"act of god" is a legal term. It is part of contract law, which is the one governing this kind of EULAs or terms of service. They used that term because that's the one specified in contract law regarding this kind of extraordinary events. It should actually be casus fortuitous or something like that.
If you ask them to approve 100 dollars and 20 years for your project, they'll say no. So you go for 50 bucks, and say you can have it ready in 2 months.
2 Months later, you say you need "some more time" because something "unexpected" happened, and you'll need another 20 bucks. Or they can just shut down and loose 50 bucks and 2 months of work. So they say yes, and go ahead.
It is the *ONLY* way to do certain things. Because people with power is stupid.
"What is reality?" And then "Can we assume that what we observe in the world is an accurate representation of reality?" are valid Philosophical questions.
"We assume that what we observe in the world is NOT an accurate representation of reality, and therefore believe in all sorts of crazy theories we just pulled out of our ass" Is just bullshit. And that's all religion is. "You can't prove I am wrong because I make no formal valid propositions, therefore an interstellar jew who was his own father created us all". Just stupid shit that should be banned from all academic areas.
The problem here is that copyright is unnatural, and absolutely ridiculous. The only reason for copyright is controlling thought, and profiting excessively from created content. Their orwellian attempt at controlling information allows us to imagine all kinds of ridiculous circumstances.
Example:
If I legally play a movie at my house, but I happen to have a legal surveillance camera in there, and as part of the image my camera is recording, it records the surface of the TV, is that security footage illegal, does it constitute copyright infringement?
If I legally download a movie,let's say, from itunes, and I don't actively share it, but I have my machine connected to the internet, and my hard drive is shared through samba, unsecured, to the whole internet. If someone connects to that samba share, and then copies the movie, is that my fault? Is it my duty too to protect the media I have from being copied? To what extent?
If the photons that my LCD is emitting when I'm watching a move leave my house, am I broadcasting the movie, therefore, infringing copyright? Up to what point am I supposed to protect that movie from being copied? Is closing the curtains enough, or since energy can't be destroyed, only transformed, I am legally obliged to control the energy emanating from my LCD forever?
If I legally store a legally downloaded movie on my hard drive, and then, due to a vulnerability in my operating system, that information is leaked, and every single human being on the world downloads a copy, is it my fault or the fault of the developers of my OS?
Copyright is ridiculous and unnatural, and all attempts to control information are equally stupid.
Which is absolutely ridiculous, because when you are playing the disk on a regular DVD player, it is technically being copied. Also, since when you watch the DVD your brain is storing those images to a reasonable point (we don't know exactly how much of it is being stored permanently on your brain), viewing it counts as copying too.
Copyright is unnatural, therefore, any attempts to quantify copying will fail miserably.
Nobody has ever questioned that physical objects can block, attenuate, or otherwise distort electromagnetic radiation. That is a pretty basic fact that nobody will deny.
So, a good phone is not one that overcomes the laws of physics preventing physical objects from interfering with its signal. No. A good phone is one that is designed in a way that allows you to grab the phone in any of the usual ways that are suitable to hold a conversation or browse the web and still get a signal. They usually achieve this through properly insulated, numerous, cleverly positioned antennas. A good phone is one that grabbed in any normal way suitable for browsing/texting/talking doesn't loose too much signal. Most cellpones pass this test ok. Check the video. The ONLY phone that lost signal while being grabbed normally was the iphone 4. All the others had to be covered almost all round the phone, with a firm, very hard grip, both hands, to make them loose some signal, and even then, they performed better than the iphone4.
This is not Apple hating. It's just reality. All iphones have crappy signal. Apple designed the phone to look nice, and forgot about functionality. The iphone 4 is even worse, but all previous generations have on average worse reception thanother phones.
