Actually, there's a special provision in UK law for religious courts that was only moved into the law on binding arbitration in general a few years ago, though even then I think they could only rule on cases where both parties had agreed to be bound by their ruling. The law was created in order to allow Jewish religious courts, so is unlikely to go away any time soon.
The funny thing is that your argument is actually almost identical to a common MRA complaint.
The first thing you've got to bear in mind is that whilst these kind of jobs are dangerous and undesirable, unlike for example fast food restaurants they're also generally fairly well paid. Someone elsewhere in the thread reckons about $22-43/hour in Canada for basically semi-skilled manual labor down mines and I can easily believe that. The fact that pretty much all the laborers doing this kind of undesirable but high-paying work are male is generally reckoned to be a big contributor to the gender gap in wages, and there's absolutely no interest in fixing the underlying gender disparity because that'd mean somehow convincing women to do dangerous and dirty jobs.
Instead, we get campaigns for women to be paid the same amount for doing less nasty and dangerous work. For example, there was a big one a few years ago in my town to try and make the local council pay largely-female office cleaners the same as largely-male roadside trash collectors by claiming the pay difference was sexist. Of course, the former is a relatively safe indoor job and the latter is an incredibly dangerous one that involves working outdoors amongst traffic and operating dangerous machinery with little in the way of safeguards.
What proportion of the users that Apple was targeting in that advertising campaign do you think would know or care about the difference between a virus and a trojan?
Not only that, but this isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and there is no secure system free of trojans unless no human ever interacts with it.
Strictly speaking, most of the Windows users they were targetting with that ad would probably have been infected by trojans rather than viruses too - Apple kind of relied on users not making that distinction.
At a guess, this is just marketing BS being used to disguise an attempt to get more paid users. Rapidshare have form in this area - they rebranded themselves the "Anti-Waiting Company" at the same time as increasing the amount of time free users have to wait for downloads and increasing their premium prices.
They're for non-FRAND patents for technology required as a result of Microsoft's desktop monopoly, or at least the one that stands up to scrutiny best is.
That's only if you actually run them dry though. You can stick a conventional car in storage for years and it should still work, you just have to check more things before running it when you bring it out of storage. On the other hand, the Tesla can be effectively destroyed just by parking it somewhere for a month or two.
One of the people whose cars was bricked was apparently a Tesla early adopter and apparently didn't get told about this (not to mention the bit where they tried to smear him as money-grabbing after his car did fail). I'm guessing that making buyers sign to agree that their car will become unusuable if they park it for an unspecified but annoyingly short length of time is Tesla's way of covering their ass after several cars did get wrecked this way.
Nope, it's useless semantics. If we're being pedantic, the reason the battery as a whole fails is because as a result of the deep discharge some of the cells may fail explosively upon attempting to recharge them, which is why the battery management circuitry won't allow this to happen. So it's not really useful to distinguish between the battery failing and the individual cell failing.
Mozilla aren't going to implement it, they may not even be able to implement it - it's an API created by a single vendor whose spec is essentially just what their code does and the Mozilla developers learned the hard way that trying to implement one of those is a bad idea with ActiveX - and even if they did implement it Flash on Linux would still be Chrome-only because Adobe aren't distributing the plugin except as part of Chrome.
Chromium also doesn't have the bundled Flash and PDF plugins that Chrome does, which will soon become the only Flash plugin available for Linux. So Adobe really are making Flash under Linux Chrome-only.
As far as I'm aware this isn't possible due to licensing restrictions. Currently Chromium users are stuck using the standalone Flash plugin from Adobe that's going to be discontinued on Linux, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google dropped NPAPI support and left every Chromium user in the same situation.
I'm reading this it doesn't sound like Linux vs. OSX so much as Apple having declared a new standard deprecating the old standard.
It's Linux versus OS X in the sense that Linux-specific code (like for example the bits required to actually print to USB printers under Linux) have been allowed to bitrot by upstream.
For example avahi (the Linux equivalent of Bonjour) will now be essentially mandatory for CUPS discovery, unlike before where CUPS systems would discover each other independently. Making Bonjour / avahi mandatory is not breaking Linux, Linux has avahi every bit as much as OSX has Bonjour, it is simply moving CUPS aggressively towards a situation where discovery uses the new standard not the ad-hoc CUPS standard. (as an aside new versions of avahi using DNS-SD are required).
Upstream CUPS as supplied by Apple doesn't support Avahi at all. It requires third party patches that may or may not be merged.
It's a bit worse than that. They've also disabled or broken on other systems features which they definitely do consider necessary. Firstly, no more automatic detection of other CUPS instances running on the LAN and their printers outside of Mac OS X because it depends on the Mac implementation of mDNS. Secondly, the backend for USB printing support on Linux is apparently essentially abandoned and being left to rot. There may be more...
They're also apparently removing auto-detection of other CUPS printers on the local network entirely for everyone except Mac OS X users. I guess that's one way of making sure Macs are the only place where things Just Work.
I find it amusing that you are twisting and squirming to rationalize how Google explicitly disregarding the wishes of the user and exploiting a well-known loophole in the P3P spec in order to do something against that user's wishes is "not evil."
