What the hell are you talking about? What terminations and EMI?? The cable connects the hard disk to the hard disk controller, it either does successfuly (like any $1 sata cable that is not broken) or does not (the broken cable), and from then on the audio data has to go get processed/decoded/whatever and at some point passed on the the Digital to Analog converter. ONLY FROM THEN ON does quality of electronics/cables etc matter. There are some things that are simple as 1-2-3 that you can certainly write off.
Not quite. Have you considered the possibility that moving data through the sata cable creates an electromagnetic field that might interfere with a nearby analog component? I didn't think so.
No one is disputing that the data going through the cable will not be affected by installing a 'premium' cable. If the cheap cable wasn't actually broken, it will get the same data as the premium cable. But differences in the cable shielding, construction, and routing may well impact interference it CAUSES in other nearby components... including components which might be on the other side of the DA converter.
This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
Unfortunately, this isn't the whole picture.
Its pretty much certain that the data passed by the cable is identical. But its not certain that that the electromagnetic field created by pushing the signal through the cable is not interfering with a nearby analog component, introducing noise or hum. A better shielded digital cable might well actually make a noticeable impact.
For example, I used to work on a computer that where I could hear a low level buzz from the speakers when the hard drive was working. Maybe a shielded cable would have made a difference... or repositioning the hard drive relative to the other components. Or maybe it was grounding issue or something... I didn't investigate it; it wasn't my computer.
I can't dig up the acceptable use policy, but basically students were prohibited from changing *anything* about the laptop. They weren't allowed to install software, or tamper with the hardware in anyway.
I shouldn't have worded it so that one would beleive there was a specific rule against tampering with the camera operation; it was only a generic prohibition on tampering with anything. But I had heard that they weren't allowed to, for example, draw on them or attach stickers to them in general... never mind to cover the camera.
I expect they would have gotten away with a post it note or a folded piece of paper (as another poster suggested) as those are "non-permanent". But duct tape over the camera (or even anywhere else on it) would certainly have been a 'violation' of the AUP.
It's not like users will abandon something they need if they have to download a free, vastly superior browser to use that.
a) It's not like most users will download a free alternate browser just to use something they found on the web. b) Most corporate users can't even if they wanted to.
Oh no! Duct tape, electrical tape or pink duct tape on the built in webcam! Problem solved!
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."
Its perhaps ironic that the only credible threats to the constitution reside near the top of the chain of command. Terrorists have never threatened our constitution. A succession of American senators, congressmen, and presidents have done all the damage.
"So he disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why shouldn't his ass be sitting in a cell?"
We were early adopters and went beta. I remember actually buying used movies, including porn because it was quite a LOT cheaper to pick up former rentals in the clearance bins than blank beta tapes.
We took it home, watched it once (maybe), peeled off the label, threw away the box, marked it read/write, and then overwrote it with recorded broadcast movies movies, TV shows, and whatever, else until it wore out and then threw it away...
Ok... I'm fairly ambivalent to whether such ignition locks are a good idea or not, but this part strikes me as odd:
"The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit."
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
By that logic, the US should cease to be democratic republic and return to being a monarchy, because democracy clearly has some flaws. Reform the system; don't scrap it.
Not at all. There would be several identifiable downsides to that.
My arguments -do- address your points. The existing system affords the 'small inventor' you exemplified the same effective protection that no patent system at all does. So if we're hanging onto patents to protect small inventors then yes we might as well scrap the whole thing as a waste of time.
Reform the system; don't scrap it.
Suggestions that would actually work would be welcome. Its easy to say 'reform it'.
Personally, I think that if they can't follow through on their promise, they should be obligated to refund the purchase price of the product, but I realize this kind of common courtesy is none too common these days.
And how is a company that is bankrupt supposed to do that? Perhaps you don't understand what it means to declare bankruptcy?
In simple terms it means you owe people more money than you can pay back, and all the money you have is divided up amongst the people you owe money too, and this division is overseen by people whose job it is to see that certain classes creditors are paid back before the next class.
There is absolutely no chance they would even be ALLOWED to start sending refund checks to people who they don't legally owe money too, as 'courtersy'. They'd have to pay back all their registered creditors back in full, first. And if they could do that, they probably wouldn't be bankrupt.
No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.
Just an excerpt...
"From 1994 to 1997 the United States was well-disposed toward the Taliban. In October 1994 US Ambassador to Pakistan John C. Monjo, accompanied by Pakistan's interior minister, visited Taliban-controlled Kandahar without informing the official Afghan government, led at the time by Burhanuddin Rabbani. In September, 1996 American Undersecretary of State for Southern Asia Robin Rafel called the Taliban conquest of Kabul a "positive step." To be sure, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemned the Taliban's policy toward women in November 1997, but no sanctions were threatened. Washington obviously accepted a power that appeared to guarantee stability by taking up the tradition of a state founded on Pashtun tribes. The embassy of the anti-Taliban government in Washington was closed in 1998."...
