The problem is if you piss off enough people by stupid lockin tricks you lose customers.
The idea is to lock in customers so they can't go anywhere else, pissed off or not. The way it fails is if it isn't done well enough, early enough. It could be argued that they should have locked in customers earlier (c1998), when disgruntled customers had less well placed rivals to jump ship to.
It's only a matter of time until more and more professionals wake up and make the move. And what does MSFT have to answer that with? Oh look, an Aero like GUI in Vista! Please...
My gut feeling is that it doesn't matter what professionals think, if their employers only know M$ then that is what the employees will have to work with. My employers are rolling out a huge infrastructure program that includes better security, obviously one of the most important tools will be the browser and they have chosen IE, I dont think they even considered any alternatives.
Quite easy, they have a contract for an internet service and is not geting any at all. How hard is THAT?
Having seen my and some other peoples phone, internet and other (usually Direct Debit) service contracts, they usually have a clause that states something along the lines of "We withold the right to terminate the service/contract at any point". The principle being that if they want, they can stop providing the service and the contract ends at that point, if you have already paid for a period after that time then your going to have trouble getting you money back.
Unfortunately, for some of my friends it doesn't seem to work the other way around, when you want to stop your mobile contract because the phoneco isn't holding up their end of the deal, you either have to pay the rest of the contract (several months) or you have to get the bank to stop the Direct Debit (which the banks do not like doing) and ignore the bills that come through from the Phoneco.
My rather verbose point is that the contracts in the we sign in the UK, dont require the provider to really provide much service.
It's like when Steven Spielberg refused to allow an edited version of Saving Private Ryan to be broadcast on TV. Taking out the violence in his film completly killed the what he was trying to convey to people.
Thanks for providing a factual backup for what I wanted to point out.
Some works of art or (more importantly) fact should not be edited. If someone wants to watch, for instance, Schindlers Listhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/ or Gallipollihttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082432/, they should damn well not have it sanitised for them. If they do then they will not learn the lessons that the writer/directors are intending for the audience to see. Dying horribly in a war cannot be 'cleaned up' for the audience. I mention these two films because they wer shown to me at school as part of our History Lessons, when I was around 15 I think. The school did not cut anything out, because to do so would have been tantamount to editing history. Some lessons are harsh and can shock and upset, but if that happens then the viewer has simply paid a worthwhile cost for understanding some of the most important events in our history.
However I should point out, I not sure I have so much of a problem with people cutting out the swearing in something like The Terminator. Here in the UK films such as action films shown on terrestrial TV are often dubbed. It spoils them, but doesn't neccesarily make the film unenjoyable and you cannot claim to me that hearing Bruce Willis in Die Hard saying "Yippie Kai-Aie" instead of "Bastard", destroys the directors vision, even if it is obviously edited.
why do we punish? Is it to discourage crime? Is it to exact revenge or justice?
Can I add a third (albeit utopian) answer? IMHO the main issue of punishment is to prevent someone from commiting an act again.
Be it either by removing them from society (if they are very dangerous and probably mentally unstable), by showing someone that their actions have consequences that are far worse than the act they perform or by teaching someone that there are better alternatives than the act they performed. People often wonder why we give so much (some say 'are soft') to inmates, especially young offenders but really if you are convicted of a minor crime you cant be locked away for life so when you are in prision or on parole the most important thing is that society builds the individual. By teaching vocational skills, by guilt, however the lesson is learned the key is that when the person goes back onto the street, this time he/she should be less likely to commit the crime. Adults are rarely more mature than children and the reason you "mete out justice" is not (I hope) some sort of sadistic attempt to get revenge but to teach your pupils that they shouldn't repeat whatever they did. I guess in life everything should have a cost - buy a CD, pay for it; steal a CD, hopefully you will still have to pay for it but the latter method of payment is worse and the lesson is that you pay for it in the first place.
