Trouble is, whedon would have ruined X3. I don't get what the obsession with whedon is. The dialogue in all his work is HORRIBLE and its hard to call him a good director as all his work so far has been rife with bad acting by actors who have been known to act extremely well when under the reigns of a more talented director.
I'm dissappointed about a new director too, Bryan Singer is an amazing director and he did a superb job with the last two X movies(which in my opinion are superior to the spiderman movies). But thank dog whedon is not directing...
Each user spent 4.8 hours on Yahoo per month vs. Google's 0.6
I'd hardly describe this as an indicator of anything good. This is likely the case because Yahoos interface is convoluted and annoying to trap you on there site for long stretches of time. Now google has the right idea, its not the quantity of time but the quality of time. Googles ads always seem relevant to what I'm looking for/at but yahoos doesnt really and I never feel like clicking on yahoo ads as they are way too intrusive. google makes me feel like I havent even been looking at any ads.
They seem to be sort of like Google in that they are constantly experimenting with new ideas, and coming out with new products/services and business models.
They.. APPLE seems sort of like Google!??! Wow I mean google went IPO like what 10 minutes ago and Apple has been innovating since well.. since basically forever in desktop computer terms..
Its funny that you are calling google the standard of innovation when they are barely even well established yet. Hell they are still riding off the initial success. They haven't proved themselves as having staying power like Apple has. Apple has hit rock bottom and innovated itself back to a good position and then innovated its way to domination in the mp3 player market. Google doesnt hold a candle to Apple.
A waste of time is trying to write an app that makes our current tax code easier to manage. What we should do is rewrite our tax code so that taxes are simple and easy and don't require tons of people working there asses off to make changes in the tax software each year.
Hell simplifying the tax code will save the gov't an assload of money too. Since they could reduce the size of the IRS.
A person once told me a good analogy that applys here. Lets say you want to learn to get to work 5 mins sooner. You could practice running out of your house into your car a bunch and shave off 5-10 seconds there. Or you could investigate different driving routes that could potentially save >5 mins.
Point is, software and how we file is not where we want to streamline the tax process as its the least of the tax systems problems. Go after the big fish, the core of the tax code.
You seem to forget that competition has never really had a drive the prices down effect on Apple. They seem to chug along charging a pricepoint thats set to give them a good profit margin while still being low enough to encourage sales to its fanbase.
...expand the features of the current series of iPod's to perhaps include WMA support and a service other than iTunes.
My guess is that this won't happen because its a bad idea. Most products out ther are a pile of features with no vision because companies don't understand the market. Apple is not going to embed tons of features that are either useless or pointless(like WMA, FM/AM, sat radio and non iTunes support). Apple understands the market, they sell the simplest device possible that people want and people get it because hey its all they need in a device.
WMA is pointless because its an inferior format because it locks them to MS and encourages MSs lameness.
FM/AM is useless because I'm not buying a mp3 player to listen to the radio, I'm also not buying it to have an all in one music device, I'm buying it to play mp3's... Apple thankfully understands this.
Sat radio, want that crap build a add on that plugs into the iPod. Embedding it would provide no benefit whatsoever to the iPod.
Non iTunes software. lets not forget the whole point of iTunes is to give people a flavor of OS X. Look at iTunes its nice and sleek, all of OS X is this way come check us out. Allowing the iPod to connect to the random other services would only dilute Apples image with the iPod and be counterproductive in the long run.
Its more ironic that you consider riding in spaceship one to have reached "space". People are greatly exagerating spaceship ones success. But hey I guess it depends on what your definition of space is.
My Rant: I wouldn't pay for a ride on spaceship one, I want to actually be able to orbit this rock and reach escape velocity in order to at least have the illusion that i'm no longer stranded here.
Case insensitivity is the mark of a very very very lazy coder. Once you adopt this method of doing things meaningful case conventions get tossed out the window.
EXAMPLE: Lets say if I all caps something it means its a const, and if I caps the first letter its a object/variable while if i don't caps the first letter it could be a function call. When I'm coding along I'm gonna ignore those conventions if I can and just type all lowercase. Readability goes down severely as now I can no longer determine quickly what it is I'm looking at.
Any and all complaints about case sensitivity are just the laziness of the complainer speaking. AWW I don't want to have to type that var name the same way everytime thats lame.
