I don't care whether you agree with it. I you keep ignoring all the relevant points about expectation of privacy, ToS, and the law, and keep trying to reframe the discussion in an attempt to make your point. The fact is you are incorrect, and your extrapolation is invalid, and illegal.
It's wrong because they are a "common carrier". You pay them for the connecting you to one other person, and you have an explicit expectation of privacy, one backed up by a law prohibiting them from monitoring except under court order (which, BTW, they have been ignoring since 9/11, most calls in the US now have some level of monitoring, whether it's just the date, time, calling, and callled numbers, or the actual audio, and that is done without a warrant).
FB provides a free service that is unregulated and optional. You agreed to the terms of service. If you engage in illegal activity after having agreed to terms saying that they can monitor any communications on their system, it's your fault. You not only have no expectation of privacy on FB, you're specifically told that you have no guarantee of privacy, and that they do monitor the service. The commenter you replied to was correct, and your reply was invalid.
No, that's an invalid extrapolation. In the case of the phone, it's you talking to one, or perhaps a few other people in real time. No one who isn't there by invitation of one of the parties can hear the conversation (without a wiretap). In his forum, many people are there who weren't invited by the party making the post, and people can read that post days, weeks, or years later, out of context because it's not the same type of real-time interactive communication as a phone call.
The GP is correct. If it's my forum (e.g. my FB page or my blog), I have final say over what is visible to others. It's my soapbox, if you want to say something I won't allow, go get your own soapbox. Here is how I have expressed this in a post on FB:
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. However, your right to say it does not guarantee that anyone will listen or hear you. You do not have a right to a soapbox from which to say it, and I will not provide one for you. You have no right to use any soapbox that I control to express your beliefs and opinions.
If I deny you access to my soapbox (e.g. delete your comments), I am not suppressing your right to free speech, I'm exercising mine.
Understand the difference? If not, I'll be happy to remove or block you and save us both any irritation.
It feels like Apple's laptop keyboards. It doesn't feel like any other laptop keyboards. It's solid, has great tactile/haptic feedback, and very light audible feedback (but much quieter than the old IBM/Lexmark/Unicomp buckling spring keyswitch). The only thing that take a little getting used to is the short travel, and that only takes a day or so.
I switched from my buckling spring keyboard because I needed something quiet since I'm a "night owl" but my roommates weren't. I was skeptical at first, but I decided to try it out, and within the first week, I decided I wasn't going back to the noisemaker I had been so fond of for 20+ years. 30 minutes in a store isn't going to be enough time to adjust to it, you need to buy one, use it for a few days, then, if you don't like it, return it. But, I doubt you'll return it.
You should spend some time with Apple's aluminum keyboard, there is a reason people seek it out. I'm typing on one now and have one on the Dell PC next to me.
I'm a keyboard snob. Refuse to use crappy keyboards, mice, trackpads, or screens. Those are the primary devices I use to interact with the computer, and I'm not willing to abuse myself with crappy devices. If a laptop has a bad keyboard, trackpad, or screen, I won't buy it. Desktop machines are easier because I buy (or already have) those devices separately.
However, we're clearly in the minority, most people simply don't care enough to demand better. And as long as that remains true, I see no change in the use of qwerty or crappy input devices.
Most users aren't willing to pay for a quality keyboard, as evidenced by the fact that most manufacturers include crappy ones, but people keep buying machines with a crappy keyboard, trackpad/mouse, and/or screen. Even for desktops, people generally go with a $10-$15 keyboard. So, until you have e-ink keyboards approaching that price range, with widespread OS support for for displaying the new layout, it's not going to happen.
Even if Apple, HP, or Dell starts including such a keyboard standard, that doesn't mean the rest of the industry will follow. And that's ignoring the differences in physical key placement among keyboards once you get outside the qwerty letters and numbers. Enter/return, backspace, some punctuation, capslock/control, insert, delete, home, end, etc. often differ from one manufacturer to another, which makes alternative logical layouts even more challenging. It's going to require more standardization is physical switch layout to be practical and mass market.
