similar clause.
I never said these app stores weren't convenient. Your anecdote doesn't address my point either.
..and for me, making it an app store purchase virtually ensures I'll never buy it. I don't do business with indian givers who have no problem taking my money while the store license agreement allows the author to revamp the application at any time...or in the worst case, revoke the application entirely leaving me shit up a creek.. See, the bottom line is I depend on my tools. If I can't depend on them being there when I open the tool box in the condition they were purchased in, they're useless. This applies to 'app store' gimmickry as well as 'cloud services' that get 'updated' until they're virtually useless.
A traditional application purchase, with no crazy DRM that needs 'online activation' or otherwise prevents me from running the software independently, is acceptable.
as opposed to all of the 'journalists' who routinely disseminate left wing propaganda as news? you know, in order to 'make a difference'? Today, for every fox/orly there are 20/50/100 dan rathers. Why do research and honest investigative journalism when it's easier to just read the copy you've been given and relegate your 'investigation' to a more ideologically pleasing, 'fair and balanced', politically correct sandbox?
maybe the OP is right: the media does have a lot to answer for its part in creating today's state of affairs in this country. everthing is slick, whitewashed, censored, and PC, in order to maximize appeal to easily kneejerked soccer moms and aging christians...all with microsecond attention spans.
It depends. Depending on the generation of xeon, you pay for the privilege of some combination of ECC RAM/cache, more cache, and multisocket capability. In many cases (like the pentium 4 era), you got a p4 with more cache that wasn't much faster than the desktop variant, even with 'enterprise' loads like databases! In the pentium 3 xeon days, you got marginal benefits with the extra cache, yet paid A LOT more for the hardware. With Xeon, the performance boost rarely justified the cost. Intel knew this, so that's why, these days, multisocket capability is a xeon exclusive: to make you pay dearly for that privilege.
Obviously, if you truly need these features you'll have no choice but to pay up, but these chips failure rates and performance are not any different than the consumer models of the same design at a given clockspeed. They're built on the same manufacturing technology and it is unlikely that intel bins either variant beyond the clockspeeds and TDP stamped on the box. While I don't deny that some critical systems need things like ECC, your post reads like a typical arrogant mac user perspective: someone desperate for social exclusivity trying to justify his overexpenditure.
with enough government and corporate encroachment, the state could decide (or be used by corporate interest) that based on the amount of flour, sugar, and milk you buy, you are 'at risk' for xyz medical reasons and then up your 'obamacare' payments (or inform your insurance agent) accordingly.. of course, it doesn't matter that you didn't necessarily consume all of those products yourself, or in an unhealthy way, but annoying details like this never deter the ideologically motivated stats nerds and their political overlords.
This SHOULD concern you. It should concern all of us.
..and the democrats refuse to acknowledge privacy because they see it as a way for individual liberty or agency of any kind to flourish without state sponsored winners and losers.
now you have a better understanding of the double bind the american voter really faces: corporate-backed socialism all around.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you are seriously insecure. Just ignore it. If you don't like it, leave. Firing someone for telling a joke is indicates far less maturity and self control than telling jokes.
One instance isn't 'constantly' and certainly does not justify a firing. Telling a joke is not the same thing as groping people, though feminists like Richards work very hard to make us think otherwise and lobby the law into compliance. That's why they take every opportunity to bitch about every innocuous action or statement they don't like, labeling it as 'misogyny' or 'discrimination', using it as justification for their extreme approach.
She should get over it and tell her own jokes if she feels that intimidated..and the white knights who actually fired someone for telling jokes are the truly pathetic ones. At least she got fired for trolling up a teacup tempest into a full blown storm. They usually don't.. They're usually rewarded and patted on the head as 'victims' by mangina management.
You should be too. Hypocritical policy is one of the worst stressors in today's society.
Uptight? You mean where every little thing someone says 'offends' you to the point where you feel justified in watching/enabling the destruction of their careers?
Fuck you, hypocrite.
No, no they shouldn't. They're not drones.. They're not slaves. They're employees. There's supposed to be a difference.. Telling jokes should not get you fired. Bad performance at your job should get you fired.
These PC pantywaists are going to be the ruin of us all. Telling a joke based on stereotypes is not 'sexism.' Deciding (not) to hire or fire someone based on gender is sexism. Of course, insecure people like Richards rule the roost now so now suddenly we're all responsible for HER feelings.
thats just it.. theyve proven they cant operate within a budget. most of the things they do that affect me are negative... they take more and more of my money, and waste it on idiotic adolescent style peer pressure driven garbage. they drive up prices at the pump, at the grocery store with their market monkeying, and now they want their grubby hand in internet commerce. oh goody i cant wait for more of the status quo policy making this will fund while i have even less money to go around.
not paying exorbitant tax is not freeloading
sorry but not all of us believe more taxation will truly make a difference considering how the US overnment squanders money.
of course, because we all know the 'right' crowd is? who exactly?
..or maybe it's because false scarcity is not sustainable..
That is a good approach.. to get yourself a lawsuit if/when a legit user's machine fails a check, loses data, and finds out that it was your program. Hostile code like this does not belong in ANY application. hell, there are enough laws that might be bent into defending even a pirate from such obnoxious code.
