The personnel department has procedures because they deal with lots and lots of people. It would be too much hassle for them to have widely differing procedures for widely differing circumstances. Better to just start the documented procedure the same for everybody.
I said nothing about loving licensing. But corporations and businesses of all types would be much worse off without licensing extortion. The license says the government will let them write off business expenses and avoid much litigation. Whether or not this is a proper tradeoff is another topic for another day. In the meantime, having accepted that license as a means of getting benefits, business must respond by serving everybody who gave them that license. That's not a hard concept. I would love it if people could run a business without needing to bow and scrape to get licenses, but most such businesses would be sued into oblivion.
I repeat: as long as a business accepts the benefits of having a license, it must serve all those who made the license possible.
Universities will not allow the KKK on their campuses because the KKK is racist. I believe this is not just for political correctness but also a legal requirement. That is their rationale for banning military recruiters; the military discriminates.
Nothing to do with hate speech. Everything to do with discrimination.
Because a business exists as a business, with all the benefits of being a business, only because the government recognizes it as such. If the government made no special provisions for entities known as businesses, they would have higher taxes, less stability, etc etc etc.
Being a business has many benefits. Does it not also have responsibilities?
If a business exists to serve the public, to get benefits as a business from being recognized as such by the government which supposedly represents the public, is it fair to allow that business to serve only some subset of the public? It's one thing for a restaurant to refuse service to people without shoes and shirts -- that is at least arguably a matter of public health. But based on skin color or sexual orientation? Are those who are refused able to reclaim that part of their taxes which benefit the business?
As long as everybody's taxes, whether direct or indirect, enable that business to gain benefits from the legality of being a business, that business must serve them all.
Consider the pharmacists who are refusing to sell contraceptives because it bothers their own morals. They got their pharmacy license as a business, from the government which supposedly represents all people. Along with the benefits they get comes the responsibility to serve all the people who gave them those benefits. Are they going to recompense those who they refuse to serve for moral reasons? No doubt there are others who would happily avenge the discrimination. What if someone else refuses to serve the pharmacist for the reason that they refused to dispense contraceptives? You can't have this kind of discrimination. There is no end to the ever-widening circle of revenge and revenge upon revenge.
When you have a business license, you must serve everybody, without discrimination.
People like you always puzzle me. So willing to discard their rights, or more specifically, to acquiesce as others' rights are taken away, all in the name of so-called freedom. You folks talk as if freedom is so clearly defined... the student and university have an agreement, the student waived his rights to freedom of speech by signing them away to the university, if he doesn't like that agreement he can go study elsewhere.
Such an absolute position!
Such nonsense!
Suppose the contract said the student was to be flogged and sold into slavery if he blew his left nostril before blowing his right nostril? People like you would say that's ok, if the student doesn't like it, don't sign it.
I really don't understand people like you. It's as if you are afraid to think, as if making a decision hurts your brain. It is so much easier to take an absolute position. All contracts are hard and forever absolutely proper. And especially, you always side with the alleged criminal, as if the big university is right merely by being the complainer.
I wonder how many times a day people like you get up on your soapbox to complain about the wrongs other people have done to you? I know some people like you, and they are the people who whine the most about others infringing their rights.
What people like you forget is that society is a mesh, not a pyramid. Rules and rights and responsibilities flow in all directions, not just in one way lanes between master and servant. People have certain expectations. No one reads every contract in detail. No one looks for the clause which condemns them to slavery for blowing their nose wrongly. And no one expects that a minor blog offense like this one will basically force the student to restart his semester, and no doubt repay the tuition. That is far beyond reason. It is more offensive than the blog itself.
People like you think the responsibility lies entirely with the student. The university has a responsibility too, which includes playing fair. But people like you side with them because it is so much easier. Oh the big university says you violated the contract o they must be right o too bad you stupid student. So much easier than thinking about the university's responsibility to do the right thing. So much easier to side with the big guy and sneer at the little guy for being dumb enough to get the big guy mad.
I just don't understand people like you, so eager to let other peoples' rights be taken away, all in the misuse of the word freedom.
Microsoft focuses on the attack, as in FUD, new features, etc. Once something is released, they concentrate on new things. Going back to clean up something which is already out the door takes resources from other projects which are adding new features. (Interesting to compare this to the Imperial Japanese Navy in WW II...)
