Because translations are frequently paid for by (and as a result owned by) the regional distributor.
Then at least give the option to buy the non-localized version at the normal US price. Especially for professional applications like Adobe's Photoshop. Why have a localized version at all ?
If you're using a software package professionally chances are that you'll have to work with someone who doesn't speak the local language sooner or later. A localized version is completely useless for professional use.
I understand there are some added costs for the localized translated versions
To make it even worse, as far as I'm concerned they can either keep their localized versions and just give me the US English one, OR make their app multilingual and just ship one version. (I'd prefer the latter option). Apple does this for most (all?) of their software and it's great. I can have an English language version if I log into my account and a Dutch version on a guest account if someone who doesn't speak English should want to use my computer.
They have to do the translations anyway, so why not ship all translations with every copy. This also saves on costs for making several master CD's, boxes, etc.
Really, how does the internet deliver freedom of assembly? IRC, instant messaging, webforums,etc.
And how does not having the internet really stop your ability to use freedom of assembly? I'm pretty sure assemblies have been held without the internet in the past. Sure, it's still possible to 'assemble' offline, but the threshold is a lot higher. Furthermore, you're excluded from online 'assemblies'.
I know, I know, it's almost too little, too late, but it's better than nothing and as long as this trend continues They better have IE8 up to at least the same level of standards support as Gecko/WebKit. If they don't all they have done is create yet another 'special case' browser we have to support.
If you have a policy that says no one can use mobiles in your house, then when someone refuses to hand them over you ask them to leave; You can make them leave, but you can't take away their cellphone, that would be theft. Please read a post before replying to it.
That's only vaguely true, and not even vaguely relevant. The owners of private property have every right, legally and ethically, to require visitors to that property to agree to (practically) any terms they want. The visitors are free to leave if they find the terms unacceptable. I agree. But that has nothing to do with the post I was replying to.
And there is no law that says you must be allowed to use your PDA while on their property. Your choices are to abide by their policy or leave their park. True, and they are within their rights to do so. But they are not allowed to take away your phone/PDA, that's theft.
The radio channels were allocated long before tubeless intertubes were considered. Does that matter ? Usually a license says what you can use it for, not what you can't. So if tubeless intertubes isn't specifically mentioned as allowed in the license you can't use it for that.
They have a policy at a private amusement. So ? A policy at whatever place cannot override the law. If I have a policy that says I'm allowed to kill you on my private property, I'm still going away for murder if I do.
A radio channel I get, but they are talking about tubeless intertubes.
Is a religious institution allowed to sell or sublet a frequency meant for non-commercial audio broadcasts to a company that uses it for a commercial intertubes service ?
Here in the Netherlands, a commercial radio license it incredibly expensive, there are cheaper licenses available for less main-stream radio programming (to enable a more diverse offering) but they come with a lot of requirements as to what you can use them for. A radio station that had a frequency for dance music got a huge fine a while back because they broadcast too much mainstream so they didn't comply with the license.
Furthermore, certain ranges are only for FM radio use, others are for telecom use, etc. You can't start a tubeless intertubes service even on a expensive commercial radio license.
(...) frequencies allocated for educational use. (...) as well as schools and religious institutions around the country That certain frequencies are allocated for educational purposes makes sense, but why do religious institutions have frequencies allocated to them ?
(...) a country where the average wage is under $20 a month
I spend more than $20 a day just on food, Cuba will have to import a lot of stuff over sea and they can live for $20 a MONTH ? Sure, cubans won't have the quality and quantity available to us, but I still get the feeling we are being ripped off.
I love the way the article uses the complete rewrite of Netscape as an example of why you shouldn't rewrite from scratch. Cause we all know how big a failure Firefox is
It is sad that there are people who call themself a Christian, yet say that the Bible isn't true.
No, what is really sad is that some heretics like you try to contradict the words of gods' representative on earth, the pope. The bible is just a book, printed by humans, provably altered over the ages, the pope is directly in contact with god himself. Saying that evolution is not true is blasphemy, you're basically saying that god is a liar. God has told us (using the pope as a relay) that evolution is true. Who are you to contradict god's word ?