Google aren't tracking users "against their wishes" because pretty much no-one even knows that the P3P settings exist and almost precisely no-one uses it to express their wishes about privacy (people tend to use plugins like Ghostery for that). It's basically a dead standard that went nowhere. It's just that for whatever reason, Internet Explorer defaults to blocking third party cookies unless they have a P3P policy - including, apparently, cookies that are required to log into Google services like GMail. In fact in some cases they even block first-party cookies due to bugs.
The first one is a P3P policy in XML format. The second resembles a P3P policy in compact format. As far as I can tell, IE only supports the compact format and not the XML format that you claim Google's policy should look like. If you don't have a P3P policy that's in the compact format it'll reject all third party cookies and even first party cookies under some circumstances.
Interestingly, any kind of complex privacy policy can only really be represented through adding non-standard extensions to the full XML format, and if you do that you're not you're not supposed to use the compact format. This means that it's effectively useless to try and implement P3P properly; IE is the only browser that actually takes any notice of it at all and it's restricted to the non-descriptive compact version which is useless for most sites.
User: "Why can't I log into GMail or use Facebook comments? Your sites suck!" Google and Facebook: "Well, you see there's this thing called P3P that controls..." User: "P3what now? This sounds too complicated and technical." Google and Facebook: "Fine, we'll fix it (by sending something that resembles a P3P policy enough that IE won't break stuff)."
Actually, from what I can tell it doesn't say that they won't be doing anything untoward with the cookies. In order for them to make that statement they'd have to include one of the P3P policy tokens declaring that they didn't. In actual fact it's not a valid P3P policy at all precisely because it doesn't say anything about their privacy policies that's machine readable.
For some reason, Internet Explorer just assumes that any P3P policy not containing one of a specific set of forbidden policies is saying that the site meets the privacy requirements to set third-party cookies even when it's not a P3P policy at all.
From what I've seen the computing press basically gave them a free pass on that - even when it meant companies whose Sandy Bridge computers they'd reviewed and given glowing marks to were quietly shipping machines that were inferior to the reviewed versions because they totally lacked any free SATA connections for storage upgrades.
How many of those games and video encoders and real world benchmarks are compiled with Intel's compiler that uses intentionally de-optimized code pathways on AMD chips?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's a special provision in UK law for religious courts that was only moved into the law on binding arbitration in general a few years ago, though even then I think they could only rule on cases where both parties had agreed to be bound by their ruling. The law was created in order to allow Jewish religious courts, so is unlikely to go away any time soon.
That sounds about right. Facebook really don't want anyone to have any way to stay in touch with their friends that doesn't go through Facebook.
The funny thing is that your argument is actually almost identical to a common MRA complaint.
The first thing you've got to bear in mind is that whilst these kind of jobs are dangerous and undesirable, unlike for example fast food restaurants they're also generally fairly well paid. Someone elsewhere in the thread reckons about $22-43/hour in Canada for basically semi-skilled manual labor down mines and I can easily believe that. The fact that pretty much all the laborers doing this kind of undesirable but high-paying work are male is generally reckoned to be a big contributor to the gender gap in wages, and there's absolutely no interest in fixing the underlying gender disparity because that'd mean somehow convincing women to do dangerous and dirty jobs.
Instead, we get campaigns for women to be paid the same amount for doing less nasty and dangerous work. For example, there was a big one a few years ago in my town to try and make the local council pay largely-female office cleaners the same as largely-male roadside trash collectors by claiming the pay difference was sexist. Of course, the former is a relatively safe indoor job and the latter is an incredibly dangerous one that involves working outdoors amongst traffic and operating dangerous machinery with little in the way of safeguards.
What proportion of the users that Apple was targeting in that advertising campaign do you think would know or care about the difference between a virus and a trojan?
Not only that, but this isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and there is no secure system free of trojans unless no human ever interacts with it.
Strictly speaking, most of the Windows users they were targetting with that ad would probably have been infected by trojans rather than viruses too - Apple kind of relied on users not making that distinction.
At a guess, this is just marketing BS being used to disguise an attempt to get more paid users. Rapidshare have form in this area - they rebranded themselves the "Anti-Waiting Company" at the same time as increasing the amount of time free users have to wait for downloads and increasing their premium prices.
Microsoft did not promise patent immunity over Fat32, which became a defacto standard.
It became a de-facto standard as a result of Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop computing market, which they have a history of abusing.
They're for non-FRAND patents for technology required as a result of Microsoft's desktop monopoly, or at least the one that stands up to scrutiny best is.
That's only if you actually run them dry though. You can stick a conventional car in storage for years and it should still work, you just have to check more things before running it when you bring it out of storage. On the other hand, the Tesla can be effectively destroyed just by parking it somewhere for a month or two.
One of the people whose cars was bricked was apparently a Tesla early adopter and apparently didn't get told about this (not to mention the bit where they tried to smear him as money-grabbing after his car did fail). I'm guessing that making buyers sign to agree that their car will become unusuable if they park it for an unspecified but annoyingly short length of time is Tesla's way of covering their ass after several cars did get wrecked this way.