The network effect. Microsoft combined features, making everything dependent on everything else, to lock people in. That came back to bite them. When you have well designed interfaces with good separation of functionality (modularity!), it is a lot easier to isolate changes; one change doesn't necessarily affect everything else in unknown ways. Testing a change inside a module doesn't propagate to other modules unless the narrow and well-defined interface also changes. Since Microsoft has made so much of their internal code part of the interface to get that lockin, it requires a lot of regression testing, and they have reached the point where they can no longer test everything that needs it.
Science is things that can be proven or disproven. Religion is things beyond proof. Yes, ID is religion, it is faith based and falls back on that old crap about God moving in mysterious ways.
"Because I said so" is not science. It does not belong in science classes. Maye you place your faith in Prez Bush, and when he says science classes should teach religion, that's good enough for you. Or maybe you are like these CA nuts who says science is religion and therefore religion should be taught alongside its brother evolution.
The only faith you can find in science is the core idea that things are scientific if they can be proven or disproven. That's the same faith you have in geometry about the core axioms. If you think that is religion, you are truly pathetic. I wonder why you don't expect religion to be taught in math classes.
I bought several of these and hung them off the back of my computer, and now everything hangs in midair. It isn't a complete answer, I still have several dozen power warts hanging there, but at least they are off the floor and it is easier to keep things clean and tidy.
Liberals ruined newspapers? Liberals need to cheer up? Good god, you better take your blinders off, buddy boy. You have an extreme case of right wing glasses. FYI, stupidity knows no bounds, whether political, spiritual, moral, or any other type.
GPL prevents redistribution, not use. Companies only need to buy the commercial MySQL license if they want to distribute closed source programs. Internal usage doesn't care a whit.
Sony, I believe, did threaten to sue the guy who revealed the shift key bypass a year or several ago. I suspect the current adverse publicity may have something to do with them not following up with threats against the sticky tape terrorist.
the German government could help less media-savvy parents by introducing a 'complete ban' on violent games
They could help my less savvy neighbor tone down his loud stereo. My other neighbor has a less savvy nose and doesn't understand how smelly his bbqs are. I have friends who are less savvy about politics and could use some help. There's the cow-orker who is less savvy about his belching and needs help.
I sure wish I lived in a country like Germany with such savvy politicians looking out for my less savvy fellow citizens.
Yes I RTFA. The diesel engine runs a generator which electrocutes water to produce hydrogen which is burned along with the regular diesel oil.
How can this possibly burn less oil? TFA implies the hydrogen from the generator produces more power than is used to turn the generator which produces it. Push this to its logical conclusion and you have a perpetual motion machine.
FORTRAN was invented because people spent too much time debugging programs on those expensive computers. If a FORTRAN program was half as efficient as machine code, but the machine code program spent 90% of its time being developed and debugged, the FORTRAN program did roughly five times the work (50% vs 10%).
Now whether Bill's wet dreams work out is another question altogether. He may get a few piddling sales because of heavy discounts for bragging rights, but centers with gazillion node supercomputers can easily devote a few of those nodes for development and leave 99% of them for the finished programs. Visual Basic won't have much to offer in that case.
(following a long rant about how poor old Microsoft is misunderstood) Can't we all just get along?
Why don't you ask Microsoft that? They have NEVER tried to get along with anybody. Even at the antitrust trial, they tried to hoodwink the judge. Remember that fake video? The one that was supposedly shot in one straight session, and when somebody pointed out that the screen changed, the wall clocks changed, etc, they had some lame excuse.
You tell me once where Microsoft has tried to get along with ANYBODY. I double dog dare you.
Show me any innovation, any REAL innovation.
All Microsoft does is lie, cheat, and steal. They deserve all the flack they get and more.
Slashdot Mirror
The personnel department has procedures because they deal with lots and lots of people. It would be too much hassle for them to have widely differing procedures for widely differing circumstances. Better to just start the documented procedure the same for everybody.
A contract has a slavery clause. Shall the law enforce that?
I doubt it. Where, then, do you draw the line?
I said nothing about loving licensing. But corporations and businesses of all types would be much worse off without licensing extortion. The license says the government will let them write off business expenses and avoid much litigation. Whether or not this is a proper tradeoff is another topic for another day. In the meantime, having accepted that license as a means of getting benefits, business must respond by serving everybody who gave them that license. That's not a hard concept. I would love it if people could run a business without needing to bow and scrape to get licenses, but most such businesses would be sued into oblivion.