As an Englishman I must point out that I hate taking sides in the 'Northern Ireland issue' as I have never visited and dont consider it directly 'my business', it always infuriates me that people only think that either the IRA or the Unionists are the 'bad guys' when both are obviously doing the Tango. While you rightly point out that 'Rev' Paisley and others are just as culpable of being patrons of terror as Republicans, as the article is about US money transfers to terrorists then the gp is right to only mention the IRA as I cant imagine the UVF getting a great deal of funding from Boston.
Even using a "duck" definition the number of Israeli terrorists is almost certainly longer than just Dr Goldstein. However Israeli "settlers" shooting unarmed Palestinians dosn't appear to get much coverage in the Western (Mainstream) media.
Not only that, but as I am reading this stroy I have noticed that on this list of terrorist events - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_inc idents#1980s the 17th October 2001 assasination of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is in the list but the far more important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitz hak_Rabin assasination of the Prime Minister of Israel by an Israeli is not. Why? They are both assasinations (murders) of Israeli ministers.
This just fuels my suspision that in the west we consider anything commited by an arab as terrorism but something commited by someone of another group as simply a criminal matter and this has allowed us to just become prejudiced about the mindset of Islam.
it [an internet stream] isn't forcing itself upon anyone
Neither is a television broadcast, one still has to purchase the correct equipment, tune the television to that channel (in order to receive it) and then still choose to watch that particular channel. IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.
Dont forget that Big Brother is a television show that is *also* broadcast on the net. The network felt that they could not show this on TV in the middle of the night, so why should should they feel the net is somehow different.
Dont get me wrong I disagree with the censorship, they should have been allowed (or felt that they were allowed) to show the event on both forms of media. I just dont see that the net should be treated any differently. Lets not forget that online journalists should get the same protection as other journalists.
Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight.
Yeah, OK perhaps I am going over the top, I wont push this any further.
The incident would have been illegal if it had been shown on traditional media and as it happened and was broadcast within Austrialia to Austrailians, why is it unfair for the Prime Minister to call for the broadcasting laws and restrictions to extend from older types of media (the television) to newer forms (such as internet streaming). In his view any media law that does not include the internet is just out of date and IMHO that is a reasonable position to take. Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is streamed free to the public, but I would assume that it is, so I would imagine that the 'protect the children' (kneejerk) principle actually has some weight for once. If the stream was to registered adults (paying customers) then it would be different.
You can't, or at least shouldn't be able to, patent nature
I wholeheartedly agree, unfortunately there are others who have and are attempting to patent our DNA, I have lost track of this one, so perhaps someone can bring me up to speed. Personally I can't see how it is acceptable (the discoverer of the Coelacanth cant patent the fish, so why should the disocverer of parts of the genome).
And anyway my cells like to copy themseves every now and then and I can't afford that many piracy lawsuits.
They didn't drop the ball, they tried something stupid and got caught. Fess up
Well really they DID drop the ball, not that they were doing something wrong (that is 'having the ball') but in that they were found out.
The analogy reminds me of the Jo Moore scandal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore she attempted to 'bury bad news' behind coverage of the WTC bombings. As she was a PR person many pragmatic observers pointed that what she had done badly was not to have attempted to do this but that she was caught doing it.
The 'ball' is something bad, 'dropping the ball' is the unwanted exposure of the ball. And it seems that Cullen is being so honest here that not many people have have noticed how honest.
"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?"
From RFTA - the apparent translation is
"The other day I just got an email that was sent by my staff a number of days before"
Judging by the almost complete lack of any real grasp of the English language or how the internet works, could it be that his email was delayed by the fact that he had no idea what the internet was until one of his staff had asked why he hadn't replyed to his emails?
Let me see if I understand this correctly: a 19-year-old claimed to be only 18 on his myspace profile, and this is worth $30 million?
In Hollywood claiming a lower age can be worth much more!
But seriously this means she is suing the site because a person she met wasn't 100% truthful, he was still claiming an age over the age of consent. It is no different than someone who is 30 saying they are 29.