Once you declare something the case of it should be the same as the declaration from then on out. So that it can be easily distinguised and found. Case sensitivity just forces good practice, while the oppossite encourages lazy ugly hackjob VB style code.
The problem is how naive your line of reasoning is. I'm taking your thought process as, you don't need an NDA if you hire the right person. While that may be true saying "So only hire good trustworty candidates." is a pretty simplistic look at the hiring process.
You can't ever be completely sure any particular candidate will be completely trustworthy and companies try. When you have companies as large as Apple, Microsoft, and the like you just have too many employees to be able to know them all personally.
Companies already know what your telling them. Of course they only want trustworthy candidates you have not produced any great revelation by letting us know that. What you have shown is that you completely fail to understand the complex nature of the hiring process or the complex nature of people. I am a trustworthy employee today, but if I become jaded tomorrow by something lame my boss did knowingly or not I might just start telling people stuff I shouldn't.
It's nice that your little NDA allows you to punish people after they've already screwed you over, but it's a much better alternative to have people on staff that can be trusted not to break that NDA in the first place.
Whats your fool proof process huh? Lets hear it. You need to realize that they already know this, they are trying but it is impossible.
..given that it did happen in spite of the All Powerful Non-Disclosure Agreement, I win points for being right.
What are you right about? I already told you the NDA doesn't prevent disclosure? So I win points for being right too.
But all the signatures in the world won't protect you from an ethically-suspect employee.
I already established this as the case in my previous post. In fact alot of your last paragraph coincides with all my points. Im not even sure where you trying to go or what point you are trying to make. Other than "I am smart, Apple is stupid cus they hired people who are 'ethically suspect'". All this shows is ultimately how naive you are about the hiring process, there is no such thing as 100% proof against someone violating an NDA. But an NDA is 100% assurance that you can punish them for their disclosure. Hence NDA being a hedge your bet kind of action and being more than worth it.
Ultimately the best way to conduct this whole process is, do your best to hire good candidates, and make them sign a NDA just in case/ because it will happen no matter what.
Your post is the most pointless thing I read all day. Laws are pointless because people will break them anyway.
Do you see whats wrong here? Do you see the failure in your logic yet?
The NDA is to give a company legal standing to punish those that give up secrets. They aren't trying to prevent all leaks since that can't/won't happen, just like laws don't prevent crime. Laws allow victims recourse against those that do things society deems as bad. Contracts create a standard by which parties conduct business with each other and if one breaks it, the other has legal standing to punish the one that broke the agreement.
Now if we did away with NDAs I could go blathering about my companies trade secrets and they couldn't do anything to me, they couldn't fire me.
is it really necessary for publishers to be known to be credible?
A great big resounding YES.
What are you crazy? Thats like asking is it really necessary for people to be qualified for there jobs? A job qualification for journalist/publisher SHOULD be credibility.
Your gonna rely on some private voice to give you your information? You have no way of knowing who that person is, what there motives are and can never ever check there credentials in the full view of the public. Thats insanity. Allow this system to take hold and government propaganda will take hold of our media like you wouldnt believe. Now government officials can be journalists without you ever knowing and you will consider them reliable sources cus hey.. credibility doesnt matter... public review doesnt matter.. knowing who is feeding you your information doesnt matter..
When you buy a Mac, you expect to pay more for a number of reasons including design, quality, software, etc. Lets face it, Apple sells a specific product, they sell it at a premium because of the costs associated with producing a limited run product(limited compared to PCs). People who complain about the cost of a mac really have no reason to complain other than the fact that they are cheap bastards. If cost is your primary concern buy a dell. People want to have there cake and eat it to. The want a cheap mac, now that they have the mini thats not good enough they want a dual G5 for that price. Cheap, Cheap Cheap. If you needed/wanted a Mac you'd pay for it.
Sorry, but Apple hasn't (so far, anyway) set the market rates.
You don't seem to understand market rates at all. From your post it would seem that you think market rates are one company sells a product all companies should immediately price their similiar products to within $.01 of that product. You don't give any account to the fact that a Mac is 1) a much more limited production item 2) more R&D has gone into it 3) its a product geared towards specific people with specific needs.
The same people that bitch about macs costing too much are the losers that got there pirated copy of photoshop whining about the licensing fees. Hey if its such a good product that you have to be using above the competition, why don't you actually pony up the dough. Instead they bitch and moan and whine about cheaper stuff and once its given to them, they find something else to complain about.