And putting the vowels in a column will make it difficult to adapt something like Swype to the layout, because it makes a problem Swype has even worse. Suppose you want to type "pit". Using Swype on a qwerty layout, you have to be careful with stopping on the i, because o and u are right next to it, and pot and put are also valid words. With all the vowels in a column, if you're a bit too high, you get "pet", too low = "pot", significantly too high = "pat" and significantly too low = "put". Five valid words distinguished solely by the vertical position of the vowel. There are thousands of other examples. Swype with qwerty has that issue with u, i, & o, (& y) this layout extends the problem to all 5 vowels.
Another problem, an extra two rows of keys on many mobile devices presents a space problem. Even on touchscreen devices, the 4 row layout (3 qwerty + space, shift, etc.) used by Android and iOS takes up a lot of screen space already, adding two more rows means you either make the rows shorter (aggravating the problem above), use up too much screen height, or move the space, shift, enter, etc to the sides of the layout. Either way, you compromise usability even more.
Alphabetic ordered keyboards may initially be faster for those unfamiliar with qwerty, but they're not faster for for anyone experienced with qwerty, even for two-finger typists. My in-dash GPS/nav system uses an alphabetic layout, and it's definitely slower for me than qwerty would be. Of course, as slow as that nav system is to respond, qwerty wouldn't actually be faster, bit it would require less searching and therefore be less distracting and frustrating. The alphabet is useful for ordering/filing, but it bears no relationship to letter frequency or digraph/trigraph patterns, so it doesn't help with typing words.
Since dvorak, colemak, and other optimized layouts haven't really caught on, I'm afraid we'll be living with qwerty and it's international variants for a long time.
Longer term, use a higher temperature mix or switch to concrete like DFW and PHX. Concrete may be less ice tolerant, in which case, a relatively thin layer (~2") asphalt over concrete may be the best option. The concrete provides a solid base and will draw heat off the asphalt, while the asphalt provides an easier to refinish surface that can tolerate snow and ice fairly well.
I would say a $4B penalty claim in such a case is unconscionable, and not foreseeable. Even HP's low end claim of $500M is unconscionable given that the market never developed and the Intel itself has indicated the CPU doesn't have much of a future.
First, we don't know if the contract specified any particular length of time, or just a general "We'll continue to develop..."
Second, in contract disputes, the intent and what is fair and equitable are as important, and often more important than the letter of the contract.
Third, there is a "would a reasonable person willingly agree to such terms" guideline applied in resolving contract disputes.
Fourth, we don't know if the contract specified any penalties for breach of contract, and since neither side has said there were specified terms, it's reasonable to assume they were boilerplate "...may be liable for damages...", damages which HP must prove are due solely or predominantly to Oracle's decision, and not caused by HP or other market forces.
And that's HP's problem, not Oracle's. HP didn't pay Oracle to develop, or maintain their software for HP systems. Oracle did it because they thought it was good business. All of the Itanium sales projections over the years have been reduced by at least an order of magnitude. Now, with Itanic continuing to sink, Oracle has changed it's mind.
$4B is insane, it's nearly the entire Itanium market. And the claim that Oracle would agree to a contract that could cost them $4B as part of the settlement of a lawsuit over hiring a HP's ex-CEO, who resigned amid a scandal of his own making, a CEO who would almost certainly have been fired (and probably was told to retire), is simply absurd. No, HP is simply trying to keep a sinking ship afloat and trying to make Oracle stay and help bail water.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care whether you agree with it. I you keep ignoring all the relevant points about expectation of privacy, ToS, and the law, and keep trying to reframe the discussion in an attempt to make your point. The fact is you are incorrect, and your extrapolation is invalid, and illegal.
Like it or not, that's the way it is.
It's wrong because they are a "common carrier". You pay them for the connecting you to one other person, and you have an explicit expectation of privacy, one backed up by a law prohibiting them from monitoring except under court order (which, BTW, they have been ignoring since 9/11, most calls in the US now have some level of monitoring, whether it's just the date, time, calling, and callled numbers, or the actual audio, and that is done without a warrant).
