Religion is a protected class because it has traditionally been a major battlefield in terms of broadly sweeping discrimination. It was also one of the "hot button" topics for the Founding Fathers and a reason behind the American Revolution.
Last I checked, no one has been publicly beaten over their choice of operating systems, although some people definitely should be.
And no, if a restaurant implemented an "Armani-only" policy for patrons, I would have absolutely no problem with that. If they don't dig my Members Only jacket from 1983, they're far too uncool for me to be seen with anyway.
Okay, you made me laugh. I'd mod that funny if I had the points, but instead, just my thanks for an early morning chuckle will have to suffice.
Well played, indeed, well played.
Okay, you're about the fourth commenter to spout the "what if this was about RELIGION?" quip in this discussion.
IANAL, but in the US, discrimination based on religious preference is a protected class by law.
Again, IANAL, but I don't believe that discrimination based on user-agent strings is protected in the same way.
Please take your straw man and his little buddies and go be melodramatic elsewhere. Discrimination sucks, but is nowhere near illegal. At best it is immoral, and even that is questionable.
I have no problem with a restaurant requiring a jacket and tie for a patron to receive service. I have no problem with a restaurant requiring reservations for service. I have no problem with a nightclub having a 25-and-over age restriction.
And honestly, I have no problem with the NYT limiting their content to whomever they see fit. The news is available elsewhere, and I'll avail myself of it from their competitiors.
Let's make an attempt to not turn every issue on/. into a "What about the children?", hm?
Yes, it breaks the network effect. But it takes a LONG time to disrupt a powerful, high-percentage incumbent application. Especially when most people using the incumbent don't have an issue with it. And that's the secret - Average Joe Cubicle has absolutely no desire to switch to some other office suite, current or mythical. He understands MS Office to the point of being able to do his job - that's all he needs.
And that applies to Joe Cubicle working for a BofA supplier as much as it does BofA. Fact is, it'll be a long long time before people adopt other software without a massive killer feature that MS Office doesn't have.
Universally readable, that'll remove the requirement for Office in a single stroke.
I'd have to disagree. Universally readable files, while great for the technically inclined and the individual, do not alleviate the need for companies to have internal software standards allowing their IT departments to support a limited set of possible configurations. Bank of America isn't going to show up on a Monday morning, see that ODF is universally accepted and implemented, and send out a memo telling their employees to use whatever office suite they want.
Actually, this seems to be aimed more at the true "consumer" - your thirty-something gagdet freak with his Crackberry and his video iPod who probably isn't inclined to go out and find "illegal" software to get content on his mobile devices.
Remember, there are plenty of people out there who pay for VHS-to-DVD transfers.
I'm quite surprised to see this coming from a major retail chain - a mom and pop computer store (yes, one of the three still in existence) I could see having a helpful staff member who was willing to "stick it to the man" and do this for people, but a major corporation making the decision to do this definitely seems to show that the lawmakers of the U.S. need to wake up and stop legislating to keep business models alive past their prime.
In neither of the cases you've outlined above (TV Guardian and Greasemonkey) are you redistributing an edited form of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. Ergo, this decision isn't even close to applicable to those situations. This decision isn't about copyright holder's rights vs. viewer's rights, it's about copyright holder's rights vs. non-copyright holder's rights to commercially redistribute said copyrighted work.
With MBSA, I can do a quick install of Windows XP with SP2 integrated in vmware, then run this tool, and find out that (as of yesterday) there are 39 hotfixes needed for vanilla XPSP2 install, and it gives me direct (no WGA crap) links to download these updates. All I have to do then is save them all one by one, integrate them into a XP SP2 iso image, and use this pre-integrated disk to install with.
It's interesting to note that in order to download this, you have to use the Windows Genuine Advantage tool...
Hopefully, if they, take your suggestion, and sign up, for the ESL, class, they don't, skip, the evening, that discusses, proper, comma usage, in English, as, well.
No, it doesn't say links to open source options...it says links to competitors.
If I'm Microsoft, I'm linking to crappy, expensive, third-party apps that look like crap. I'll satisfy the demands of the court and make people think that staying with my (media player/instant messenger/web browser) is by far the way to go.