On the other hand, I don't like smartphones. I carry a small, shitty, Nokia 1208 cellphone. It's light, small, tough, and has a huge battery life. The battery is very easily replaced, and I carry with me a spare fully loaded battery. Many people that I work with have iphones. Most of the time, when I go down to just 1-2 bars, iphones are already completely out of signal. Example, at the elevator, every iphone user drops the call immediately, but I still keep enough signal to continue talking. That's what a cellphone is supposed to be. I don't feel the urge to carry with me a camera, a digital recorder, an audio/video player, a web browser, etc. with me at all times, but if I did, I would carry a separate device that would do all of those things, while still carrying my small, simple phone that always works.
Playboy is a magazine for guys that want to masturbate. In the 70's, guys jerked off to pictures of tits, and playboy was very popular. In the 80's, they wanted to masturbate to moving pictures, and not stills, without the VHS-fucking goodness, playboy was less relevant. In the 90's, guys wanted to masturbate to moving, hardcore pictures, playboy became even less relevant. In the last decade, people wanted to masturbate to free videos of midgets dressed in little pokemon suites fucking their mothers with giant dildos shaped like bill clinton's cigar. Playboy still offers pictures of tits printed in dead trees.
They almost when bankrupt in 2007, and now they almost go bankrupt every day. This is just a lame attempt to reinvent themselves.
Not only that, this is precisely the kind of problem good is good at solving. If there is one company that can do this better, faster, and easier to integrate, complete with a well documented SDK, it is Google.
The submitard tried to make ITA look more complex or important that it really is.
Nobody is allowing javascript in emails. This is a BUG in Gmail's code, not the user's fault. You use a browser to see your email. Spammers managed to somehow escape JS code and pass it through all of google's filters and execute it in your browser.
You are basically saying that Aston Martin sucks because it only has 0.01% of the market.
Ubuntu works out of the box in any modern machine, installs easily in 15 minutes, and that includes tons of applications. If you want an extra app, all you have to do is click on the software center, choose your app, and click install. Voila! It is ready to use. There is no reason for any user to use the console if they don't want to, but it is available if you need it. There is commercial support available, and it's awesome. The community support also rocks.
There are various reasons why users stay on windows:
a) Games. Solution: Get a Playstation, you looser. b) Legacy apps. Solution: Ask your provider for a port. Find a replacement. Use wine. c) FUD. Solution: Murder people like you. d) Stupidity. Solution: Murder 75% of the population.
Most of the population is stupid. You are stupid. You use windows, and so does most of the population. They also buy ford, eat at mcdonalds, vote for bush, believe in god, buy homeopathic bullshit, rely on astrology, and are certain that the word is 6000 years old.
You are not making any arguments, you are just trolling, that's why I don't even bother answering in a proper manner.
The whole idea of Free Software is NOT world domination. It is to provide a valid, free alternative for those that want to use it. It is already doing that, and therefore I consider that it has already succeeded.
GNU/Linux and many other alternatives are real and are out there right now. Most of the web runs on GNU/Linux or *BSD + Apache. I think that is a huge success in and on itself.
Most things can be done with nothing but Free Software. The hardware support in GNU/Linux is awesome, in most cases, better than windows, since windows requires downloading drivers from the manufacturer, while Linux has most modules readily available. You talk about a few specific situations and say "ha, see, your OS can't do that", but those situations are not only very specific, but also it is because the manufacturer itself doesn't want to support GNU/Linux. So, you want to run certain app that is privative and has a binary-only distribution for windows... well, of course it is not going to work on GNU/Linux, that's not our fault, it is the manufacturer's fault, and I don'see that as a failure for the GNU project.
Anyway, most of your "This won't work" cases are simply solved by Wine, that will happily run most apps out there. Even complex games and graphic apps. Photoshop has run flawlessly on GNU/Linux for years.
If the fact that GNU/Linux doesn't have drivers for a few, very specific and expensive pieces of hardware is a failure, and means windows is 'better', I can then give you a lot of situations where GNU/Linux does have drivers and windows DOESN'T. Example: Telephony cards. GNU/Linux can be turned into a complete PBX in minutes by just installing Asterisk and an E1 card from Digium. They DON'T have windows drivers.
