It might have been different back in the olden days, when skilled engineers were actually rare.
There was a very interesting documentary series a few decades ago ("Connections" by James Burke) that looked at technology through the ages. One of the common themes was how technologies were invented and re-invented at different times and places. It's only modern communications that prevent re-invention, because the knowledge of the "original" invention travels around the world.
But the real problem with it is that it's all self-certified, self-inspected and self-overseen, with secret courts and secret interpretations of existing law.
Of laws which the courts have been blocking examination of their constitutionality.
We had such software back in late 90s as well during icq days, so makes no sense that they can sue you over something that has been around long before skype.
Since when did the law (and especially patent law) have any connection to "sense"?
It sold substantial chunks of itself to assorted third parties, so now they get a say.
I have read a serious article that proposed that:
1. Companies are people.
2. People cannot be owned.
3. Therefore, companies cannot be owned.
Instead of shareholdhers owning a company, the article proposed that share ownership was merely a right to a proportion of future profits. Under this argument, shareholders have no right to direct how a company operates.
One could just as easily argue that its possible without jumping through hoops to use Outlook with any other provider. Jumping through hoops is required only for Google. So clearly the issue, (the need to jump through hoops) exists with google.
Really? OK, then, how about this:
1: the jumping through hoops is not required when using VLA version of Outlook (according to the GGP post) -- so it is a problem imposed by Outlook
2.: the jumping through hoops is not required for other clients.
I think that either of those statements shows quite clearly where the problem lies. Together they paint a clear picture that the issue exists in Outlook.
Nothing but money, that is. Why exactly should Google pay Microsoft so that it can use a proprietary protocol with non-paying clients, when there are perfectly adequate open protocols available?
Since it is possible (by jumping through hoops) to use Outlook, clearly the issue (the need to jump through hoops) exists in Outlook. So dump the root cause of the problem (Outlook).
Google does not support IMAP push, while they did support push e-mail with exchange, so it's a step back in any case.
It's only a step back if you don't care about battery life. IMAP push requires a persistent connection which sucks the life out of cellphone batteries.
It's Ed Bott - what else did you expect? I don't even have to RTFA, and I can tell you that he's likely pimping Outlook.com in that same article as hard as he friggin' can. It's not so much a critical review of GMail, as it is a webvertisement for Outlook.com disguised as a critical review.
Exactly. His slant can easily be determined from his comments about using calendars in Outlook: he complains that Outlook can only open gmail calendars in read-only mode. But this appears to be a limitation of Outlook -- my Thunderbird client (with the appropriate calendar plugins) can update gmail's calendar, so why can't Outlook?
Show me where the NSA was assigned the job of catching them,
That's a strawman. Neither I, not the GGGP said that the NSA was tasked with catching the Boston bombers. There is no point arguing this further with you since you clearly have a problem with your reading or comprehension skills.
but all you can say about them is they invade people's privacy... a right nowhere guaranteed by the Constitution.
And your knowledge of the US constitution is clearly lacking. You never heard of the 4th amendment? Just because it doesn't use the word "privacy" doesn't mean that a right to privacy is not granted by this amendment -- as the supremes have acknowledged.
Back up the fail train there. The NSA wasn't tasked to find the Boston bomber, the FBI was.
Back up the strawman train there. The GP was pointing out that the information gathered by the NSA failed to prevent the Boston bomber, and prevention is what the NSA claims that its massive surveillance program does.
In reality, what it does is undermine democracy. What if the NSA discovered some embarrassing material relating to Dianne Feinsteinn and is using it to blackmail her to support the NSA? How do you know that it hasn't happened? The answer is that you don't and that's why democracy has been undermined. What would Herbert Hoover would have given to have the information that the NSA has?
If this is true, law enforcement (a) blatantly exceeded the scope of a lawful search warrant; and (b) used a search warrant as a pretext to seize material that they had no authority to seize.
The government will proceed to claim that she has no standing to protest the warrant because the warrant was for her husband's posessions.
Torture has been a staple of Christianity since at least 1252 when Pope Innocent IV* authorized its use by inquisitors.
Even more, the Spanish Inquisition documented the same torture methods that the US Government classified as "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- but the Spanish Inquisition was in no doubt that the methods described were forms of torture.
Lifetime imprisonment is the more humane option in most cases, but on a practical level it's also VERY expensive
Because of all the legal proceedings, etc., life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. Furthermore, what about those people who are wrongly executed? You can't being them back to life, while you can release someone to live what remains of their life.
In a purely rational sense, as distasteful or immoral as some find it, there is an important place for execution in the criminal justice system.
As I show above, no, there isn't. Execution brutalizes society and is a flawed and expensive process. Its use is actually irrational and is only supported because people seek revenge.
I got blocked for reporting that a banned editor was back on Wikipedia using a new name. The admin responsible was either subverting prior arbitration decisions that banned the user or simply careless in failing to consider whether my report was trolling or merely following proper procedure (the latter).
Before someone suggests Hanlon's razor should apply, the former possiblity (subversion of arbitration) is possibly the correct answer because the banned editor had previously promised a large donation to Wikipedia (which never materialized) but Jimmy Wales and others were too naive (and/or greedy) to see that the promise was never going to be fulfilled.
Ten years from now, I expect this will be a solved problem, but right now it's like personal computers ca. 1980 - everyone has a different solution, each has its own merits and faults, and we're just going to have to wait until standardization occurs.
Unless customers express a strong preference for standards, nothing is going to change. The manufacturers believe that they can make a lot of money from updates and upgrades during the life of the vehicle (just look at how much updated maps for integrated GPS systems cost) and they are not going to give up that income without a strong signal from car buyers.
