No, it doesn't do my credit rating any good, but I've yet to see anybody who won't give me a loan when I'm laying 25% down and can show a large account balance.
That is fine if you make enough to show a large balance. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are one illness away from bankruptcy.
And I am fine with that as long as the quality goes up which it would have to when you remove the AS-IS clause. Why should software be exempt from the product liability laws?
To use a car analogy, what you said is like questioning the worth of seatbelts. Just because they don't save every life in an accident doesn't mean that it not worth wearing them.
Let's carry your analogy to its conclusion...
The auto industry fought seatbelts tooth and nail and it took Congressional regulation for them to even consider them. That's part of how Ralph Nader earned his name recognition. Much like the software industry is fighting tooth and nail any attempt to make their software safe.
My way to fix this is much more simpler. Simply make the "AS-IS" clause of their EULA null and void and allow the users to sue for the damages when their defective products really hurts real people. A few high profile suits will make them put more of a priority on these vulnerabilities.
I don't own a smartphone and never will. Hell, I got my first cell phone only last year when I was forced to have a way to communicate when on the road and there are no pay phones anymore. I just don't see the draw in these expensive toys. I got the most stupid phone on the planet (and the cheapest non-contract prepaid one to boot) and I use it *GASP* as a phone! Nothing more. I may rarely send a text but all-in-all I can even do without that. Everything I've been reading about those phones leads me to believe they are too invasive to my privacy for my likes. Most of the time my phone is off (not that it is really off without removing the battery). Everything from geolocation for targeted advertising to the phone provider themselves profiting off the phone's always on monitoring is disturbing to me.
Then the stories like this comes along. Anything that can be remotely controlled by you can also be remotely controlled by someone else. Whether that someone else is good or bad is irrelevant. The fact that they can control it is bad enough for me. So now my crotchety ass will have to check to ensure my other household appliances are just as stupid as my phone is.
:blockquote>I don't think anything will solve any type of police misconduct in one fell swoop, but I doubt a supreme court ruling against this crap would hurt.
We are talking about the same SCOTUS that fucked up Citizen's United right? Are you so sure of that statement? Personally, I hope a case involving the recording of cops NEVER comes before them.
It might be easier to use but it sure isn't cheaper to turn a whole country's system of weights and measures. Right now is NOT a good time to be paying for changing all the signs in the US to reflect metric. Nor is ti time to change all the gas pumps for the same reason. It just plain isn't economical. Besides, that is what God created conversion programs for.
But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership.
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.
The car doesn't know if you're inside or outside when locking the door with the remote, duh. For all the alarm knows, there's a burglar curled on the seat, waiting to drive off as soon as the owner walks away.
Actually, my Lincoln Town Car does know if you are in the seat when you hit the remote lock. It uses the same sensors used for seatbelt detection. Hit the lock on the remote while you are in the seat and the driver's side door will immediately unlock and the car will beep at you in an annoying way. It wants you out of the car before you can hit that button.
The whole freedom, fsf, whatever claim seems also weird for somebody that mentions different software patents on his resume. I find it kind of hypocritical for somebod with high freedom morals.
True freedom would be donating the code to the public domain so in that regard even the FSF is hypocritical since the GPL itself has restrictions in its use.
1. Admin Powershell prompt (easily available even on Windows RT). 2. Show-WindowsDeveloperLicenceRegistration (yes, this is a PS command. Try "show-wi" + [TAB]) 3. Enter Windows Live credentials. They don't have to be the ones you sign in with (in fact, you don't have to be using Windows Live signin at all), and the don't have to be associated with a developer account in any way. In fact, they can be for a throw-away account. 4. Download an APPX package and run its install script. Congrats, sideloading achieved.
The status of the "developer registration" will need to be periodically refreshed, as by default it expires after a month. However, it costs nothing except a trivial amount of time, and you can refresh it repeatedly.
Doesn't look to me like something the "average user" (read Joe Sixpack) can do to me.... Besides, I thought Microsoft hated the command line given their proclivity to denigrate its use in Linux.
Windows 8 is a great OS, better than 7 in every way, but since the start menu changed, its obviously trash. Humanity is just dumb.
Two things come to mind:
He is correct that its usability suffers from Metro and the abrupt changes to the UI when it is being pushed so hard. One of many points made in the video was that people who have never used it will find it very confusing because in more ways than one the UI gets in the way. Microsoft trying to have its cake and eat it too is what is causing all this grief. Instead of doing like Apple did with the change from OS9 to OS10 and dropping legacy and backwards compatibility to go with the new paradigm they want to maintain backwards compatibility. This is because Microsoft fears backlash from both its main customers, big businesses and governments, and the developers for those businesses and governments. Worse, they really made it for the tablet market all the while still trying to hold onto the laptop / desktop market with it. The point made in the video of the differences between a mouse / touchpad and touchscreen are valid.