"The pressure that the Americans brought to bear on the Taliban after 1998 was obviously intended not to topple the regime, but to have it break with bin Laden. The sanctions against the Taliban that the Americans proposed in the United Nations Security Council in December 2000 had one objective alone: bin Laden's expulsion. They made no mention whatever of the Taliban's policies. The implicit deal on offer was a trade of bin Laden's extradition or simple departure from the country in exchange for acquiescence in the Taliban's policies in Afghanistan and the tacit promise of international recognition to satisfy the Taliban and their Pakistani backers."
Do you actually comprehend what sort of people the Taliban are, and what they do to people who, for example, teach their daughters to read?
They are certainly no worse than serial killers in America. When was the last time police justified killing innocent American's in order to reach a serial killer by saying "Do you actually comprehend what sort of person he is. What he does to people? Sure I got a bunch of innocent children killed... but you don't understand... he was really bad."
You've never heard the police say that because it goes against everything we stand for. It ridiculous on its face. Yet if those innocent people aren't American's its somehow different? Who's moral compass is broken?
Oh wait... we're at "war" with them, right. And that makes it right how?
Are we at war with them because they are bad people who treat there daughters poorly and violate what we feel are their essential human rights? Of course not, we were even happy to SUPPORT them and PROVIDE THEM WEAPONS AND MONEY when they were serving our political interests... they weren't "nicer" back then, and they haven't really changed at all.
There is plenty of brutality in the world... Darfur springs to mind. Are we doing much about the genocide there? Hmm... nope. Genocide is bad too, right? I'd say it's even worse than medieval thinking about the education of women and outdated policies on beard length. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that we are in afghanistan because the taliban are 'bad people'. The world is full of bad people. Yet we are in afghanistan while we write 'stern letters' to groups who are much worse.
If we were in Afghanistan to make it a better place, you might have leg to stand on. But we're not, and we're not going to make the world safer as a whole by invading other countries. Even if you WIN more innocent people have died due to the invasion than you would ever have saved by invading.
So far 15,000 to 30,000 *innocent civilians* have died in Afghanistan as a result of the war we are waging in Afghanistan. According to multiple sources we are actually killing more civilians than the Taliban are.
Good thing we are there making things better. Although I'm not sure exactly how killing innocent people more effectively than the 'bad people' makes us the 'good people'. Maybe we should stop.
I am sure the informants thought they were providing the information anonymously.
The information the informants provided us also led to lost innocent lives. Are they despicable traitors with no common sense too?
Funny how Assange is a despicable traitor "journalist" who gets compared with a Nazi.
But you probably view the informants themselves as heroes yet they are no different. Think about that for a second. Informant: by definition they are people embedded within within a group, informing that groups ENEMY information about the group.
Suppose it were an american telling the taliban information -- he would be an 'informant' too. If a person leaked documents with his name... what exactly would you say about THAT?
Remember that the information our informants provide us runs do lead to innocent people getting killed too. They give us names and addresses and the locations people will be... and we drop a bomb... and maybe we hit the guy we're looking for. Maybe we kill some innocent children near by too... or maybe the information was bad and we bombed a factory making bed sheets killing a bunch of innocent people.
The client is free, but when you download it, you agree (license agreement) to only use it to connect to official Blizzard servers. So there is no "I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with it".
It wasn't free when I bought it.
Besides, if the CLIENT is violating the EULA then your issue is with the CLIENT. At most you can sue people who use private servers for violating your EULA. What exactly have you got on the people who run them?
It does not matter if the server code is not exactly the same, if a player can just download the free client which is intended for the official servers, point it to a private server and then play WoW without paying Blizzard, that's just wrong.
Amen brother! My cell phone was free so it would be totally wrong for me to EVER use it on a different network right?
Oh wait... my cell phone provider covered their ass pretty intelligently... to get the phone for free I have to sign a 3 year contract. I can unlock my phone and point it at another network if I want but then I have to either keep paying for my contract, or buy it out... or wait to expire. However it goes down my cellular provider gets the phone paid for.
Maybe blizzard should have a business model that actually makes sense. Give the client away with a 1 year subscription. Then if the client points it at another network 2 days later, who gives a shit?
"Thanks for creating WoW, Blizzard, but we'll play it for free - by the way, when will you give us the next expansion?"
"give"? I had to pay for the expansions over and above my subscription, as they came out, or I didn't get to play them.
Here's the current reality: suppose you own a small business that has created a remarkable new widget which you patent. people like your widget, and you are happy to sell them widgets for a small profit. However, a very large company reverse engineers your widget, patents it in 47 other countries, and and starts to sell it for less in those 47 countries. Then they start selling it in your country too. Suddenly, you can't make any money any longer. The end.
Alternate extended ending: You contact your lawyer and sue the large company for patent infringement. They immediately counter sue you for patent infringement, and offer to cross license. You realize that settling will still have them under cutting you, while pursuing a patent lawsuit against them will take years and cost millions. Even if you eventually win, you won't likely make any money. The end.