I can't run windows on an iPhone, but I can run GNU/Linux. Does that mean in and on itself that GNU/Linux is better?
NO. Specific support by certain manufacturers doesn't mean success of failure for anyone. It is just the manufacturers fault for not having a broader support.
Now, you were talking about the reason most businesses don't switch. The reason is very simple: People like you. Your business model is tied tightly to microsoft's business model. You keep fixing something that shouldn't break every week. That provides you with job security, and that's why you keep recommending windows.
We don't want you to switch. I filter out SPAM, and I don't have to deal with windows ever, so the fact that you are using windows doesn't affect me in the least. You want to switch with no effort on your side? fuck off. Stay on windows for all I care.
I've helped switch a lot of people because they wanted too, and they put a great effort on their side. I don't care about the popularity of Free Software. We have enough developers already, and more than enough users. We are an alternative. If you want to join us, great. If you don't, we don't care.
Oh yes, sure, the fact that 1 billion computers around the world use windows surely proves that windows works fine. Specially considering that 99.5% of all email around the world is spam coming precisely from all those zombie windows boxes.
Also, signed drivers and drivers that are checked by the hardware itself are a different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"act of god" is a legal term. It is part of contract law, which is the one governing this kind of EULAs or terms of service. They used that term because that's the one specified in contract law regarding this kind of extraordinary events. It should actually be casus fortuitous or something like that.
If you ask them to approve 100 dollars and 20 years for your project, they'll say no. So you go for 50 bucks, and say you can have it ready in 2 months.
2 Months later, you say you need "some more time" because something "unexpected" happened, and you'll need another 20 bucks. Or they can just shut down and loose 50 bucks and 2 months of work. So they say yes, and go ahead.
It is the *ONLY* way to do certain things. Because people with power is stupid.
Yes, they did the same shit for DDR SDRAM (667). That's because of stupid christians that still believe in the interstellar zombie jew.
Putting "god" in a law ... makes you trust the justice system so much ...
No.
"What is reality?"
And then "Can we assume that what we observe in the world is an accurate representation of reality?" are valid Philosophical questions.
"We assume that what we observe in the world is NOT an accurate representation of reality, and therefore believe in all sorts of crazy theories we just pulled out of our ass" Is just bullshit. And that's all religion is. "You can't prove I am wrong because I make no formal valid propositions, therefore an interstellar jew who was his own father created us all". Just stupid shit that should be banned from all academic areas.
The problem here is that copyright is unnatural, and absolutely ridiculous. The only reason for copyright is controlling thought, and profiting excessively from created content. Their orwellian attempt at controlling information allows us to imagine all kinds of ridiculous circumstances.
Example:
If I legally play a movie at my house, but I happen to have a legal surveillance camera in there, and as part of the image my camera is recording, it records the surface of the TV, is that security footage illegal, does it constitute copyright infringement?
If I legally download a movie,let's say, from itunes, and I don't actively share it, but I have my machine connected to the internet, and my hard drive is shared through samba, unsecured, to the whole internet. If someone connects to that samba share, and then copies the movie, is that my fault? Is it my duty too to protect the media I have from being copied? To what extent?
If the photons that my LCD is emitting when I'm watching a move leave my house, am I broadcasting the movie, therefore, infringing copyright? Up to what point am I supposed to protect that movie from being copied? Is closing the curtains enough, or since energy can't be destroyed, only transformed, I am legally obliged to control the energy emanating from my LCD forever?
If I legally store a legally downloaded movie on my hard drive, and then, due to a vulnerability in my operating system, that information is leaked, and every single human being on the world downloads a copy, is it my fault or the fault of the developers of my OS?
Copyright is ridiculous and unnatural, and all attempts to control information are equally stupid.
