I am not sure whether that was meant to satire or not but you will have little success with it here. Most of the people here are from the USA and I don't think they understand that sort of thing.
I agree with you though. It is quite curious that "the land of the free" has less freedom left than us scaey socialist Europeans and, apart from its' mega-finance, has less of an economy too..
On the possibility you were actually serious, don't worry. Perhaps I wasn't.
You do not own the word "face" or the word "book". People have been using these concepts for quite some time. Leonardo Da Vinci did some nice faces a while back. He did not claim to have invented them although he seems to have invented some other ideas better than many patents now require.
There are quite a few mentions of the word face in that well known book, the Bible. Do you intend to take God to court? Have fun there.
Any repeated attempts to steal words out of my vocabulary will result in my referring you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Coming from Oxford University it predates your free use of the word by quite a long time. It predates your patent office, your legal system and your country by quite a bit.
Please go away and do something useful - like figuring out how to unscrew up your product.
I still have not seen anyone actually using or even visibly carrying a Lumia.
I saw a Lumia for the first time today. It was interesting to look at but that load of squares instead of a decent interface is seriously stupid!
Even the "shiny shiny" inflexible iPhone interface is better than that.
Most middle range and better smartphones can do pretty similar jobs. iPhones are infamous for their call quality. The owner of the Lumia I saw said that the phone functionality was far superior to his old iPhone. As he has only had it for a week, I will take that comment warily. A new phone should always be better than an old one. I will ask him in a month or two. I will also be interested how the app market is for it.
No we have not forgotten that email can be encrypted when needed. Neither have we forgotten that it takes less money to hack into a phone line than into an, even mildly, encrypted network conversation.
We haven't forgotten that faxes are often in area away from work desks while computers are the main item on the desk.
One of our (non IT) managers will only fax orders. He prints off the electronic order then faxes it. Several times we have had calls from suppliers who realise they have an order from us but cannot read it. We can email the order to them during the conversation and things start moving again.
We know we are not alone because sometimes they do not call us. They do not know which bunch of technological illiterates has sent it, If it seems that an order has taken too long to acknowledge, we call them and again spend 15 seconds doing what the manager probably spent 5 minutes doing. Our 15 seconds is instantly usable and securely sent. Faxes are neither.
When dealing with business people on your side of the Atlantic, I have had to look up things on occasion.
I remember when I started to deal with a US software company, they sent me a card to put in my "Rolodex". I had to look it up. My dad remembered seeing them but I had certainly never seen one. Now that I know what they look like, I have spotted them in films and on the TV.
A confusing thing I sometimes see a word in the phone number like 1-800-BEST-BUY. This does not work on a blackberry and is very fiddly on normal phones. I think it was probably easier on old fashioned rotary dial ones. How long ago were they?
I have had organisations here say that they don't do email because it insecure. That is possible. Then they get me to fax them. Their faxes are in shared areas and anyone can see what arrives. The list goes on.
Business cards are just another example of this. Anything modern is scary to some highly paid people and they don't want it and have the power to keep it away. Once, business cards must have been "new fangled". They adopted the fax. Why are they so luddite now?
I never claimed my choice was completely rational. Wanting to not be associated with a particular group can be, at least partly, an emotional preference.
Some of my other reasons are considered and rational though.
Nobody in a developed society can avoid being affected by fashion. A lot of people out of it are as well. I am wearing what I like - jeans, trainers and a rugby shirt (haven't played in decades). This is all affected by fashion. I avoid wearing certain types of fashion because they fit my self image and even beliefs and preferences. (It is a Scotland rugby shirt for example.)
None of them are "fashionable" though. There is a difference.
My fashion choice, as you style it, is to be different from people who want the latest shiny thing because it is shiny - not because of what it can do. It will limit what I choose but I am familiar with this sort of limitation. That is why I am not wearing an Italy rugby shirt. My choices identify me for what I like or am
Price is a pretty major selling factor. That is called good capitalist practice.
There are a number of things I want out of a tablet
1. Not Apple
2. Sensible price (as in #1)
3. Configurable (as in #1)
4. Not from a company that sees legal action as the prime means of dealing with competition (as in #1)
5. Powerful
6. Well made
Why is number 1 there? I don't want something that is seen by some as an essential fashion accessory. I would rather do without. By a long way, not everyone who buys from Apple buys for that reason. I just to not want to be associated with that group that does.
Any picture I take is uploaded. I do it because the app (www,photoshop.com) I installed has the option. If I was a news photographer, I would do this. They won't be using a phone but I have heard of SD cards that can do this.
