Critical vulnerabilities aren't necessarily easy to patch, and waiting to patch them in a 3.x release might make more sense than doing so in a 3.0.x version if you can't fix the vulnerabilities without high-impact changes.
People who buy a Mac and run Windows exclusively I don't get. But I personally feel comfortable in both Windows and OS X, prefer OS X for most of my non-professional activities, yet am more or less forced to use Windows for the majority of my work-related activities (what can I say? SAP's Java client lacks several important features...). It's sad that you find it laugh-worthy that people like me enjoy having a choice.
The mantra is "All IP is bad except when you use copyright to enforce the GPL."
Irrespectively of my own personal position on the matter of copyright, you seem to fail to grasp a crucial concept: The whole point of the GPL is to game the system: either you say copyright doesn't matter, and the stuff is free to share, or you say it does matter, and the GPL says the stuff is free to share. Crying foul over GPL infringement isn't so much a turn-face as it is saying this: "We don't believe in your rules, but we went ahead played by them to achieve what we wanted. So, now you either you play by our rules, or you play by yours. But whichever you pick, you'd better freaking follow them."
Yeah, because it's not 500 um thick. TFA starts with a picture that shows a piece of material that's a bit over 500 um wide, and quite thin compared to its width.
The issue is choice -- or lack thereof. FTFS: "Once you opt for the new player, the old Windows Media based player won't function, not on any computer associated with the account." Yes, your Mac is now supported (and so is mine, should I become a netflix client), but for all the people with Windows boxes, they lost the possibility to use the old client. Plus, there's the part where it was borderline deceitful behaviour that led people to switch clients.
probabilistically speaking, if p is the probability one disk will crash and burn within a period of time, p + p(1 - p) (strictly more than p) is the probability you'll have a RAID0 crash and burn within that same period of time.
You can bet your arse that anyone who uses a tablet as their "main input device", and already carries a laptop of this size around, won't use the tiny built-in tablet this laptop provides. I mean, I'm an amateur and my A5 tablet seems a bit cramped at times.
Not sure whether Vista or 7 actually do this, but at least from Tiger onwards, OS X provides you with much better alternatives to the bouncing "needy window" metaphor, which is dynamic icons (in fact, I don't think I've seen a bouncing window for anything that doesn't need my attention to continue in a while). Basically, Adium (an instant messenger program) has a duck for an icon, and the duck will flap its wings when you have unread messages. It's quite visible, but doesn't actually exceed the space normally reserved for the icon, and doesn't involve strong palette changes (like blue/orange flashing does), so it's not quite as annoying. Stuff that's even less priority (like e-mail, which doesn't imply real time like IM) can make use of this in subtler even ways. For example, Apple mail's icon gains a red star addition to the icon when you have unread messages, that just stays there with the number of unread messages written on it.
Bad metaphor. If the police actually saw any images, then it's more akin to seeing him put a a baggie with some drugs in it in his vault, and asking for him to unlock the vault (which, presumably, contains the stash). He doesn't even have to give them the vault combination, just let them look inside.
There's a group of people interested in a certain product, and another group of people supplying that product. Each of the suppliers wants their own brand of the product to reach the consumers. Just because there's no money involved, it doesn't mean that it isn't a market. Especially since it'd be pretty ingenuous to think that browser makers don't expect any sort of benefit from getting you to use theirs.
It wasn't a matter of arguing "it's fine because animals do it", but rather "the argument that it's wrong because it's unnatural is bullshit because other animals do it". Different things.
Doesn't firing someone without cause also result in immediate irreparable damages, specifically to their wallet and reputation?
Yes,which is why decent legislations state that you must give employees a certain amount of forewarning, and there are certain remedies, e.g. severance pay.
The thing that bothered me about Heath Ledger was that it was a no-win situation. Did he win a sympathy Oscar? Had he lost it, would it have been out of reluctance to attribute it posthumously? No matter what course of action was taken, his death would always cast doubt on the decision. So I suggest you compare him with the competition instead.
Now, I haven't watched The Reader or Milk yet, so I can judge his performance against Michael Shannon's or Josh Brolin's. But compared to Robert Downey Jr's performance (which I liked) and Phillip Seymor Hoffman's part (which I really loved), I can't really say the award shocks me.