This is unenforceable without total TPM lockdown. Any sort of hidden file scheme can be overridden and this override easily automated.
I did. I quote and pasted a link to apples eula to demonstrate this. Unless you're telling me it doesn't apply to OSX itunes purchases.. I did not see that language anywhere. If the code exists in ios it likely exists in the osx itunes application as well.. You'd be a fool to assume otherwise.
This is tangential to my point about control over software purchases, which is not debatable. It is fact. app stores routinely set limits on what functionality the apps are allowed, and no this is not limited to malware behavior, but also anything that competes with apple's bottom line or corporate political stance, and the license agreement clearly suggests they've reserved the ability and right to yank whatever they want from wherever they want within their own ecosystem. Even if they (or the authors) yank the app from the store (or update it into uselessness) and choose not to yank it from your device, how will you get it back later or install it elsewhere? Go outside the walled garden? That defeats the purpose and makes my point for me. As long as it's setup so I cannot retain control over my purchase beyond their good graces, anything sold there is of little value. If I need it badly enough to want to pay for it, I might as well just pirate it then, because at least that grants me access control, but it it does deny the author payment which was my point to the OP.
1. I'm sure the code is there, and even if not, you can't tell me it's not coming for OSX eventually.
2. authors can release 'updates' that yank functionality. At least with the traditional desktop I'd have to install them manually, and I have a way out should I need to get the old version back.
3. why would apple have this functionality if they never intended to use it or allow 'rights holders' to use it?
yeah hi, as a potential customer, 'web apps' are worth precisely $0. Why? I could wake up tomorrow and find that it's gone, or altered such that a much needed part of my workflow has been obliterated by your marketing department. No thanks.
You are wrong. From the itunes agreement: http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any iTunes Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the iTunes Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the iTunes Service, in any case and without notice or liability.
I'm sure google has a similar clause.
I never said these app stores weren't convenient. Your anecdote doesn't address my point either.
No thanks.. unless you plan to offer an escrow refund when you shut down the activation server.
once the script hits the users' hardware, the developer doesn't get to decide what happens. Sorry.
..and for me, making it an app store purchase virtually ensures I'll never buy it. I don't do business with indian givers who have no problem taking my money while the store license agreement allows the author to revamp the application at any time...or in the worst case, revoke the application entirely leaving me shit up a creek.. See, the bottom line is I depend on my tools. If I can't depend on them being there when I open the tool box in the condition they were purchased in, they're useless. This applies to 'app store' gimmickry as well as 'cloud services' that get 'updated' until they're virtually useless.
A traditional application purchase, with no crazy DRM that needs 'online activation' or otherwise prevents me from running the software independently, is acceptable.
as opposed to all of the 'journalists' who routinely disseminate left wing propaganda as news? you know, in order to 'make a difference'? Today, for every fox/orly there are 20/50/100 dan rathers. Why do research and honest investigative journalism when it's easier to just read the copy you've been given and relegate your 'investigation' to a more ideologically pleasing, 'fair and balanced', politically correct sandbox?
maybe the OP is right: the media does have a lot to answer for its part in creating today's state of affairs in this country. everthing is slick, whitewashed, censored, and PC, in order to maximize appeal to easily kneejerked soccer moms and aging christians...all with microsecond attention spans.
Union of the Socialist States of America..
or maybe the Allied States of America fits better with today's politics, with the whole corporate-run socialist state angle going on there..
It might be worse in cuba, but that doesn't make what he said about the USA incorrect. Hell, I wish he wasn't correct.
It depends. Depending on the generation of xeon, you pay for the privilege of some combination of ECC RAM/cache, more cache, and multisocket capability. In many cases (like the pentium 4 era), you got a p4 with more cache that wasn't much faster than the desktop variant, even with 'enterprise' loads like databases! In the pentium 3 xeon days, you got marginal benefits with the extra cache, yet paid A LOT more for the hardware. With Xeon, the performance boost rarely justified the cost. Intel knew this, so that's why, these days, multisocket capability is a xeon exclusive: to make you pay dearly for that privilege.
Obviously, if you truly need these features you'll have no choice but to pay up, but these chips failure rates and performance are not any different than the consumer models of the same design at a given clockspeed. They're built on the same manufacturing technology and it is unlikely that intel bins either variant beyond the clockspeeds and TDP stamped on the box. While I don't deny that some critical systems need things like ECC, your post reads like a typical arrogant mac user perspective: someone desperate for social exclusivity trying to justify his overexpenditure.
with enough government and corporate encroachment, the state could decide (or be used by corporate interest) that based on the amount of flour, sugar, and milk you buy, you are 'at risk' for xyz medical reasons and then up your 'obamacare' payments (or inform your insurance agent) accordingly.. of course, it doesn't matter that you didn't necessarily consume all of those products yourself, or in an unhealthy way, but annoying details like this never deter the ideologically motivated stats nerds and their political overlords.
This SHOULD concern you. It should concern all of us.
..and the democrats refuse to acknowledge privacy because they see it as a way for individual liberty or agency of any kind to flourish without state sponsored winners and losers.
now you have a better understanding of the double bind the american voter really faces: corporate-backed socialism all around.
Yes we can! Yes we can! O-bam-a! O-bam-a!
bleh..