I repeat: as long as a business accepts the benefits of having a license, it must serve all those who made the license possible.
Universities will not allow the KKK on their campuses because the KKK is racist. I believe this is not just for political correctness but also a legal requirement. That is their rationale for banning military recruiters; the military discriminates.
Nothing to do with hate speech. Everything to do with discrimination.
Because a business exists as a business, with all the benefits of being a business, only because the government recognizes it as such. If the government made no special provisions for entities known as businesses, they would have higher taxes, less stability, etc etc etc.
Being a business has many benefits. Does it not also have responsibilities?
If a business exists to serve the public, to get benefits as a business from being recognized as such by the government which supposedly represents the public, is it fair to allow that business to serve only some subset of the public? It's one thing for a restaurant to refuse service to people without shoes and shirts -- that is at least arguably a matter of public health. But based on skin color or sexual orientation? Are those who are refused able to reclaim that part of their taxes which benefit the business?
As long as everybody's taxes, whether direct or indirect, enable that business to gain benefits from the legality of being a business, that business must serve them all.
Consider the pharmacists who are refusing to sell contraceptives because it bothers their own morals. They got their pharmacy license as a business, from the government which supposedly represents all people. Along with the benefits they get comes the responsibility to serve all the people who gave them those benefits. Are they going to recompense those who they refuse to serve for moral reasons? No doubt there are others who would happily avenge the discrimination. What if someone else refuses to serve the pharmacist for the reason that they refused to dispense contraceptives? You can't have this kind of discrimination. There is no end to the ever-widening circle of revenge and revenge upon revenge.
When you have a business license, you must serve everybody, without discrimination.
People like you always puzzle me. So willing to discard their rights, or more specifically, to acquiesce as others' rights are taken away, all in the name of so-called freedom. You folks talk as if freedom is so clearly defined ... the student and university have an agreement, the student waived his rights to freedom of speech by signing them away to the university, if he doesn't like that agreement he can go study elsewhere.
Such an absolute position!
Such nonsense!
Suppose the contract said the student was to be flogged and sold into slavery if he blew his left nostril before blowing his right nostril? People like you would say that's ok, if the student doesn't like it, don't sign it.
I really don't understand people like you. It's as if you are afraid to think, as if making a decision hurts your brain. It is so much easier to take an absolute position. All contracts are hard and forever absolutely proper. And especially, you always side with the alleged criminal, as if the big university is right merely by being the complainer.
I wonder how many times a day people like you get up on your soapbox to complain about the wrongs other people have done to you? I know some people like you, and they are the people who whine the most about others infringing their rights.
What people like you forget is that society is a mesh, not a pyramid. Rules and rights and responsibilities flow in all directions, not just in one way lanes between master and servant. People have certain expectations. No one reads every contract in detail. No one looks for the clause which condemns them to slavery for blowing their nose wrongly. And no one expects that a minor blog offense like this one will basically force the student to restart his semester, and no doubt repay the tuition. That is far beyond reason. It is more offensive than the blog itself.
People like you think the responsibility lies entirely with the student. The university has a responsibility too, which includes playing fair. But people like you side with them because it is so much easier. Oh the big university says you violated the contract o they must be right o too bad you stupid student. So much easier than thinking about the university's responsibility to do the right thing. So much easier to side with the big guy and sneer at the little guy for being dumb enough to get the big guy mad.
I just don't understand people like you, so eager to let other peoples' rights be taken away, all in the misuse of the word freedom.
You're either a troll or newsworthy ... take your pick.
unsubscribe
He's talking about the DMCA being as enforceable as Prohibition. The RIAA and MPAA and Linux and DVDs certainly are involved with the DMCA.
That's when we'll know that they know they've lost.
Microsoft focuses on the attack, as in FUD, new features, etc. Once something is released, they concentrate on new things. Going back to clean up something which is already out the door takes resources from other projects which are adding new features. (Interesting to compare this to the Imperial Japanese Navy in WW II ...)