I'll see your "allowed to have an opinion", and raise to "it's a good thing they express it". Nobody who's fit for that sort of position should not have an opinion. I mean, if you're "Anti-Trust Chief" (whatever that means in official terms), you'd better be aware that Google has a very, very powerful position that might be abused by someone creative (and I'll be damned if that's not a company with creative potential), and you'd better have an opinion on whether you think it's likely it will happen. That opinion needn't even be correct, you only need to show an interest (provided you're open minded enough to change your mind given enough evidence).
Now, what would you rather have? Someone who keeps quiet about their opinions, or someone who's vocal enough about them that those opinions are, for all intents and purposes, subject to public scrutiny?
I think that, as your children's legal guardian, you're legally responsible for his actions, and, therefore, also responsible for that EULA. At least, that's what makes sense to me.
That's not always true. For example, f(x) = 1/x^2 would diverge towards positive infinity when approaching x = 0 from both sides. x^2 / x computes as 0/0 at x = 0 yet has a well defined (induced) value.
I'm sure that EULAs are nasty and trying to figure out creative ways to work around them is great fun but... WHAT THE HELL?
"I had my kid click, so I didn't enter a contract"? Is that the argument? About as solid as TFA, too: "Oh, the cat stumbled on the keyboard accidentally, and of its own volition. Me luring it there had nothing to do with it." If anything, trying to clever and pretending you didn't click "I accept" only shows ill will. Whether EULAs are acceptable is for the courts to decide. Until then, either you don't use the software, or you admit to yourself that you might be bound by the EULA. Anything else is a sham.
Slashdot Mirror
Critical vulnerabilities aren't necessarily easy to patch, and waiting to patch them in a 3.x release might make more sense than doing so in a 3.0.x version if you can't fix the vulnerabilities without high-impact changes.
People who buy a Mac and run Windows exclusively I don't get. But I personally feel comfortable in both Windows and OS X, prefer OS X for most of my non-professional activities, yet am more or less forced to use Windows for the majority of my work-related activities (what can I say? SAP's Java client lacks several important features...). It's sad that you find it laugh-worthy that people like me enjoy having a choice.
But it is a royal pain in the ass. The design paradigm looks like something out of a Dr Sues book.
This is Dr Sue.This is Dr Seuss. You might want to clarify your position. Or perhaps its that very ambiguity you were looking for?
The mantra is "All IP is bad except when you use copyright to enforce the GPL."
Irrespectively of my own personal position on the matter of copyright, you seem to fail to grasp a crucial concept: The whole point of the GPL is to game the system: either you say copyright doesn't matter, and the stuff is free to share, or you say it does matter, and the GPL says the stuff is free to share. Crying foul over GPL infringement isn't so much a turn-face as it is saying this: "We don't believe in your rules, but we went ahead played by them to achieve what we wanted. So, now you either you play by our rules, or you play by yours. But whichever you pick, you'd better freaking follow them."
Yeah, because it's not 500 um thick. TFA starts with a picture that shows a piece of material that's a bit over 500 um wide, and quite thin compared to its width.
The issue is choice -- or lack thereof. FTFS: "Once you opt for the new player, the old Windows Media based player won't function, not on any computer associated with the account." Yes, your Mac is now supported (and so is mine, should I become a netflix client), but for all the people with Windows boxes, they lost the possibility to use the old client. Plus, there's the part where it was borderline deceitful behaviour that led people to switch clients.
While information leaks are nasty, what your mate is doing amounts to identity theft, which is a criminal matter.
probabilistically speaking, if p is the probability one disk will crash and burn within a period of time, p + p(1 - p) (strictly more than p) is the probability you'll have a RAID0 crash and burn within that same period of time.
You can bet your arse that anyone who uses a tablet as their "main input device", and already carries a laptop of this size around, won't use the tiny built-in tablet this laptop provides. I mean, I'm an amateur and my A5 tablet seems a bit cramped at times.
The obvious counter question is: were any of the flowers daisies?
