What a nice demonstration of exactly what the article summary suggests. All your arguments are practically identical to the excuses that use to be given for work-place sexual harassment. Silly emotional women just take it all too seriously!
Except for an additional illogical twist; if trolls find it easiest to troll females (and your stereotyping of both genders is simplistic to say the least) , and are therefore subsequently chosen as a target, then trolls do indeed care about the gender of their targets.
The company is not interested in supporting the software. So if their software is in peril, it is entirely in their hands.
This situation doesn't sound unusual to me. The company originally developed it because it addressed a need/demand at the time. The developers involved took a personal interest in it. The original need has long gone, but the developers have kept it going as a personal project that the company indulges.
But once the original developers leave, the company has no reason to continue their involvement with it. The people using it are not their customers (or are insignificant enough to be customers of no value). They owe it nothing, and suffer no "embarrassment" from walking way from it.
That being said, I don't know why the poster hasn't come out and said what the software is. It may answer a number of questions.
I don't think that the USSR were making any particular statement about gender politics. They were simply looking to score another 'first'.
There's also a suspicion that their statement was that their space industry was so advanced, that they could send up even a woman. So the exact opposite of a positive gender equality message.
Are you really unable to see the difference between expressing an opinion (however controversial), and threatening to assault someone?
Your definition of trolling is also totally skewed. It is either;
* voicing an opinion (that you may not actually hold) for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone * threatening people online
The second definition is relatively new and an invention of media, but we're stuck with it. But either way, trolling is not expressing an opinion that others may disagree with.
When I was 7, computers were something with lights you saw on Star Trek. I didn't start coding until I was in my teens. And this was when coding was hard work. Not like the spoon-fed coding environments you get now.
I'm really looking forward to the date when a politician makes a speech regarding the end of these temporary "for some time to come" shifts.
Happily, we have reached the point where the authorities no longer need these measures. So we will be putting and end to what we always suggested was only a temporary inconvenience. We are freely relinquishing these powers and the balance between freedom and security is restored."
Somehow I doubt this will ever happen and I can't remember it ever happening before. Funny that, isn't it?
The purpose of testing is to collect data about the system itself and how it operates in end user environments; this is collecting information about the end users themselves rather than just the machine
The end user is part of the end user environment. Some would even say they're the most important part of it.
This is a non-story. If you don't want your Windows 10 use to be monitored then maybe don't enroll in a program for testing Windows 10, and don't use it for your everyday computing.
I don't think those figures demonstrate what you think they demonstrate. They still show that the average American produces twice as much carbon as the average Chinese.
but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.
Well this has to be the stupidest idea here.
Does France charge Spain for the cost of maintaining roads to and from Spain? Or do they maybe realise that roads go both ways, as does the goods on it.
Luxembourg, Switzerland , Liechtenstein, Monaco and Norway all have a good credit history. That's all the banks care about. Scotland, on the other hand, would be the equivalent of an 18 year old with no credit history. That makes it, as far as the banks are concerned, an unknown risk. Banks do not like unknown risks.
In 1914 Scotland voted for independence from the UK
No such thing occurred. All you can say is that some in Scotland voted for a party which had a policy of Scottish home rule. That party then prepared a bill, which didn't propose independence, only devolution. Unfortunately the First World War intervened before it progressed through parliament. By the end of hostilities there was no appetite from anyone to restart the process.
some dodgy rule dictated that at least 40% of the total registered electorate had to vote for devolution, and even though they got the majority winning by 51.62% Yes to 48.38% No the vote was overturned because the vote was overturned because the Yes vote comprised only 32.9% of the total possible vote
I think it's quite a sound policy that only 32.9% of the electorate shouldn't be deciding what happens to the country. Particularly when people were told before the vote that not voting was equivalent to voting no. Think of it like this; 48.38% of those who voted made the effort to vote no, when they actually didn't have to do a thing. And those who did need to make the effort (the ones who wanted a change) only amounted to less than a third of the population.
If only there was an answer to your questions. Perhaps some reliable source on the subject could publish details on it that we could link to. We could then RTFA.
I don't think you can compare the two. Radio play is a degraded, time limited, copy that takes effort to replicate. If you like what you hear there are plenty of incentives to buy your a copy that will suffer from none of these limitations. A copied MP3, on the other hand, is available always, pristine and effortless. Once it is available for free there are no limitations to it and no further incentive to buy a copy.
Totally. Because U2 are your typical, just about getting by, rock band.
U2 don't have to sell another album, ever, to remain multi-millionaires. They could give away their work for nothing for the rest of their lives, and still be richer than 99.99% of the planet. They are not, in any way, a template for other musicians.
Slashdot Mirror
What a nice demonstration of exactly what the article summary suggests. All your arguments are practically identical to the excuses that use to be given for work-place sexual harassment. Silly emotional women just take it all too seriously!
Except for an additional illogical twist; if trolls find it easiest to troll females (and your stereotyping of both genders is simplistic to say the least) , and are therefore subsequently chosen as a target, then trolls do indeed care about the gender of their targets.
The company is not interested in supporting the software. So if their software is in peril, it is entirely in their hands.
This situation doesn't sound unusual to me. The company originally developed it because it addressed a need/demand at the time. The developers involved took a personal interest in it. The original need has long gone, but the developers have kept it going as a personal project that the company indulges.