Nope, it's useless semantics. If we're being pedantic, the reason the battery as a whole fails is because as a result of the deep discharge some of the cells may fail explosively upon attempting to recharge them, which is why the battery management circuitry won't allow this to happen. So it's not really useful to distinguish between the battery failing and the individual cell failing.
Mozilla aren't going to implement it, they may not even be able to implement it - it's an API created by a single vendor whose spec is essentially just what their code does and the Mozilla developers learned the hard way that trying to implement one of those is a bad idea with ActiveX - and even if they did implement it Flash on Linux would still be Chrome-only because Adobe aren't distributing the plugin except as part of Chrome.
Chromium also doesn't have the bundled Flash and PDF plugins that Chrome does, which will soon become the only Flash plugin available for Linux. So Adobe really are making Flash under Linux Chrome-only.
As far as I'm aware this isn't possible due to licensing restrictions. Currently Chromium users are stuck using the standalone Flash plugin from Adobe that's going to be discontinued on Linux, and I wouldn't be surprised if Google dropped NPAPI support and left every Chromium user in the same situation.
I'm reading this it doesn't sound like Linux vs. OSX so much as Apple having declared a new standard deprecating the old standard.
It's Linux versus OS X in the sense that Linux-specific code (like for example the bits required to actually print to USB printers under Linux) have been allowed to bitrot by upstream.
For example avahi (the Linux equivalent of Bonjour) will now be essentially mandatory for CUPS discovery, unlike before where CUPS systems would discover each other independently. Making Bonjour / avahi mandatory is not breaking Linux, Linux has avahi every bit as much as OSX has Bonjour, it is simply moving CUPS aggressively towards a situation where discovery uses the new standard not the ad-hoc CUPS standard. (as an aside new versions of avahi using DNS-SD are required).
Upstream CUPS as supplied by Apple doesn't support Avahi at all. It requires third party patches that may or may not be merged.
It's a bit worse than that. They've also disabled or broken on other systems features which they definitely do consider necessary. Firstly, no more automatic detection of other CUPS instances running on the LAN and their printers outside of Mac OS X because it depends on the Mac implementation of mDNS. Secondly, the backend for USB printing support on Linux is apparently essentially abandoned and being left to rot. There may be more...
The CUPS head developer who's removing all these features has been employed by Apple for ages now, so yes it is Apple that's doing it.
They're also apparently removing auto-detection of other CUPS printers on the local network entirely for everyone except Mac OS X users. I guess that's one way of making sure Macs are the only place where things Just Work.
I find it amusing that you are twisting and squirming to rationalize how Google explicitly disregarding the wishes of the user and exploiting a well-known loophole in the P3P spec in order to do something against that user's wishes is "not evil."
Google aren't tracking users "against their wishes" because pretty much no-one even knows that the P3P settings exist and almost precisely no-one uses it to express their wishes about privacy (people tend to use plugins like Ghostery for that). It's basically a dead standard that went nowhere. It's just that for whatever reason, Internet Explorer defaults to blocking third party cookies unless they have a P3P policy - including, apparently, cookies that are required to log into Google services like GMail. In fact in some cases they even block first-party cookies due to bugs.
The first one is a P3P policy in XML format. The second resembles a P3P policy in compact format. As far as I can tell, IE only supports the compact format and not the XML format that you claim Google's policy should look like. If you don't have a P3P policy that's in the compact format it'll reject all third party cookies and even first party cookies under some circumstances.
Interestingly, any kind of complex privacy policy can only really be represented through adding non-standard extensions to the full XML format, and if you do that you're not you're not supposed to use the compact format. This means that it's effectively useless to try and implement P3P properly; IE is the only browser that actually takes any notice of it at all and it's restricted to the non-descriptive compact version which is useless for most sites.
More like this, I think:
User: "Why can't I log into GMail or use Facebook comments? Your sites suck!"
Google and Facebook: "Well, you see there's this thing called P3P that controls..."
User: "P3what now? This sounds too complicated and technical."
Google and Facebook: "Fine, we'll fix it (by sending something that resembles a P3P policy enough that IE won't break stuff)."
Actually, from what I can tell it doesn't say that they won't be doing anything untoward with the cookies. In order for them to make that statement they'd have to include one of the P3P policy tokens declaring that they didn't. In actual fact it's not a valid P3P policy at all precisely because it doesn't say anything about their privacy policies that's machine readable.
For some reason, Internet Explorer just assumes that any P3P policy not containing one of a specific set of forbidden policies is saying that the site meets the privacy requirements to set third-party cookies even when it's not a P3P policy at all.
The financial industry has access to unfiltered, undelayed internet connections. This is only aimed at ordinary proles.
From what I've seen the computing press basically gave them a free pass on that - even when it meant companies whose Sandy Bridge computers they'd reviewed and given glowing marks to were quietly shipping machines that were inferior to the reviewed versions because they totally lacked any free SATA connections for storage upgrades.
How many of those games and video encoders and real world benchmarks are compiled with Intel's compiler that uses intentionally de-optimized code pathways on AMD chips?