Let's see...there's Yahoo, for one. Then there's also MIT who seems to process 3 million hits on over 1.1 million documents a day, according to their reported stats.
Throwing a couple high-profile links out to websites using foo on the backend does not a good language make. Coders with style and best practices a good backend make.
It doesn't matter *what* someone spends 75% of their life doing, if they do it to the exclusion of other, 'necessary to continue living' activities, it's horrible for them. But just labelling something an 'addiction' and saying that it defines the problem does no good - find something else to harp on if you want to make the world a better place.
Wait a sec - if Google has implemented a policy not to talk to CNet reporters (which, IMO, is their right, as it is any organization's right not to speak to the press, regardless of how the press gets snotty about it), then how did this info get passed on to CNet for their inclusion in this article?
"Hey, pass this note to CNet. We're not talking to them."
Seriously, though. Freedom of the Press is a freedom designed to allow the press to print/publish/broadcast information that they find. It is not a license to be used to force people to talk to them, so if Google chooses not to talk to CNet, so be it - go out and find information elsewhere, just like reporters have been doing for centuries. The news media in general has gotten lazy and expect companies to comply with every request, and that's why the press is so information-challenged these days.
I've found that this is a particularly bad problem when it comes to software development. Most American developers lack the maturity and responsibility to be allowed to "work from home".
Really? Hm. I'd have to say that if I have employees that I feel it necessary to watch their every working moment to make sure they're working, there is most likely a major problem with my hiring process, since I'm obviously grabbing the least-trustworthy schmoes I can find.
Actually, one of the most liberal-minded companies I've ever done work for had under 100 employees. But they understood that allowing me some flexibility paid off in the long run. And, to be quite honest, I ended up putting in more than 40 hours a week because of it. Overall, I'd say they came out way ahead compared to trying to turn me into one of the masses who feel like watching clocks and rushing the parking lot are the norm.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion is a protected class because it has traditionally been a major battlefield in terms of broadly sweeping discrimination. It was also one of the "hot button" topics for the Founding Fathers and a reason behind the American Revolution.
Last I checked, no one has been publicly beaten over their choice of operating systems, although some people definitely should be.
And no, if a restaurant implemented an "Armani-only" policy for patrons, I would have absolutely no problem with that. If they don't dig my Members Only jacket from 1983, they're far too uncool for me to be seen with anyway.
Okay, you made me laugh. I'd mod that funny if I had the points, but instead, just my thanks for an early morning chuckle will have to suffice. Well played, indeed, well played.
Okay, you're about the fourth commenter to spout the "what if this was about RELIGION?" quip in this discussion.
/. into a "What about the children?", hm?
IANAL, but in the US, discrimination based on religious preference is a protected class by law.
Again, IANAL, but I don't believe that discrimination based on user-agent strings is protected in the same way.
Please take your straw man and his little buddies and go be melodramatic elsewhere. Discrimination sucks, but is nowhere near illegal. At best it is immoral, and even that is questionable.
I have no problem with a restaurant requiring a jacket and tie for a patron to receive service. I have no problem with a restaurant requiring reservations for service. I have no problem with a nightclub having a 25-and-over age restriction.
And honestly, I have no problem with the NYT limiting their content to whomever they see fit. The news is available elsewhere, and I'll avail myself of it from their competitiors.
Let's make an attempt to not turn every issue on
It's called full disclosure, and it's pretty standard when dealing with a "reputable" journalism source.
Yes, it breaks the network effect. But it takes a LONG time to disrupt a powerful, high-percentage incumbent application. Especially when most people using the incumbent don't have an issue with it. And that's the secret - Average Joe Cubicle has absolutely no desire to switch to some other office suite, current or mythical. He understands MS Office to the point of being able to do his job - that's all he needs.
And that applies to Joe Cubicle working for a BofA supplier as much as it does BofA. Fact is, it'll be a long long time before people adopt other software without a massive killer feature that MS Office doesn't have.
And yours is so exceptionally low.
Your style of argument leaves something to be desired.