FB provides a free service that is unregulated and optional. You agreed to the terms of service. If you engage in illegal activity after having agreed to terms saying that they can monitor any communications on their system, it's your fault. You not only have no expectation of privacy on FB, you're specifically told that you have no guarantee of privacy, and that they do monitor the service. The commenter you replied to was correct, and your reply was invalid.
Two problems with that.
1. the post you replied to was talking about his forum, not a FB chat.
2. The phone company is specifically prohibited from doing that.
So, no, you extrapolation is invalid, and illegal.
No, that's an invalid extrapolation. In the case of the phone, it's you talking to one, or perhaps a few other people in real time. No one who isn't there by invitation of one of the parties can hear the conversation (without a wiretap). In his forum, many people are there who weren't invited by the party making the post, and people can read that post days, weeks, or years later, out of context because it's not the same type of real-time interactive communication as a phone call.
The GP is correct. If it's my forum (e.g. my FB page or my blog), I have final say over what is visible to others. It's my soapbox, if you want to say something I won't allow, go get your own soapbox. Here is how I have expressed this in a post on FB:
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. However, your right to say it does not guarantee that anyone will listen or hear you. You do not have a right to a soapbox from which to say it, and I will not provide one for you. You have no right to use any soapbox that I control to express your beliefs and opinions.
If I deny you access to my soapbox (e.g. delete your comments), I am not suppressing your right to free speech, I'm exercising mine.
Understand the difference? If not, I'll be happy to remove or block you and save us both any irritation.
It feels like Apple's laptop keyboards. It doesn't feel like any other laptop keyboards. It's solid, has great tactile/haptic feedback, and very light audible feedback (but much quieter than the old IBM/Lexmark/Unicomp buckling spring keyswitch). The only thing that take a little getting used to is the short travel, and that only takes a day or so.
I switched from my buckling spring keyboard because I needed something quiet since I'm a "night owl" but my roommates weren't. I was skeptical at first, but I decided to try it out, and within the first week, I decided I wasn't going back to the noisemaker I had been so fond of for 20+ years. 30 minutes in a store isn't going to be enough time to adjust to it, you need to buy one, use it for a few days, then, if you don't like it, return it. But, I doubt you'll return it.
It does make it difficult to miss the point. ;)
Try 60,000/day. Many european countries use the "." as a thousands separator rather than a ",".
You should spend some time with Apple's aluminum keyboard, there is a reason people seek it out. I'm typing on one now and have one on the Dell PC next to me.
+1 Funny. Sorry, I'm out of mod points.
I'm a keyboard snob. Refuse to use crappy keyboards, mice, trackpads, or screens. Those are the primary devices I use to interact with the computer, and I'm not willing to abuse myself with crappy devices. If a laptop has a bad keyboard, trackpad, or screen, I won't buy it. Desktop machines are easier because I buy (or already have) those devices separately.
However, we're clearly in the minority, most people simply don't care enough to demand better. And as long as that remains true, I see no change in the use of qwerty or crappy input devices.
Most users aren't willing to pay for a quality keyboard, as evidenced by the fact that most manufacturers include crappy ones, but people keep buying machines with a crappy keyboard, trackpad/mouse, and/or screen. Even for desktops, people generally go with a $10-$15 keyboard. So, until you have e-ink keyboards approaching that price range, with widespread OS support for for displaying the new layout, it's not going to happen.
Even if Apple, HP, or Dell starts including such a keyboard standard, that doesn't mean the rest of the industry will follow. And that's ignoring the differences in physical key placement among keyboards once you get outside the qwerty letters and numbers. Enter/return, backspace, some punctuation, capslock/control, insert, delete, home, end, etc. often differ from one manufacturer to another, which makes alternative logical layouts even more challenging. It's going to require more standardization is physical switch layout to be practical and mass market.
It's not impossible, but it is unlikely.
Thanks for posting that, I got some laughs out of it. Dvorak was wrong on almost every point.
And putting the vowels in a column will make it difficult to adapt something like Swype to the layout, because it makes a problem Swype has even worse. Suppose you want to type "pit". Using Swype on a qwerty layout, you have to be careful with stopping on the i, because o and u are right next to it, and pot and put are also valid words. With all the vowels in a column, if you're a bit too high, you get "pet", too low = "pot", significantly too high = "pat" and significantly too low = "put". Five valid words distinguished solely by the vertical position of the vowel. There are thousands of other examples. Swype with qwerty has that issue with u, i, & o, (& y) this layout extends the problem to all 5 vowels.