The network effect. Microsoft combined features, making everything dependent on everything else, to lock people in. That came back to bite them. When you have well designed interfaces with good separation of functionality (modularity!), it is a lot easier to isolate changes; one change doesn't necessarily affect everything else in unknown ways. Testing a change inside a module doesn't propagate to other modules unless the narrow and well-defined interface also changes. Since Microsoft has made so much of their internal code part of the interface to get that lockin, it requires a lot of regression testing, and they have reached the point where they can no longer test everything that needs it.
This is known as hoist by their own petard.
I cackle in glee at their karma!
Science is things that can be proven or disproven. Religion is things beyond proof. Yes, ID is religion, it is faith based and falls back on that old crap about God moving in mysterious ways.
"Because I said so" is not science. It does not belong in science classes. Maye you place your faith in Prez Bush, and when he says science classes should teach religion, that's good enough for you. Or maybe you are like these CA nuts who says science is religion and therefore religion should be taught alongside its brother evolution.
The only faith you can find in science is the core idea that things are scientific if they can be proven or disproven. That's the same faith you have in geometry about the core axioms. If you think that is religion, you are truly pathetic. I wonder why you don't expect religion to be taught in math classes.
I bought several of these and hung them off the back of my computer, and now everything hangs in midair. It isn't a complete answer, I still have several dozen power warts hanging there, but at least they are off the floor and it is easier to keep things clean and tidy.
Could you comment that comment please? I am matrix math challenged.
Liberals ruined newspapers? Liberals need to cheer up? Good god, you better take your blinders off, buddy boy. You have an extreme case of right wing glasses. FYI, stupidity knows no bounds, whether political, spiritual, moral, or any other type.
GPL prevents redistribution, not use. Companies only need to buy the commercial MySQL license if they want to distribute closed source programs. Internal usage doesn't care a whit.
Sony, I believe, did threaten to sue the guy who revealed the shift key bypass a year or several ago. I suspect the current adverse publicity may have something to do with them not following up with threats against the sticky tape terrorist.
Sony might run contests in the future to select player-generated ads
....
Like ads from lawyers seeking participants in class actions suits for rootkits?
Or ads from apyware companies with sneaky payloads to piggyback on the Sony rootkits?
I wonder wonder wonder but I don't know boo
the German government could help less media-savvy parents by introducing a 'complete ban' on violent games
They could help my less savvy neighbor tone down his loud stereo. My other neighbor has a less savvy nose and doesn't understand how smelly his bbqs are. I have friends who are less savvy about politics and could use some help. There's the cow-orker who is less savvy about his belching and needs help.
I sure wish I lived in a country like Germany with such savvy politicians looking out for my less savvy fellow citizens.
[microwaves] just don't have the same impact.
... he said "impact" ...
huh huh huh
Yes I RTFA. The diesel engine runs a generator which electrocutes water to produce hydrogen which is burned along with the regular diesel oil.
How can this possibly burn less oil? TFA implies the hydrogen from the generator produces more power than is used to turn the generator which produces it. Push this to its logical conclusion and you have a perpetual motion machine.
FORTRAN was invented because people spent too much time debugging programs on those expensive computers. If a FORTRAN program was half as efficient as machine code, but the machine code program spent 90% of its time being developed and debugged, the FORTRAN program did roughly five times the work (50% vs 10%).
Now whether Bill's wet dreams work out is another question altogether. He may get a few piddling sales because of heavy discounts for bragging rights, but centers with gazillion node supercomputers can easily devote a few of those nodes for development and leave 99% of them for the finished programs. Visual Basic won't have much to offer in that case.
They specifically want something that the users can tinker with. Is Apple going to supply the complete source code under a free source license?
I think not.
(following a long rant about how poor old Microsoft is misunderstood) Can't we all just get along?
Why don't you ask Microsoft that? They have NEVER tried to get along with anybody. Even at the antitrust trial, they tried to hoodwink the judge. Remember that fake video? The one that was supposedly shot in one straight session, and when somebody pointed out that the screen changed, the wall clocks changed, etc, they had some lame excuse.
You tell me once where Microsoft has tried to get along with ANYBODY. I double dog dare you.
Show me any innovation, any REAL innovation.
All Microsoft does is lie, cheat, and steal. They deserve all the flack they get and more.
The technology would allow an authentication code to be read and then rendered unreadable
Wait a sec. If it is rendered unreadable, then how can the same machine read it next time you put the disk in?