I have seen stuff recently asking people to let Anonymous use their computers for a DDOS on Interpol. In the past I have seen similar notices to DDOS other targets and have commented that it was a really stupid idea. This time, I never got round to saying how bad an idea it was.
It is things like this that make the USA seem so peculiar to the remaining 96%.
Violence is deemed acceptable - blood and brains are acceptable for everyone because this gets young people aware of the real world. As soon as two consenting adults get sweaty, or part of a woman's breast is seem on national TV for a fraction of a second, all hell breaks loose.
I do. I have credit and debit cards. No use for identification. A couple of other pieces of plastic and a telephone. If I am not breaking any laws, I do not need them. If I do break laws, I may get arrested and you don't need an ID for that either.
But I come from a (once anyway) civilised country. I also do not carry a gun. The last time I saw a police officer carrying one, I was at an airport.
That is like saying that if there is no barbed wire fence and searchlights, there is no prison. Please Google "Devils Island". The prisoners there could walk off and die any time they wanted. There was nowhere they could go. They were still prisoners, not just guests or inmates. I think some slave owners worked the same way.
I don't mind people being uninformed - even clueless, That is the default state of human beings.
What is really annoying are those who feel that this ignorance makes them somehow better - perhaps more suitable to lead or make decisions.
In many circumstances, not knowing something makes someone neither better or worse. The fact that I don't know how to smoke fish does not make me ignorant. It does however make me not a suitable person to make laws about it without being forced to use and take heed of expert assistance.
If I do something legal in my own time on my own equipment in my own home with my own ideas, it has nothing to do with my employer. Surely that cannot stand up in court?
But I do not have your constitution to 'protect' me.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure whether that was meant to satire or not but you will have little success with it here. Most of the people here are from the USA and I don't think they understand that sort of thing.
I agree with you though. It is quite curious that "the land of the free" has less freedom left than us scaey socialist Europeans and, apart from its' mega-finance, has less of an economy too..
On the possibility you were actually serious, don't worry. Perhaps I wasn't.
That is probably illegal in Brazil. Even if it is legal to do that to the kids, their parents might object.
Dear FaceBook
You do not own the word "face" or the word "book". People have been using these concepts for quite some time. Leonardo Da Vinci did some nice faces a while back. He did not claim to have invented them although he seems to have invented some other ideas better than many patents now require.
There are quite a few mentions of the word face in that well known book, the Bible. Do you intend to take God to court? Have fun there.
Any repeated attempts to steal words out of my vocabulary will result in my referring you to the Oxford English Dictionary. Coming from Oxford University it predates your free use of the word by quite a long time. It predates your patent office, your legal system and your country by quite a bit.
Please go away and do something useful - like figuring out how to unscrew up your product.
Yours etc
I still have not seen anyone actually using or even visibly carrying a Lumia.
I saw a Lumia for the first time today. It was interesting to look at but that load of squares instead of a decent interface is seriously stupid!
Even the "shiny shiny" inflexible iPhone interface is better than that.
Most middle range and better smartphones can do pretty similar jobs. iPhones are infamous for their call quality. The owner of the Lumia I saw said that the phone functionality was far superior to his old iPhone. As he has only had it for a week, I will take that comment warily. A new phone should always be better than an old one. I will ask him in a month or two. I will also be interested how the app market is for it.
No we have not forgotten that email can be encrypted when needed. Neither have we forgotten that it takes less money to hack into a phone line than into an, even mildly, encrypted network conversation.
We haven't forgotten that faxes are often in area away from work desks while computers are the main item on the desk.
Is there anything else we haven't forgotten?
One of our (non IT) managers will only fax orders. He prints off the electronic order then faxes it. Several times we have had calls from suppliers who realise they have an order from us but cannot read it. We can email the order to them during the conversation and things start moving again.
We know we are not alone because sometimes they do not call us. They do not know which bunch of technological illiterates has sent it, If it seems that an order has taken too long to acknowledge, we call them and again spend 15 seconds doing what the manager probably spent 5 minutes doing. Our 15 seconds is instantly usable and securely sent. Faxes are neither.
When dealing with business people on your side of the Atlantic, I have had to look up things on occasion.
I remember when I started to deal with a US software company, they sent me a card to put in my "Rolodex". I had to look it up. My dad remembered seeing them but I had certainly never seen one. Now that I know what they look like, I have spotted them in films and on the TV.