Which is absolutely ridiculous, because when you are playing the disk on a regular DVD player, it is technically being copied. Also, since when you watch the DVD your brain is storing those images to a reasonable point (we don't know exactly how much of it is being stored permanently on your brain), viewing it counts as copying too.
Copyright is unnatural, therefore, any attempts to quantify copying will fail miserably.
Damn. If only there was some kind of slashdot user who was some kind of legal advisor from some big county in the US.
Yes, but first you have to get rid of windows.
Nobody has ever questioned that physical objects can block, attenuate, or otherwise distort electromagnetic radiation. That is a pretty basic fact that nobody will deny.
So, a good phone is not one that overcomes the laws of physics preventing physical objects from interfering with its signal. No. A good phone is one that is designed in a way that allows you to grab the phone in any of the usual ways that are suitable to hold a conversation or browse the web and still get a signal. They usually achieve this through properly insulated, numerous, cleverly positioned antennas. A good phone is one that grabbed in any normal way suitable for browsing/texting/talking doesn't loose too much signal. Most cellpones pass this test ok. Check the video. The ONLY phone that lost signal while being grabbed normally was the iphone 4. All the others had to be covered almost all round the phone, with a firm, very hard grip, both hands, to make them loose some signal, and even then, they performed better than the iphone4.
This is not Apple hating. It's just reality. All iphones have crappy signal. Apple designed the phone to look nice, and forgot about functionality. The iphone 4 is even worse, but all previous generations have on average worse reception thanother phones.
On the other hand, I don't like smartphones. I carry a small, shitty, Nokia 1208 cellphone. It's light, small, tough, and has a huge battery life. The battery is very easily replaced, and I carry with me a spare fully loaded battery. Many people that I work with have iphones. Most of the time, when I go down to just 1-2 bars, iphones are already completely out of signal. Example, at the elevator, every iphone user drops the call immediately, but I still keep enough signal to continue talking. That's what a cellphone is supposed to be. I don't feel the urge to carry with me a camera, a digital recorder, an audio/video player, a web browser, etc. with me at all times, but if I did, I would carry a separate device that would do all of those things, while still carrying my small, simple phone that always works.
You like to play games where you look at almost-nude males
No I don't. I just don't play games.
Anyway, the games you play are not the way I know that you are gay. I know that you are gay because you have a facebook account.
What is today more irrelevant than playboy?
Playboy is a magazine for guys that want to masturbate. In the 70's, guys jerked off to pictures of tits, and playboy was very popular. In the 80's, they wanted to masturbate to moving pictures, and not stills, without the VHS-fucking goodness, playboy was less relevant. In the 90's, guys wanted to masturbate to moving, hardcore pictures, playboy became even less relevant. In the last decade, people wanted to masturbate to free videos of midgets dressed in little pokemon suites fucking their mothers with giant dildos shaped like bill clinton's cigar. Playboy still offers pictures of tits printed in dead trees.
They almost when bankrupt in 2007, and now they almost go bankrupt every day. This is just a lame attempt to reinvent themselves.
Do you know how I know that you are gay?
There, better?
I am posting in code mode. I forgot to change it. Get over it.
<quote>the kind of problem good is good at solving</quote>
I am an asshole. s/good/google/
Not only that, this is precisely the kind of problem good is good at solving. If there is one company that can do this better, faster, and easier to integrate, complete with a well documented SDK, it is Google.
The submitard tried to make ITA look more complex or important that it really is.
Nobody is allowing javascript in emails. This is a BUG in Gmail's code, not the user's fault. You use a browser to see your email. Spammers managed to somehow escape JS code and pass it through all of google's filters and execute it in your browser.
TFA should have read: "Google has found a vulnerability in its gmail code that could be used to execute arbitrary JS code in the user's browser".
Instead, they played that down and used the "we are fighting JS attacks" phrase as if that was normal or common.
Failing to properly escape JS/HTML/CSS in a webservice is a MAJOR vulnerability.