The sad thing is that this story displays some of the worst facets of modern Western human nature - - Lying on the internet to rape a minor - Someone suing someone else, because they think money equates to justice. - Someone blaming someone else for having to learn an embarrasing about real life.
There's a big bad world out there, you can't expect everyone to protect you from it forever.
OK, so I misunderstood the kind of 'telecoms' work they were engaging in (would you believe I actually RTFA). But can someone answer the question from the GP, will this just reduce competion, ultimately for the customer?
As no one else seems to have pointed out the obvious answer, I will - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/ (Check out the first entry in the trivia section). Although I was under the impression that the film used in movies is still of a far higher quality than 1080i (a trip to a cinema should confirm that). So the key is how well the digital recording (is it called 'mastering') is done.
That's the last thing any of the employees want to hear. For us consumers does this mean the usual reduction in R&D competition. I am not a big phone nut, but I do want to see the technology push forward.
Exactly, you dont need hygiene products in the same way that (if you live in a tropical environment) you dont need clothes. But (and I am going to go out on a limb that you dont look good naked) everyone else thinks otherwise. Because, and Jerry Seinfeld puts it best -
Slashdot Mirror
My gut feeling is that it doesn't matter what professionals think, if their employers only know M$ then that is what the employees will have to work with.
My employers are rolling out a huge infrastructure program that includes better security, obviously one of the most important tools will be the browser and they have chosen IE, I dont think they even considered any alternatives.
Unfortunately, for some of my friends it doesn't seem to work the other way around, when you want to stop your mobile contract because the phoneco isn't holding up their end of the deal, you either have to pay the rest of the contract (several months) or you have to get the bank to stop the Direct Debit (which the banks do not like doing) and ignore the bills that come through from the Phoneco.
My rather verbose point is that the contracts in the we sign in the UK, dont require the provider to really provide much service.
PS. Oh, and dont buy phones on 3mobile.
Although they still attract VAT dont they?
Some works of art or (more importantly) fact should not be edited. If someone wants to watch, for instance, Schindlers List http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/ or Gallipolli http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082432/, they should damn well not have it sanitised for them. If they do then they will not learn the lessons that the writer/directors are intending for the audience to see. Dying horribly in a war cannot be 'cleaned up' for the audience. I mention these two films because they wer shown to me at school as part of our History Lessons, when I was around 15 I think. The school did not cut anything out, because to do so would have been tantamount to editing history. Some lessons are harsh and can shock and upset, but if that happens then the viewer has simply paid a worthwhile cost for understanding some of the most important events in our history.
However I should point out, I not sure I have so much of a problem with people cutting out the swearing in something like The Terminator. Here in the UK films such as action films shown on terrestrial TV are often dubbed. It spoils them, but doesn't neccesarily make the film unenjoyable and you cannot claim to me that hearing Bruce Willis in Die Hard saying "Yippie Kai-Aie" instead of "Bastard", destroys the directors vision, even if it is obviously edited.
IMHO the main issue of punishment is to prevent someone from commiting an act again.
Be it either by removing them from society (if they are very dangerous and probably mentally unstable), by showing someone that their actions have consequences that are far worse than the act they perform or by teaching someone that there are better alternatives than the act they performed.
People often wonder why we give so much (some say 'are soft') to inmates, especially young offenders but really if you are convicted of a minor crime you cant be locked away for life so when you are in prision or on parole the most important thing is that society builds the individual. By teaching vocational skills, by guilt, however the lesson is learned the key is that when the person goes back onto the street, this time he/she should be less likely to commit the crime.
Adults are rarely more mature than children and the reason you "mete out justice" is not (I hope) some sort of sadistic attempt to get revenge but to teach your pupils that they shouldn't repeat whatever they did.
I guess in life everything should have a cost - buy a CD, pay for it; steal a CD, hopefully you will still have to pay for it but the latter method of payment is worse and the lesson is that you pay for it in the first place.