A confusing thing I sometimes see a word in the phone number like 1-800-BEST-BUY. This does not work on a blackberry and is very fiddly on normal phones. I think it was probably easier on old fashioned rotary dial ones. How long ago were they?
I have had organisations here say that they don't do email because it insecure. That is possible. Then they get me to fax them. Their faxes are in shared areas and anyone can see what arrives. The list goes on.
Business cards are just another example of this. Anything modern is scary to some highly paid people and they don't want it and have the power to keep it away. Once, business cards must have been "new fangled". They adopted the fax. Why are they so luddite now?
That is when summer time starts for the vast majority of sufferers.
That's an old theory.
The idea is that if there are enough bogative theories around a couple of genuaine ones won't be noticed.
I take it you mean in the amount of money spent on it. No argument there.
I never claimed my choice was completely rational. Wanting to not be associated with a particular group can be, at least partly, an emotional preference.
Some of my other reasons are considered and rational though.
Nobody in a developed society can avoid being affected by fashion. A lot of people out of it are as well. I am wearing what I like - jeans, trainers and a rugby shirt (haven't played in decades). This is all affected by fashion. I avoid wearing certain types of fashion because they fit my self image and even beliefs and preferences. (It is a Scotland rugby shirt for example.)
None of them are "fashionable" though. There is a difference.
My fashion choice, as you style it, is to be different from people who want the latest shiny thing because it is shiny - not because of what it can do. It will limit what I choose but I am familiar with this sort of limitation. That is why I am not wearing an Italy rugby shirt. My choices identify me for what I like or am
Price is a pretty major selling factor. That is called good capitalist practice.
There are a number of things I want out of a tablet
1. Not Apple
2. Sensible price (as in #1)
3. Configurable (as in #1)
4. Not from a company that sees legal action as the prime means of dealing with competition (as in #1)
5. Powerful
6. Well made
Why is number 1 there? I don't want something that is seen by some as an essential fashion accessory. I would rather do without. By a long way, not everyone who buys from Apple buys for that reason. I just to not want to be associated with that group that does.
Any picture I take is uploaded. I do it because the app (www,photoshop.com) I installed has the option. If I was a news photographer, I would do this. They won't be using a phone but I have heard of SD cards that can do this.
I have seen stuff recently asking people to let Anonymous use their computers for a DDOS on Interpol. In the past I have seen similar notices to DDOS other targets and have commented that it was a really stupid idea. This time, I never got round to saying how bad an idea it was.
It is things like this that make the USA seem so peculiar to the remaining 96%.
Violence is deemed acceptable - blood and brains are acceptable for everyone because this gets young people aware of the real world. As soon as two consenting adults get sweaty, or part of a woman's breast is seem on national TV for a fraction of a second, all hell breaks loose.
I do. I have credit and debit cards. No use for identification. A couple of other pieces of plastic and a telephone. If I am not breaking any laws, I do not need them. If I do break laws, I may get arrested and you don't need an ID for that either.
But I come from a (once anyway) civilised country. I also do not carry a gun. The last time I saw a police officer carrying one, I was at an airport.
Generally, England doesn't do international. The rest of the UK does.
The Canadians have southern neighbours who are often not sure where/who/what they are. So do we.
Like polling for messages? Just set the client to send a small packet every 60 seconds and the mail server to respond if there is.
That is not exactly a new idea and it is the mail client pulling.
They cannot quit because they would starve.
That is like saying that if there is no barbed wire fence and searchlights, there is no prison. Please Google "Devils Island". The prisoners there could walk off and die any time they wanted. There was nowhere they could go. They were still prisoners, not just guests or inmates. I think some slave owners worked the same way.
People are clueless until someone informs them. Hence my comment about expert assistance that lawmakers should listen to.
I don't mind people being uninformed - even clueless, That is the default state of human beings.
What is really annoying are those who feel that this ignorance makes them somehow better - perhaps more suitable to lead or make decisions.
In many circumstances, not knowing something makes someone neither better or worse. The fact that I don't know how to smoke fish does not make me ignorant. It does however make me not a suitable person to make laws about it without being forced to use and take heed of expert assistance.
Why should I be restricted by you? My right to privacy should exceed corporate "rights" to maximise future profit.
If you put things in a contract that you know to be against the law, is that not against the law? If not, maybe it should be.
Can that be a legal requirement?
If I do something legal in my own time on my own equipment in my own home with my own ideas, it has nothing to do with my employer. Surely that cannot stand up in court?
But I do not have your constitution to 'protect' me.