The truth of the matter is, Apple products are not overpriced. And for lots of people the value you get by paying extra for an Apple product is greater than paying half as much for a shoddy dell that won't meet your needs.
Just because your too cheap to purchase a Mac doesn't mean everyone is. People pay for what they want and if they pay more for a superior product(in there opinion) I don't see why trolls like you need to be putting Apple down because the cost is higher.
how outrageously expensive Macs are
Inflamatory trollish statements getting modded insightful, fanboys are out in force today.
Well, the answer, IMHO, is probably not - this is a negotiation issue. But this is a wonderful example of how intertwined legal & software issues can become.
s/software/*
legal issues intertwine all facets of our lives. software is no exception and it hardly could be considered to be intertwined more than anything else.
The only thing this is an example of is the legal nature between corporations. Software is just the details that don't really matter much. The could be talking about the production of blorps and gizmo gadgets for all they care. As long as it makes them money and as long as the legal system is used to the fullest extent possible to garuntee them the biggest cut. They don't really think of it as applying law to software as they really don't care if its software or a physical product. Makes no difference to them or the legal system.
It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.
Your failure to understand the implication of this system makes your post trash. A country who pollutes more, can buy units of pollution from countries that are under there requirment. This is designed to offset the US concerns that the economy will be destroyed if we comply. In fact if we comply we offset losses from infustructure costs by getting money from the countries that continue to pollute without attempting to curb there efforts.
The real reason we say it will hurt the economy is that Bush doesn't want to have to pay complying nations for our excess. It has nothing to do with complying destroying our economy. In fact I'm sure the money obtained from this would be returned to the affected companies through subsidies and would not in fact hurt the energy business. In fact the way Kyoto is designed complying is rewarded and guess what not complying is punished.
Well there is still the bit about being for the use of Treasury of the United States. Which would seem to me to be another way in which we could discourage states from doing this. Even if they have consent to levy Use Taxes the money according to the constitution MUST go to the treasury and not to the states coffers.
Yes it is. I think however that the authors of the constitution had intended it to be illegal for states to regulate trade with eachother or impose duties/tariffs on imported goods except to cover the costs of inspection.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Now IANAL but seems to me these Use Taxes could be argued to be a dutie on an import or export and either should be killed or the money must go to the treasury of the US instead of for that specific state. Which would probably make them not enforce it pretty quick if the states were paying to collect money that they could not use.
FUD, saying that Apple was attempting to suppress the first amendment is absolutely a lie. They weren't trying to silence the press they were trying to extract the sources from the press.
Two very different things. Now consider that the first amendment says nothing about a journalists sources being protected. Apple was just trying to take the shortest path to discover who the leak was.
//sets timer for the usual flamebait/troll mods for daring to speak against apple.
Well you should be modded flamebait/troll but not because the fan boys control the mods, instead its because everything that you said is FUD.
There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. Exodus 19:13
Basically saying that anyone or anything that touches Mt Sinai will be stoned to death or shot through(which would be stoned but with such force as the stone passes through the body).
There are other segments where the Israelites are commanded to rip unborn children from the wombs of there enemies. Or told that it is OK to rape captive women. etc etc... I think I've sufficiently proved my point. Christians can be expected to commit just about every crime.. In fact did you know that the majority of criminals in this country are christian? Thats odd. More people who commit crimes are christian than have played video games. Pretty telling. Christianity causes violence and crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm dissappointed about a new director too, Bryan Singer is an amazing director and he did a superb job with the last two X movies(which in my opinion are superior to the spiderman movies). But thank dog whedon is not directing...
I'd hardly describe this as an indicator of anything good. This is likely the case because Yahoos interface is convoluted and annoying to trap you on there site for long stretches of time. Now google has the right idea, its not the quantity of time but the quality of time. Googles ads always seem relevant to what I'm looking for/at but yahoos doesnt really and I never feel like clicking on yahoo ads as they are way too intrusive. google makes me feel like I havent even been looking at any ads.
They.. APPLE seems sort of like Google!??! Wow I mean google went IPO like what 10 minutes ago and Apple has been innovating since well.. since basically forever in desktop computer terms..
Its funny that you are calling google the standard of innovation when they are barely even well established yet. Hell they are still riding off the initial success. They haven't proved themselves as having staying power like Apple has. Apple has hit rock bottom and innovated itself back to a good position and then innovated its way to domination in the mp3 player market. Google doesnt hold a candle to Apple.