As an Englishman I must point out that I hate taking sides in the 'Northern Ireland issue' as I have never visited and dont consider it directly 'my business', it always infuriates me that people only think that either the IRA or the Unionists are the 'bad guys' when both are obviously doing the Tango.
While you rightly point out that 'Rev' Paisley and others are just as culpable of being patrons of terror as Republicans, as the article is about US money transfers to terrorists then the gp is right to only mention the IRA as I cant imagine the UVF getting a great deal of funding from Boston.
This just fuels my suspision that in the west we consider anything commited by an arab as terrorism but something commited by someone of another group as simply a criminal matter and this has allowed us to just become prejudiced about the mindset of Islam.
Dont forget that Big Brother is a television show that is *also* broadcast on the net. The network felt that they could not show this on TV in the middle of the night, so why should should they feel the net is somehow different.
Dont get me wrong I disagree with the censorship, they should have been allowed (or felt that they were allowed) to show the event on both forms of media. I just dont see that the net should be treated any differently. Lets not forget that online journalists should get the same protection as other journalists.
Yeah, OK perhaps I am going over the top, I wont push this any further.
The incident would have been illegal if it had been shown on traditional media and as it happened and was broadcast within Austrialia to Austrailians, why is it unfair for the Prime Minister to call for the broadcasting laws and restrictions to extend from older types of media (the television) to newer forms (such as internet streaming). In his view any media law that does not include the internet is just out of date and IMHO that is a reasonable position to take.
Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is streamed free to the public, but I would assume that it is, so I would imagine that the 'protect the children' (kneejerk) principle actually has some weight for once. If the stream was to registered adults (paying customers) then it would be different.
Personally I can't see how it is acceptable (the discoverer of the Coelacanth cant patent the fish, so why should the disocverer of parts of the genome).
And anyway my cells like to copy themseves every now and then and I can't afford that many piracy lawsuits.
Fair point, I hang my head in shame.
I should remember to be careful when attacking the grammar and spelling of others, because Sod's Law likes nothing better than irony.
The analogy reminds me of the Jo Moore scandal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
she attempted to 'bury bad news' behind coverage of the WTC bombings. As she was a PR person many pragmatic observers pointed that what she had done badly was not to have attempted to do this but that she was caught doing it.
The 'ball' is something bad, 'dropping the ball' is the unwanted exposure of the ball. And it seems that Cullen is being so honest here that not many people have have noticed how honest.
I guess their focus is just very wide
Judging by the almost complete lack of any real grasp of the English language or how the internet works, could it be that his email was delayed by the fact that he had no idea what the internet was until one of his staff had asked why he hadn't replyed to his emails?
But seriously this means she is suing the site because a person she met wasn't 100% truthful, he was still claiming an age over the age of consent. It is no different than someone who is 30 saying they are 29.
The sad thing is that this story displays some of the worst facets of modern Western human nature -
- Lying on the internet to rape a minor
- Someone suing someone else, because they think money equates to justice.
- Someone blaming someone else for having to learn an embarrasing about real life.
There's a big bad world out there, you can't expect everyone to protect you from it forever.
Well for us - National security - the opposite of personal privacy in that whenever the nation is in 'danger' it gets protected more not less.
OK, so I misunderstood the kind of 'telecoms' work they were engaging in (would you believe I actually RTFA). But can someone answer the question from the GP, will this just reduce competion, ultimately for the customer?
As no one else seems to have pointed out the obvious answer, I will - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114709/ (Check out the first entry in the trivia section).
Although I was under the impression that the film used in movies is still of a far higher quality than 1080i (a trip to a cinema should confirm that). So the key is how well the digital recording (is it called 'mastering') is done.
That's the last thing any of the employees want to hear.
For us consumers does this mean the usual reduction in R&D competition. I am not a big phone nut, but I do want to see the technology push forward.
"If robots can feel pain - we must be terrible, terrible people"
Because, and Jerry Seinfeld puts it best -