Car manufacturers love this income stream because it doesn't affect the price of a new car -- it may be the second owner who has to pay it.
You could by a hammer at Home Depot, but you couldn't buy the nails on Sunday. Batteries! You could buy a battery opreated device, but not the batteries,
The UK used to have similar restrictions, but the reverse: you could buy perishable items, but not non-perishable. So you could buy nails but not the hammer.
But, consider Playboy vs. a copy of the BIble: which is perishable and which is not? Yes, on a Sunday, you could buy Playboy but not a copy of the Bible!
Slashdot Mirror
There was a very interesting documentary series a few decades ago ("Connections" by James Burke) that looked at technology through the ages. One of the common themes was how technologies were invented and re-invented at different times and places. It's only modern communications that prevent re-invention, because the knowledge of the "original" invention travels around the world.
Encryption is your friend.
Of laws which the courts have been blocking examination of their constitutionality.
Since when did the law (and especially patent law) have any connection to "sense"?
I have read a serious article that proposed that:
1. Companies are people.
2. People cannot be owned.
3. Therefore, companies cannot be owned.
Instead of shareholdhers owning a company, the article proposed that share ownership was merely a right to a proportion of future profits. Under this argument, shareholders have no right to direct how a company operates.
Really? OK, then, how about this:
1: the jumping through hoops is not required when using VLA version of Outlook (according to the GGP post) -- so it is a problem imposed by Outlook
2.: the jumping through hoops is not required for other clients.
I think that either of those statements shows quite clearly where the problem lies. Together they paint a clear picture that the issue exists in Outlook.
Nothing but money, that is. Why exactly should Google pay Microsoft so that it can use a proprietary protocol with non-paying clients, when there are perfectly adequate open protocols available?
Since it is possible (by jumping through hoops) to use Outlook, clearly the issue (the need to jump through hoops) exists in Outlook. So dump the root cause of the problem (Outlook).
It's only a step back if you don't care about battery life. IMAP push requires a persistent connection which sucks the life out of cellphone batteries.
Exactly. His slant can easily be determined from his comments about using calendars in Outlook: he complains that Outlook can only open gmail calendars in read-only mode. But this appears to be a limitation of Outlook -- my Thunderbird client (with the appropriate calendar plugins) can update gmail's calendar, so why can't Outlook?
He then parrots the "scroogled" talking points.
3, 2, 1.....
Faster than you could download "Gone in 60 seconds"!
I did not notice this, for the simple reason that it hasn't happened. He has announced his intention to retire next year.
That's a strawman. Neither I, not the GGGP said that the NSA was tasked with catching the Boston bombers. There is no point arguing this further with you since you clearly have a problem with your reading or comprehension skills.
And your knowledge of the US constitution is clearly lacking. You never heard of the 4th amendment? Just because it doesn't use the word "privacy" doesn't mean that a right to privacy is not granted by this amendment -- as the supremes have acknowledged.
He's another Hoover, they are all the same, aren't they? But really, yes. I did mean J. Edgar.
Back up the strawman train there. The GP was pointing out that the information gathered by the NSA failed to prevent the Boston bomber, and
prevention is what the NSA claims that its massive surveillance program does.
In reality, what it does is undermine democracy. What if the NSA discovered some embarrassing material relating to Dianne Feinsteinn and is using it to blackmail her to support the NSA? How do you know that it hasn't happened? The answer is that you don't and that's why democracy has been undermined. What would Herbert Hoover would have given to have the information that the NSA has?
Read TFA. It was approved by the WTO because of the USA's probibition of cross-border gambling.
The government will proceed to claim that she has no standing to protest the warrant because the warrant was for her husband's posessions.
Even more, the Spanish Inquisition documented the same torture methods that the US Government classified as "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- but the Spanish Inquisition was in no doubt that the methods described were forms of torture.
What is that oath that doctors are supposed to take? IMHO, any doctor who takes an active role in an execution should be struck off.
Because of all the legal proceedings, etc., life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. Furthermore, what about those people who are wrongly executed? You can't being them back to life, while you can release someone to live what remains of their life.
As I show above, no, there isn't. Execution brutalizes society and is a flawed and expensive process. Its use is actually irrational and is only supported because people seek revenge.
Or Carbon Monoxide.
This.
I got blocked for reporting that a banned editor was back on Wikipedia using a new name. The admin responsible was either subverting prior arbitration decisions that banned the user or simply careless in failing to consider whether my report was trolling or merely following proper procedure (the latter).
Before someone suggests Hanlon's razor should apply, the former possiblity (subversion of arbitration) is possibly the correct answer because the banned editor had previously promised a large donation to Wikipedia (which never materialized) but Jimmy Wales and others were too naive (and/or greedy) to see that the promise was never going to be fulfilled.
Please explain why a map update for a OEM GPS unit costs two to three times as much as a map update when bought by an end user for a stand-alone unit?
Unless customers express a strong preference for standards, nothing is going to change. The manufacturers believe that they can make a lot of money from updates and upgrades during the life of the vehicle (just look at how much updated maps for integrated GPS systems cost) and they are not going to give up that income without a strong signal from car buyers.
Car manufacturers love this income stream because it doesn't affect the price of a new car -- it may be the second owner who has to pay it.
The UK used to have similar restrictions, but the reverse: you could buy perishable items, but not non-perishable. So you could buy nails but not the hammer.
But, consider Playboy vs. a copy of the BIble: which is perishable and which is not? Yes, on a Sunday, you could buy Playboy but not a copy of the Bible!