To do it right, Metro should NOT be the default interface if you are installing it to a machine without a touchscreen just as the "classic" should not be the default if you are installing it to a tablet. They are different beasts. A tablet is more for viewing content than it is a great workhorse for making that content no matter what Microsoft or Apple may think. An even better solution is to do two different products. One for the tablets and one for the desktop / laptop and let the consumers choose which they really want for what products. Again, that too was pointed out in this video.
The second observation of your post deals with your contempt for humans. It is those very humans that Microsoft is trying to impress. There is a very, very large segment of the population that are not pleased with the Metro interface that Microsoft really wants to go with. The so called "fix" of downloading a second application to eliminate it as the advice that is often given is proof enough of that dislike. Calling that many people names isn't the way to win over support.
Sure. Let's joke about posting personal pictures of a non-consenting party.
No, I take issue with this waste of money:
The hackers arrest in October 2011 stemmed from an 11-month investigation into the hacking of over 50 entertainment industry names, many of them young female stars. Hacked pictures of Johansson showed her in a state of undress in a domestic setting.
If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken. They shouldn't have kept them in an electronic form or on any item connected to the internet. It is their own fault.
But the bigger picture is the waste of taxpayer money as the FBI spends 11 months working at the behest of Hollywood. No wonder the people want to disband the federal government with actions like this.
No one needs to protect speech that does not offend the majority.
And no one needs to protect them when they spew their hate. Let them take the consequences of their speech. After all, speech does have consequences.
I think the best thing that could happen would be for all of the victims families to sue for slander sequentially one after the other. Cost them an arm and a leg defending that. Being tied up in court should keep them off the streets at night.
I can see the OPs point. If you know the subject being lectured then you should be able to clep out of it. Take the exam and if you can pass it then you have the credit and can move on. Having to sit through a lecture that you could probably give is boring as all hell. Attendance policies ensures that people who don't belong there are disrupting the lesson for those that do all because some asshat set a policy of failure if you aren't there.
And exactly how do they do that without reading what you have on their services? That is the definition of spying. How they use the knowledge they gain is irrelevant and also your suggestion that they aren't selling it elsewhere doesn't mean they won't in the future. That is hardly hyperbole and if it isn't considered when deciding whether to use their services then that isn't helpful.
Which is all the more reason not to use those services... How long do you think they will survive when the user base they are claiming to get money for disappears?
It isn't the iPhone that got her into trouble (bad summary as usual) but the fact that she refused to leave private property when asked several times I'm sure with each time becoming more belligerent on her part. You know, "you can't tell me where to go..." type stuff. That still only makes her guilty of trespass which I'm sure is not an excuse for tasering her unless she also resisted the attempt to arrest her for the said trespass.
Because corporations including Google had a big hand in lobbying to have the laws made so they can avoid paying as much taxes as possible while still demanding the government services those taxes go to pay for. Nothing like tilting the table then blaming the table when things fall off it.
Is the amount we put into corporate welfare good in keeping them off the streets and giving them a helping hand to get past some hard times in their corporate life, or is it a disincentive for them to change life, because they are getting everything they need without having to work for it? Why isn't there more balanced study and working to try to get the correct balanced where every dollar in taxes that go to corporate welfare will go to more good and less leaching.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in TFA does it say the monkey survived. For all we know it came back as chunky salsa...
That is fine if you make enough to show a large balance. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are one illness away from bankruptcy.
June 2012...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho
And I am fine with that as long as the quality goes up which it would have to when you remove the AS-IS clause. Why should software be exempt from the product liability laws?
Let's carry your analogy to its conclusion...
The auto industry fought seatbelts tooth and nail and it took Congressional regulation for them to even consider them. That's part of how Ralph Nader earned his name recognition. Much like the software industry is fighting tooth and nail any attempt to make their software safe.
My way to fix this is much more simpler. Simply make the "AS-IS" clause of their EULA null and void and allow the users to sue for the damages when their defective products really hurts real people. A few high profile suits will make them put more of a priority on these vulnerabilities.
I don't own a smartphone and never will. Hell, I got my first cell phone only last year when I was forced to have a way to communicate when on the road and there are no pay phones anymore. I just don't see the draw in these expensive toys. I got the most stupid phone on the planet (and the cheapest non-contract prepaid one to boot) and I use it *GASP* as a phone! Nothing more. I may rarely send a text but all-in-all I can even do without that. Everything I've been reading about those phones leads me to believe they are too invasive to my privacy for my likes. Most of the time my phone is off (not that it is really off without removing the battery). Everything from geolocation for targeted advertising to the phone provider themselves profiting off the phone's always on monitoring is disturbing to me.
Then the stories like this comes along. Anything that can be remotely controlled by you can also be remotely controlled by someone else. Whether that someone else is good or bad is irrelevant. The fact that they can control it is bad enough for me. So now my crotchety ass will have to check to ensure my other household appliances are just as stupid as my phone is.