The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here
A big part of the problem is that humans want to explain the universe from a human point of view. No scientist believes that evolution is the reason why we are here, evolution doesn't say anything about a reason. A reason implies intent, a conscious decision. Evolution doesn't say WHY we are here, it only explains part of the HOW.
Not trusting a jury can come back and bite you - look at what happened with Jamie Thomas and the $222,000 copyright infringement award. The jurors were pissed that she lied to them [switched.com], and made it known both inside and outside the courtroom [wired.com].
"She's a liar. We wanted to send a message. I don't know what the fuck she was thinking."
Wow, reading stuff like this makes me really glad I don't live in a country that has something as stupid trial by jury. I wouldn't want my fate to be decided by a bunch of random idiots. Isn't the jury supposed to decide if the accused is guilty of the deed they are accused of ? Instead of "sending her a message" because she hurt their feelings ? That statement by a member of the jury alone should have been enough to nullify the judgement.
No to talk about developing and undeveloped nations where the cellular network is basic (read no frills, only voice and SMS), for which it is not cost-effective to deploy UMTS and advanced functionality.
I think it would be quite cost-effective to skip GSM there and go for UMTS straight away. This way, you can roll-out both voice and internet access at the same time. It's way more cost effective to put up one UMTS tower to provide both services, especially if there is no existing infrastructure that can be reused (like in the 'developed world' with DSL en cable modems).
Slashdot Mirror
Then at least give the option to buy the non-localized version at the normal US price. Especially for professional applications like Adobe's Photoshop. Why have a localized version at all ?
If you're using a software package professionally chances are that you'll have to work with someone who doesn't speak the local language sooner or later. A localized version is completely useless for professional use.
To make it even worse, as far as I'm concerned they can either keep their localized versions and just give me the US English one, OR make their app multilingual and just ship one version. (I'd prefer the latter option). Apple does this for most (all?) of their software and it's great. I can have an English language version if I log into my account and a Dutch version on a guest account if someone who doesn't speak English should want to use my computer.
They have to do the translations anyway, so why not ship all translations with every copy. This also saves on costs for making several master CD's, boxes, etc.
even on a sdtv a cam version is unwatchable. Anything less than a DVD version with good stereo audio is not enjoyable to watch.
Indeed, in this time of HDTV and surround sound, I wonder why anyone even bothers releasing or watching a CAM version.
The MS Marketing department really needs to have a chat with the Coca-Cola marketing department and ask them about this thing called "new coke".
And there will probably be at least one guy shouting "LEROY JENKINS!"
Well, you could take the specification from the customer, to the programmers.
If you've got people skill that is.
I think google mistakes 'voorwerp' for 'onderwerp' which means 'subject' in the sense of "the subject of our discussion"
Sure, but the post I replied to implied that the policy would allow them to take away a PDA or cellphone.
But maybe this is different in the US.
A radio channel I get, but they are talking about tubeless intertubes.
Is a religious institution allowed to sell or sublet a frequency meant for non-commercial audio broadcasts to a company that uses it for a commercial intertubes service ?
Here in the Netherlands, a commercial radio license it incredibly expensive, there are cheaper licenses available for less main-stream radio programming (to enable a more diverse offering) but they come with a lot of requirements as to what you can use them for. A radio station that had a frequency for dance music got a huge fine a while back because they broadcast too much mainstream so they didn't comply with the license.
Furthermore, certain ranges are only for FM radio use, others are for telecom use, etc. You can't start a tubeless intertubes service even on a expensive commercial radio license.
I can imagine the FCC doing something similar.
I spend more than $20 a day just on food, Cuba will have to import a lot of stuff over sea and they can live for $20 a MONTH ? Sure, cubans won't have the quality and quantity available to us, but I still get the feeling we are being ripped off.
I love the way the article uses the complete rewrite of Netscape as an example of why you shouldn't rewrite from scratch. Cause we all know how big a failure Firefox is
Why should there be a reason for our existence ?
I think it would be quite cost-effective to skip GSM there and go for UMTS straight away. This way, you can roll-out both voice and internet access at the same time. It's way more cost effective to put up one UMTS tower to provide both services, especially if there is no existing infrastructure that can be reused (like in the 'developed world' with DSL en cable modems).
No, most of the developed world already has a 3G infrastructure. Only technological backwaters like the US still use GSM.