Hell simplifying the tax code will save the gov't an assload of money too. Since they could reduce the size of the IRS.
A person once told me a good analogy that applys here. Lets say you want to learn to get to work 5 mins sooner. You could practice running out of your house into your car a bunch and shave off 5-10 seconds there. Or you could investigate different driving routes that could potentially save >5 mins.
Point is, software and how we file is not where we want to streamline the tax process as its the least of the tax systems problems. Go after the big fish, the core of the tax code.
My guess is that this won't happen because its a bad idea. Most products out ther are a pile of features with no vision because companies don't understand the market. Apple is not going to embed tons of features that are either useless or pointless(like WMA, FM/AM, sat radio and non iTunes support). Apple understands the market, they sell the simplest device possible that people want and people get it because hey its all they need in a device.
WMA is pointless because its an inferior format because it locks them to MS and encourages MSs lameness.
FM/AM is useless because I'm not buying a mp3 player to listen to the radio, I'm also not buying it to have an all in one music device, I'm buying it to play mp3's... Apple thankfully understands this.
Sat radio, want that crap build a add on that plugs into the iPod. Embedding it would provide no benefit whatsoever to the iPod.
Non iTunes software. lets not forget the whole point of iTunes is to give people a flavor of OS X. Look at iTunes its nice and sleek, all of OS X is this way come check us out. Allowing the iPod to connect to the random other services would only dilute Apples image with the iPod and be counterproductive in the long run.
My Rant: I wouldn't pay for a ride on spaceship one, I want to actually be able to orbit this rock and reach escape velocity in order to at least have the illusion that i'm no longer stranded here.
EXAMPLE: Lets say if I all caps something it means its a const, and if I caps the first letter its a object/variable while if i don't caps the first letter it could be a function call. When I'm coding along I'm gonna ignore those conventions if I can and just type all lowercase. Readability goes down severely as now I can no longer determine quickly what it is I'm looking at.
Any and all complaints about case sensitivity are just the laziness of the complainer speaking. AWW I don't want to have to type that var name the same way everytime thats lame.
Once you declare something the case of it should be the same as the declaration from then on out. So that it can be easily distinguised and found. Case sensitivity just forces good practice, while the oppossite encourages lazy ugly hackjob VB style code.
You can't ever be completely sure any particular candidate will be completely trustworthy and companies try. When you have companies as large as Apple, Microsoft, and the like you just have too many employees to be able to know them all personally.
Companies already know what your telling them. Of course they only want trustworthy candidates you have not produced any great revelation by letting us know that. What you have shown is that you completely fail to understand the complex nature of the hiring process or the complex nature of people. I am a trustworthy employee today, but if I become jaded tomorrow by something lame my boss did knowingly or not I might just start telling people stuff I shouldn't.
It's nice that your little NDA allows you to punish people after they've already screwed you over, but it's a much better alternative to have people on staff that can be trusted not to break that NDA in the first place.
Whats your fool proof process huh? Lets hear it. You need to realize that they already know this, they are trying but it is impossible.
What are you right about? I already told you the NDA doesn't prevent disclosure? So I win points for being right too.
But all the signatures in the world won't protect you from an ethically-suspect employee.
I already established this as the case in my previous post. In fact alot of your last paragraph coincides with all my points. Im not even sure where you trying to go or what point you are trying to make. Other than "I am smart, Apple is stupid cus they hired people who are 'ethically suspect'". All this shows is ultimately how naive you are about the hiring process, there is no such thing as 100% proof against someone violating an NDA. But an NDA is 100% assurance that you can punish them for their disclosure. Hence NDA being a hedge your bet kind of action and being more than worth it.
Ultimately the best way to conduct this whole process is, do your best to hire good candidates, and make them sign a NDA just in case/ because it will happen no matter what.
Do you see whats wrong here? Do you see the failure in your logic yet?
The NDA is to give a company legal standing to punish those that give up secrets. They aren't trying to prevent all leaks since that can't/won't happen, just like laws don't prevent crime. Laws allow victims recourse against those that do things society deems as bad. Contracts create a standard by which parties conduct business with each other and if one breaks it, the other has legal standing to punish the one that broke the agreement.
Now if we did away with NDAs I could go blathering about my companies trade secrets and they couldn't do anything to me, they couldn't fire me.