Another problem, an extra two rows of keys on many mobile devices presents a space problem. Even on touchscreen devices, the 4 row layout (3 qwerty + space, shift, etc.) used by Android and iOS takes up a lot of screen space already, adding two more rows means you either make the rows shorter (aggravating the problem above), use up too much screen height, or move the space, shift, enter, etc to the sides of the layout. Either way, you compromise usability even more.
Alphabetic ordered keyboards may initially be faster for those unfamiliar with qwerty, but they're not faster for for anyone experienced with qwerty, even for two-finger typists. My in-dash GPS/nav system uses an alphabetic layout, and it's definitely slower for me than qwerty would be. Of course, as slow as that nav system is to respond, qwerty wouldn't actually be faster, bit it would require less searching and therefore be less distracting and frustrating. The alphabet is useful for ordering/filing, but it bears no relationship to letter frequency or digraph/trigraph patterns, so it doesn't help with typing words.
Since dvorak, colemak, and other optimized layouts haven't really caught on, I'm afraid we'll be living with qwerty and it's international variants for a long time.
Paint it white to decrease it's heat absorption.
Longer term, use a higher temperature mix or switch to concrete like DFW and PHX. Concrete may be less ice tolerant, in which case, a relatively thin layer (~2") asphalt over concrete may be the best option. The concrete provides a solid base and will draw heat off the asphalt, while the asphalt provides an easier to refinish surface that can tolerate snow and ice fairly well.
Having read other programmer's C code, I can say that all C is subjective.
They're for Corporate "persons".
Which part of "If you don't understand sarcasm, don't bother responding" did you not understand?
Apparently, you don't understand sarcasm. And "it's" was a typo. Now, go be a jerk elsewhere.
...but if HP can sue Oracle for dropping support for Itanium, shouldn't MS be able to sue HP for dropping it's ARM tablet?
(yes, I know there are other differences, but it would have about as much merit. If you don't understand sarcasm, don't bother responding)
BTW, if Oracle's lawyers are that good, how do you explain the Google/Java case?
Just because they have lawyers, and lots of money, doesn't mean their lawyers are good. They're certainly not always correct.
And I'll have my encoder inspected. It seems to have missed a few times lately.
Obviously my sarcasm tag didn't work.
I would say a $4B penalty claim in such a case is unconscionable, and not foreseeable. Even HP's low end claim of $500M is unconscionable given that the market never developed and the Intel itself has indicated the CPU doesn't have much of a future.
That's not exactly how contract law works.
First, we don't know if the contract specified any particular length of time, or just a general "We'll continue to develop..."
Second, in contract disputes, the intent and what is fair and equitable are as important, and often more important than the letter of the contract.
Third, there is a "would a reasonable person willingly agree to such terms" guideline applied in resolving contract disputes.
Fourth, we don't know if the contract specified any penalties for breach of contract, and since neither side has said there were specified terms, it's reasonable to assume they were boilerplate "...may be liable for damages...", damages which HP must prove are due solely or predominantly to Oracle's decision, and not caused by HP or other market forces.
IANAL, but your blanket statement
Larry signed the contract. They're on the hook.
is simply not correct.
And that's HP's problem, not Oracle's. HP didn't pay Oracle to develop, or maintain their software for HP systems. Oracle did it because they thought it was good business. All of the Itanium sales projections over the years have been reduced by at least an order of magnitude. Now, with Itanic continuing to sink, Oracle has changed it's mind.
$4B is insane, it's nearly the entire Itanium market. And the claim that Oracle would agree to a contract that could cost them $4B as part of the settlement of a lawsuit over hiring a HP's ex-CEO, who resigned amid a scandal of his own making, a CEO who would almost certainly have been fired (and probably was told to retire), is simply absurd. No, HP is simply trying to keep a sinking ship afloat and trying to make Oracle stay and help bail water.