You are basically saying that Aston Martin sucks because it only has 0.01% of the market.
Ubuntu works out of the box in any modern machine, installs easily in 15 minutes, and that includes tons of applications. If you want an extra app, all you have to do is click on the software center, choose your app, and click install. Voila! It is ready to use. There is no reason for any user to use the console if they don't want to, but it is available if you need it. There is commercial support available, and it's awesome. The community support also rocks.
There are various reasons why users stay on windows:
a) Games. Solution: Get a Playstation, you looser.
b) Legacy apps. Solution: Ask your provider for a port. Find a replacement. Use wine.
c) FUD. Solution: Murder people like you.
d) Stupidity. Solution: Murder 75% of the population.
Most of the population is stupid. You are stupid. You use windows, and so does most of the population. They also buy ford, eat at mcdonalds, vote for bush, believe in god, buy homeopathic bullshit, rely on astrology, and are certain that the word is 6000 years old.
You are not making any arguments, you are just trolling, that's why I don't even bother answering in a proper manner.
... well, of course it is not going to work on GNU/Linux, that's not our fault, it is the manufacturer's fault, and I don'see that as a failure for the GNU project.
The whole idea of Free Software is NOT world domination. It is to provide a valid, free alternative for those that want to use it. It is already doing that, and therefore I consider that it has already succeeded.
GNU/Linux and many other alternatives are real and are out there right now. Most of the web runs on GNU/Linux or *BSD + Apache. I think that is a huge success in and on itself.
Most things can be done with nothing but Free Software. The hardware support in GNU/Linux is awesome, in most cases, better than windows, since windows requires downloading drivers from the manufacturer, while Linux has most modules readily available. You talk about a few specific situations and say "ha, see, your OS can't do that", but those situations are not only very specific, but also it is because the manufacturer itself doesn't want to support GNU/Linux. So, you want to run certain app that is privative and has a binary-only distribution for windows
Anyway, most of your "This won't work" cases are simply solved by Wine, that will happily run most apps out there. Even complex games and graphic apps. Photoshop has run flawlessly on GNU/Linux for years.
If the fact that GNU/Linux doesn't have drivers for a few, very specific and expensive pieces of hardware is a failure, and means windows is 'better', I can then give you a lot of situations where GNU/Linux does have drivers and windows DOESN'T. Example: Telephony cards. GNU/Linux can be turned into a complete PBX in minutes by just installing Asterisk and an E1 card from Digium. They DON'T have windows drivers.
I can't run windows on an iPhone, but I can run GNU/Linux. Does that mean in and on itself that GNU/Linux is better?
NO. Specific support by certain manufacturers doesn't mean success of failure for anyone. It is just the manufacturers fault for not having a broader support.
Now, you were talking about the reason most businesses don't switch. The reason is very simple: People like you. Your business model is tied tightly to microsoft's business model. You keep fixing something that shouldn't break every week. That provides you with job security, and that's why you keep recommending windows.
They didn't have the internets back then, silly. They only had BBS access and usenet (over UUCP)
We don't want you to switch. I filter out SPAM, and I don't have to deal with windows ever, so the fact that you are using windows doesn't affect me in the least. You want to switch with no effort on your side? fuck off. Stay on windows for all I care.
I've helped switch a lot of people because they wanted too, and they put a great effort on their side. I don't care about the popularity of Free Software. We have enough developers already, and more than enough users. We are an alternative. If you want to join us, great. If you don't, we don't care.
Dude, you repair computers for a living. That amounts to swapping PCI cards and hitting next next next done on installers.
That's lower than being a barista at starbucks.
Shut your mouth when programmers are talking.
Oh yes, sure, the fact that 1 billion computers around the world use windows surely proves that windows works fine. Specially considering that 99.5% of all email around the world is spam coming precisely from all those zombie windows boxes.
Also, signed drivers and drivers that are checked by the hardware itself are a different thing.
You are ignorant, and your argument is invalid.