What are you talking about, you clearly arent over reacting enough... Tell him to call the president and alert the press...
A great big resounding YES.
What are you crazy? Thats like asking is it really necessary for people to be qualified for there jobs? A job qualification for journalist/publisher SHOULD be credibility.
Your gonna rely on some private voice to give you your information? You have no way of knowing who that person is, what there motives are and can never ever check there credentials in the full view of the public. Thats insanity. Allow this system to take hold and government propaganda will take hold of our media like you wouldnt believe. Now government officials can be journalists without you ever knowing and you will consider them reliable sources cus hey.. credibility doesnt matter... public review doesnt matter.. knowing who is feeding you your information doesnt matter..
I apologize, a hasty comment has made a fool of me.
Sorry, but Apple hasn't (so far, anyway) set the market rates.
You don't seem to understand market rates at all. From your post it would seem that you think market rates are one company sells a product all companies should immediately price their similiar products to within $.01 of that product. You don't give any account to the fact that a Mac is 1) a much more limited production item 2) more R&D has gone into it 3) its a product geared towards specific people with specific needs.
The same people that bitch about macs costing too much are the losers that got there pirated copy of photoshop whining about the licensing fees. Hey if its such a good product that you have to be using above the competition, why don't you actually pony up the dough. Instead they bitch and moan and whine about cheaper stuff and once its given to them, they find something else to complain about.
The truth of the matter is, Apple products are not overpriced. And for lots of people the value you get by paying extra for an Apple product is greater than paying half as much for a shoddy dell that won't meet your needs.
how outrageously expensive Macs are
Inflamatory trollish statements getting modded insightful, fanboys are out in force today.
Pretty soon they will give us what we have all been waiting for... A /. article whose primary source is another /. article.
When are you going to do a duet with Del the funky homosapien?
Pretty leet huh, I'm about to submit it as a full fledged story to /.
Look for me in the dupe.
s/software/*
legal issues intertwine all facets of our lives. software is no exception and it hardly could be considered to be intertwined more than anything else.
The only thing this is an example of is the legal nature between corporations. Software is just the details that don't really matter much. The could be talking about the production of blorps and gizmo gadgets for all they care. As long as it makes them money and as long as the legal system is used to the fullest extent possible to garuntee them the biggest cut. They don't really think of it as applying law to software as they really don't care if its software or a physical product. Makes no difference to them or the legal system.
Without punctuation your doctoral thesis is going to be a bitch to read...
Your failure to understand the implication of this system makes your post trash. A country who pollutes more, can buy units of pollution from countries that are under there requirment. This is designed to offset the US concerns that the economy will be destroyed if we comply. In fact if we comply we offset losses from infustructure costs by getting money from the countries that continue to pollute without attempting to curb there efforts.
The real reason we say it will hurt the economy is that Bush doesn't want to have to pay complying nations for our excess. It has nothing to do with complying destroying our economy. In fact I'm sure the money obtained from this would be returned to the affected companies through subsidies and would not in fact hurt the energy business. In fact the way Kyoto is designed complying is rewarded and guess what not complying is punished.
Well there is still the bit about being for the use of Treasury of the United States. Which would seem to me to be another way in which we could discourage states from doing this. Even if they have consent to levy Use Taxes the money according to the constitution MUST go to the treasury and not to the states coffers.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Now IANAL but seems to me these Use Taxes could be argued to be a dutie on an import or export and either should be killed or the money must go to the treasury of the US instead of for that specific state. Which would probably make them not enforce it pretty quick if the states were paying to collect money that they could not use.
Two very different things. Now consider that the first amendment says nothing about a journalists sources being protected. Apple was just trying to take the shortest path to discover who the leak was.
Well you should be modded flamebait/troll but not because the fan boys control the mods, instead its because everything that you said is FUD.
oh well why not this too stoning
Basically saying that anyone or anything that touches Mt Sinai will be stoned to death or shot through(which would be stoned but with such force as the stone passes through the body).
There are other segments where the Israelites are commanded to rip unborn children from the wombs of there enemies. Or told that it is OK to rape captive women. etc etc... I think I've sufficiently proved my point. Christians can be expected to commit just about every crime.. In fact did you know that the majority of criminals in this country are christian? Thats odd. More people who commit crimes are christian than have played video games. Pretty telling. Christianity causes violence and crime.