Not sure whether Vista or 7 actually do this, but at least from Tiger onwards, OS X provides you with much better alternatives to the bouncing "needy window" metaphor, which is dynamic icons (in fact, I don't think I've seen a bouncing window for anything that doesn't need my attention to continue in a while). Basically, Adium (an instant messenger program) has a duck for an icon, and the duck will flap its wings when you have unread messages. It's quite visible, but doesn't actually exceed the space normally reserved for the icon, and doesn't involve strong palette changes (like blue/orange flashing does), so it's not quite as annoying. Stuff that's even less priority (like e-mail, which doesn't imply real time like IM) can make use of this in subtler even ways. For example, Apple mail's icon gains a red star addition to the icon when you have unread messages, that just stays there with the number of unread messages written on it.
Whatever the participants' motivation may be, the point still stands: There is such a thing as the browser market.
Bad metaphor. If the police actually saw any images, then it's more akin to seeing him put a a baggie with some drugs in it in his vault, and asking for him to unlock the vault (which, presumably, contains the stash). He doesn't even have to give them the vault combination, just let them look inside.
There's a group of people interested in a certain product, and another group of people supplying that product. Each of the suppliers wants their own brand of the product to reach the consumers. Just because there's no money involved, it doesn't mean that it isn't a market. Especially since it'd be pretty ingenuous to think that browser makers don't expect any sort of benefit from getting you to use theirs.
I don't know how to spell disclaimer
It wasn't a matter of arguing "it's fine because animals do it", but rather "the argument that it's wrong because it's unnatural is bullshit because other animals do it". Different things.
Doesn't firing someone without cause also result in immediate irreparable damages, specifically to their wallet and reputation?
Yes,which is why decent legislations state that you must give employees a certain amount of forewarning, and there are certain remedies, e.g. severance pay.
The thing that bothered me about Heath Ledger was that it was a no-win situation. Did he win a sympathy Oscar? Had he lost it, would it have been out of reluctance to attribute it posthumously? No matter what course of action was taken, his death would always cast doubt on the decision. So I suggest you compare him with the competition instead.
Now, I haven't watched The Reader or Milk yet, so I can judge his performance against Michael Shannon's or Josh Brolin's. But compared to Robert Downey Jr's performance (which I liked) and Phillip Seymor Hoffman's part (which I really loved), I can't really say the award shocks me.
Next time you want to troll someone's spelling, check it first. Minimise is just fine.
I'll see your "allowed to have an opinion", and raise to "it's a good thing they express it". Nobody who's fit for that sort of position should not have an opinion. I mean, if you're "Anti-Trust Chief" (whatever that means in official terms), you'd better be aware that Google has a very, very powerful position that might be abused by someone creative (and I'll be damned if that's not a company with creative potential), and you'd better have an opinion on whether you think it's likely it will happen. That opinion needn't even be correct, you only need to show an interest (provided you're open minded enough to change your mind given enough evidence).
Now, what would you rather have? Someone who keeps quiet about their opinions, or someone who's vocal enough about them that those opinions are, for all intents and purposes, subject to public scrutiny?
I think that, as your children's legal guardian, you're legally responsible for his actions, and, therefore, also responsible for that EULA. At least, that's what makes sense to me.
Nevermind that Kleenex is basically "Clean-X".
That's not always true. For example, f(x) = 1/x^2 would diverge towards positive infinity when approaching x = 0 from both sides. x^2 / x computes as 0/0 at x = 0 yet has a well defined (induced) value.
I'm sure that EULAs are nasty and trying to figure out creative ways to work around them is great fun but... WHAT THE HELL?
"I had my kid click, so I didn't enter a contract"? Is that the argument? About as solid as TFA, too: "Oh, the cat stumbled on the keyboard accidentally, and of its own volition. Me luring it there had nothing to do with it." If anything, trying to clever and pretending you didn't click "I accept" only shows ill will. Whether EULAs are acceptable is for the courts to decide. Until then, either you don't use the software, or you admit to yourself that you might be bound by the EULA. Anything else is a sham.
I'd say it's more like blowing away the presumption of functional law enforcement where IT is concerned.