But once the original developers leave, the company has no reason to continue their involvement with it. The people using it are not their customers (or are insignificant enough to be customers of no value). They owe it nothing, and suffer no "embarrassment" from walking way from it.
That being said, I don't know why the poster hasn't come out and said what the software is. It may answer a number of questions.
You already live in a world that's far worse;
One beer, a large strong one, the "slightest infraction", and you kill someone on the road because you weren't so sharp.
Life's tough sometimes, and you have to live with the consequences of your "slightest infractions".
I don't think that the USSR were making any particular statement about gender politics. They were simply looking to score another 'first'.
There's also a suspicion that their statement was that their space industry was so advanced, that they could send up even a woman. So the exact opposite of a positive gender equality message.
Are you really unable to see the difference between expressing an opinion (however controversial), and threatening to assault someone?
Your definition of trolling is also totally skewed. It is either;
* voicing an opinion (that you may not actually hold) for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone
* threatening people online
The second definition is relatively new and an invention of media, but we're stuck with it. But either way, trolling is not expressing an opinion that others may disagree with.
A fair percentage of early space exploration was entirely political stunts. It was one of the driving forces that made it all happen.
Doesn't mean it wasn't an achievement and Tereshkova has something that no-one can ever take away from her.
Is it just me, or is there a deluge of unsympathetic ridicule heading this guy's way?
When I was 7, computers were something with lights you saw on Star Trek. I didn't start coding until I was in my teens. And this was when coding was hard work. Not like the spoon-fed coding environments you get now.
Yet I manage.
How about if one says;
"No divorce" does not equal "long-term stable marriage". It can equally mean "long-term nightmare marriage".
Somehow I don't think your average drug cartel cares about the distinction between helping the DEA, and appearing to help the DEA.
I'm really looking forward to the date when a politician makes a speech regarding the end of these temporary "for some time to come" shifts.
Happily, we have reached the point where the authorities no longer need these measures. So we will be putting and end to what we always suggested was only a temporary inconvenience. We are freely relinquishing these powers and the balance between freedom and security is restored."
Somehow I doubt this will ever happen and I can't remember it ever happening before. Funny that, isn't it?
This is down to the magic of perception. As demonstrated by the Checker shadow illusion. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... )
Your wall is most certainly green, but your brain sees it as white.
The purpose of testing is to collect data about the system itself and how it operates in end user environments; this is collecting information about the end users themselves rather than just the machine
The end user is part of the end user environment. Some would even say they're the most important part of it.
This is a non-story. If you don't want your Windows 10 use to be monitored then maybe don't enroll in a program for testing Windows 10, and don't use it for your everyday computing.
How about "can I check my email to see if the delivery of anti-malaria medicine for my village is on its way" ?
Or "can I send an email to offer my crop for sale" ?
I don't think those figures demonstrate what you think they demonstrate. They still show that the average American produces twice as much carbon as the average Chinese.
But in this case, TPB are making money. Lots of it.
But I'm sure they're happy for you to suggest nobler causes for their business model.
but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.
Well this has to be the stupidest idea here.
Does France charge Spain for the cost of maintaining roads to and from Spain? Or do they maybe realise that roads go both ways, as does the goods on it.
Luxembourg, Switzerland , Liechtenstein, Monaco and Norway all have a good credit history. That's all the banks care about. Scotland, on the other hand, would be the equivalent of an 18 year old with no credit history. That makes it, as far as the banks are concerned, an unknown risk. Banks do not like unknown risks.
In 1914 Scotland voted for independence from the UK
No such thing occurred. All you can say is that some in Scotland voted for a party which had a policy of Scottish home rule. That party then prepared a bill, which didn't propose independence, only devolution. Unfortunately the First World War intervened before it progressed through parliament. By the end of hostilities there was no appetite from anyone to restart the process.
some dodgy rule dictated that at least 40% of the total registered electorate had to vote for devolution, and even though they got the majority winning by 51.62% Yes to 48.38% No the vote was overturned because the vote was overturned because the Yes vote comprised only 32.9% of the total possible vote
I think it's quite a sound policy that only 32.9% of the electorate shouldn't be deciding what happens to the country. Particularly when people were told before the vote that not voting was equivalent to voting no. Think of it like this; 48.38% of those who voted made the effort to vote no, when they actually didn't have to do a thing. And those who did need to make the effort (the ones who wanted a change) only amounted to less than a third of the population.
If only there was an answer to your questions. Perhaps some reliable source on the subject could publish details on it that we could link to. We could then RTFA.
Coffee mornings. Plotting coffee mornings. Getting a nice cup of tea and a lovely moist bit of cake, not blown up.
I hate it when people get these things confused.
I don't think you can compare the two. Radio play is a degraded, time limited, copy that takes effort to replicate. If you like what you hear there are plenty of incentives to buy your a copy that will suffer from none of these limitations. A copied MP3, on the other hand, is available always, pristine and effortless. Once it is available for free there are no limitations to it and no further incentive to buy a copy.
Name one spammer who doesn't describe their spam as "well intended".
Maybe the kind of person who thinks they're in charge of their phone, and can decide what and when it downloads.
Apple just taught them an expensive lesson.
Totally. Because U2 are your typical, just about getting by, rock band.
U2 don't have to sell another album, ever, to remain multi-millionaires. They could give away their work for nothing for the rest of their lives, and still be richer than 99.99% of the planet. They are not, in any way, a template for other musicians.