:blockquote>I don't think anything will solve any type of police misconduct in one fell swoop, but I doubt a supreme court ruling against this crap would hurt.
We are talking about the same SCOTUS that fucked up Citizen's United right? Are you so sure of that statement? Personally, I hope a case involving the recording of cops NEVER comes before them.
It might be easier to use but it sure isn't cheaper to turn a whole country's system of weights and measures. Right now is NOT a good time to be paying for changing all the signs in the US to reflect metric. Nor is ti time to change all the gas pumps for the same reason. It just plain isn't economical. Besides, that is what God created conversion programs for.
So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.
Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.
Actually, my Lincoln Town Car does know if you are in the seat when you hit the remote lock. It uses the same sensors used for seatbelt detection. Hit the lock on the remote while you are in the seat and the driver's side door will immediately unlock and the car will beep at you in an annoying way. It wants you out of the car before you can hit that button.
"Old soldiers never die. They simply fade away..."
True freedom would be donating the code to the public domain so in that regard even the FSF is hypocritical since the GPL itself has restrictions in its use.
Let's go back to the grandparent:
Now let's list those steps again:
Doesn't look to me like something the "average user" (read Joe Sixpack) can do to me.... Besides, I thought Microsoft hated the command line given their proclivity to denigrate its use in Linux.
Two things come to mind:
He is correct that its usability suffers from Metro and the abrupt changes to the UI when it is being pushed so hard. One of many points made in the video was that people who have never used it will find it very confusing because in more ways than one the UI gets in the way. Microsoft trying to have its cake and eat it too is what is causing all this grief. Instead of doing like Apple did with the change from OS9 to OS10 and dropping legacy and backwards compatibility to go with the new paradigm they want to maintain backwards compatibility. This is because Microsoft fears backlash from both its main customers, big businesses and governments, and the developers for those businesses and governments. Worse, they really made it for the tablet market all the while still trying to hold onto the laptop / desktop market with it. The point made in the video of the differences between a mouse / touchpad and touchscreen are valid.
To do it right, Metro should NOT be the default interface if you are installing it to a machine without a touchscreen just as the "classic" should not be the default if you are installing it to a tablet. They are different beasts. A tablet is more for viewing content than it is a great workhorse for making that content no matter what Microsoft or Apple may think. An even better solution is to do two different products. One for the tablets and one for the desktop / laptop and let the consumers choose which they really want for what products. Again, that too was pointed out in this video.
The second observation of your post deals with your contempt for humans. It is those very humans that Microsoft is trying to impress. There is a very, very large segment of the population that are not pleased with the Metro interface that Microsoft really wants to go with. The so called "fix" of downloading a second application to eliminate it as the advice that is often given is proof enough of that dislike. Calling that many people names isn't the way to win over support.
Here is the part that gets me:
"expected to" != "has done". Call me when they have succeeded.
No, I take issue with this waste of money:
If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken. They shouldn't have kept them in an electronic form or on any item connected to the internet. It is their own fault.
But the bigger picture is the waste of taxpayer money as the FBI spends 11 months working at the behest of Hollywood. No wonder the people want to disband the federal government with actions like this.
Replying to my own above:
This is an even better response to these idiots:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html
This wall of humans should follow these clowns wherever they go.
And no one needs to protect them when they spew their hate. Let them take the consequences of their speech. After all, speech does have consequences.
I think the best thing that could happen would be for all of the victims families to sue for slander sequentially one after the other. Cost them an arm and a leg defending that. Being tied up in court should keep them off the streets at night.
I can see the OPs point. If you know the subject being lectured then you should be able to clep out of it. Take the exam and if you can pass it then you have the credit and can move on. Having to sit through a lecture that you could probably give is boring as all hell. Attendance policies ensures that people who don't belong there are disrupting the lesson for those that do all because some asshat set a policy of failure if you aren't there.
And exactly how do they do that without reading what you have on their services? That is the definition of spying. How they use the knowledge they gain is irrelevant and also your suggestion that they aren't selling it elsewhere doesn't mean they won't in the future. That is hardly hyperbole and if it isn't considered when deciding whether to use their services then that isn't helpful.
Which is all the more reason not to use those services... How long do you think they will survive when the user base they are claiming to get money for disappears?
Because it was the CEO of Google who made the dumb assed comments. Reading, it is not just a skill, it is a full time job...
It isn't the iPhone that got her into trouble (bad summary as usual) but the fact that she refused to leave private property when asked several times I'm sure with each time becoming more belligerent on her part. You know, "you can't tell me where to go..." type stuff. That still only makes her guilty of trespass which I'm sure is not an excuse for tasering her unless she also resisted the attempt to arrest her for the said trespass.
Because corporations including Google had a big hand in lobbying to have the laws made so they can avoid paying as much taxes as possible while still demanding the government services those taxes go to pay for. Nothing like tilting the table then blaming the table when things fall off it.
FTFY...