Actually, this seems to be aimed more at the true "consumer" - your thirty-something gagdet freak with his Crackberry and his video iPod who probably isn't inclined to go out and find "illegal" software to get content on his mobile devices. Remember, there are plenty of people out there who pay for VHS-to-DVD transfers.
I'm quite surprised to see this coming from a major retail chain - a mom and pop computer store (yes, one of the three still in existence) I could see having a helpful staff member who was willing to "stick it to the man" and do this for people, but a major corporation making the decision to do this definitely seems to show that the lawmakers of the U.S. need to wake up and stop legislating to keep business models alive past their prime.
In neither of the cases you've outlined above (TV Guardian and Greasemonkey) are you redistributing an edited form of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. Ergo, this decision isn't even close to applicable to those situations. This decision isn't about copyright holder's rights vs. viewer's rights, it's about copyright holder's rights vs. non-copyright holder's rights to commercially redistribute said copyrighted work.
Suppose I've bought Kill Bill and want to see it, but not the violent bits...
Gee, can you afford that whole five minutes out of your life?
now they just need to figure out the happy part and their job is complete.
Which makes the War on Drugs so much harder to understand...
Hopefully, if they, take your suggestion, and sign up, for the ESL, class, they don't, skip, the evening, that discusses, proper, comma usage, in English, as, well.
You're paying $6.50 - $7.00 per disc for CD-RWs?
Man, I gotta deal for you...let's talk...
No, it doesn't say links to open source options...it says links to competitors.
If I'm Microsoft, I'm linking to crappy, expensive, third-party apps that look like crap. I'll satisfy the demands of the court and make people think that staying with my (media player/instant messenger/web browser) is by far the way to go.
Welcome to the wonderful world of AJAX...
You thought the HTTP protocol was stateless? In the words of Bachman Turner Overdrive, "You ain't seen nothin' yet..."
...but will I get uber-leet epic gear in-game afterwards?
No??!?
Nevermind then. I'm busy.
Show me PHP websites of this magnitude...
Let's see...there's Yahoo, for one. Then there's also MIT who seems to process 3 million hits on over 1.1 million documents a day, according to their reported stats.
Throwing a couple high-profile links out to websites using foo on the backend does not a good language make. Coders with style and best practices a good backend make.
As would I.
It doesn't matter *what* someone spends 75% of their life doing, if they do it to the exclusion of other, 'necessary to continue living' activities, it's horrible for them. But just labelling something an 'addiction' and saying that it defines the problem does no good - find something else to harp on if you want to make the world a better place.
Wait a sec - if Google has implemented a policy not to talk to CNet reporters (which, IMO, is their right, as it is any organization's right not to speak to the press, regardless of how the press gets snotty about it), then how did this info get passed on to CNet for their inclusion in this article?
"Hey, pass this note to CNet. We're not talking to them."
Seriously, though. Freedom of the Press is a freedom designed to allow the press to print/publish/broadcast information that they find. It is not a license to be used to force people to talk to them, so if Google chooses not to talk to CNet, so be it - go out and find information elsewhere, just like reporters have been doing for centuries. The news media in general has gotten lazy and expect companies to comply with every request, and that's why the press is so information-challenged these days.
At least, that's how I see it.
1. Keep older console ...
2. Taunt game store owner
3. Track market for dust
4.
5. PREVENT profit!
Hm, this doesn't feel like it usually does...there's a problem here somewhere...
...that this leads to a new period of enlightenment in China where Hot Coffee is okay, but the rest of GTA:SA is disdained. ;)
I've found that this is a particularly bad problem when it comes to software development. Most American developers lack the maturity and responsibility to be allowed to "work from home".
Really? Hm. I'd have to say that if I have employees that I feel it necessary to watch their every working moment to make sure they're working, there is most likely a major problem with my hiring process, since I'm obviously grabbing the least-trustworthy schmoes I can find.
Actually, one of the most liberal-minded companies I've ever done work for had under 100 employees. But they understood that allowing me some flexibility paid off in the long run. And, to be quite honest, I ended up putting in more than 40 hours a week because of it. Overall, I'd say they came out way ahead compared to trying to turn me into one of the masses who feel like watching clocks and rushing the parking lot are the norm.