Scooby-doo ending: While you are fighting the patent lawsuit, a volunteer organization donates money and time to invalidate the ridiculous patents being filed against you, pulling the rug out from the large-company. Several years later they finally come around and write you a licensing check that just covers your legal expenses. The cheque memo says "I wouldn't have had to write this cheque if it weren't for those meddling kids.". In the meantime, a new widget has come out making yours obsolete, and you can't make any money any longer.
They are the most singularly unhelpful and woefully incomplete design documents ever created.
They should be generated from the design, not the other way around.
Wow. No. Use cases are the single most important design document in a system. They outline a task that the user wants to accomplish, and software that isn't designed around them is always a PITA to use.
Here's an real world example I'm dealing with right now, anonymized somewhat.
We manufacture widgets to client specifications. The specifications include selecting parameters within a set range. However a set of 'easy' parameters is SKU X with one set of pricing, while if they spec outside those easy parameters within a more difficult set, its SKU Y, with a different pricing and warranty.
This is fine.
However the software was designed around the client calling up, identifying the product they want, and then listing the specs. The screens are set up in such a way that you look up the customer, create, and order, add the product, and then fill out the specs.
So far so good.
Unfortunately the people communicating orders to us don't differentiate between X and Y. They just want a 'widget' and then give us parameters. So our order entry people have to essentially take note of the parameters they want, determine which sku it is, and then enter the sku and then enter the parameters.
This is because the designer failed to understand the use-case for playing an order for these widgets.
Were are looking to rectify the system by creating a product 'families' which contain the same parameter inputs. This will allow the order entry person to select the product family (which the customer knows), enter in the parameters - which they know, and the software will determine the final SKU to use at the end, based on the parameters that were entered.
This is a design that follows a use-case. We are modelling the systems behavioral requirements by detailing the actual scenario under which it gets used; in this case the particular order information is 'naturally' passed from client to order entry.
Discounting use-cases results in software that doesn't work in a way that is convenient for the user. It may be more convenient for the developer.
Getting good use cases is difficult, and its frequently done VERY POORLY. Where they often model poor processes that were being done with 'the previous system' or 'by hand'. But use cases that model what actually needs to be accomplished, and reflect the flow of information proplerly, results in elegant and easy to use systems.
Can you provide an example where an unregulated company that provided poor service suddenly improved dramatically in quality and/or price as a result of increased regulation?
They are literally flying at night? Then either they must be some kind of human-bird hybrid, or the airfares would seriously eat into their profits.
They are literally fly-by-night in that they literally flee and escape into the night when authorities come. This differs from the metaphorical fly-by-night meaning simply disreputable or untrustworthy, which is a likeness to those businesses that are so unreliable that they literally flee into the night,... as these guys do.
On a related note, my dictionary includes: "to flee or escape" as a definition of "fly". So even if you want to break down the fly-by-night idiom into its component parts, to flee is still a literal interpretation of fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Except according to TFA, his music is on a NAS, about a hundred feet away from his computer.
Ok...I hate responding to AC's but you are right he did say it was a NAS.
His so-called NAS is actually a custom built atom based PC running Windows XP media centre. (dig around on his site for articles about his NAS)
For all we know his "NAS" is his "computer", and its unspecified how he has it hooked up to his stereo, or at what distance.
What the hell are you talking about? What terminations and EMI?? The cable connects the hard disk to the hard disk controller, it either does successfuly (like any $1 sata cable that is not broken) or does not (the broken cable), and from then on the audio data has to go get processed/decoded/whatever and at some point passed on the the Digital to Analog converter. ONLY FROM THEN ON does quality of electronics/cables etc matter.
There are some things that are simple as 1-2-3 that you can certainly write off.
Not quite. Have you considered the possibility that moving data through the sata cable creates an electromagnetic field that might interfere with a nearby analog component? I didn't think so.
No one is disputing that the data going through the cable will not be affected by installing a 'premium' cable. If the cheap cable wasn't actually broken, it will get the same data as the premium cable. But differences in the cable shielding, construction, and routing may well impact interference it CAUSES in other nearby components... including components which might be on the other side of the DA converter.
This doesn't require double-blind tests, or really any tests of any type, because you just have to show that the same data makes it out the other end with either cable, which is trivial to do.
Unfortunately, this isn't the whole picture.
Its pretty much certain that the data passed by the cable is identical. But its not certain that that the electromagnetic field created by pushing the signal through the cable is not interfering with a nearby analog component, introducing noise or hum. A better shielded digital cable might well actually make a noticeable impact.
For example, I used to work on a computer that where I could hear a low level buzz from the speakers when the hard drive was working. Maybe a shielded cable would have made a difference... or repositioning the hard drive relative to the other components. Or maybe it was grounding issue or something... I didn't investigate it; it wasn't my computer.
Meh...
http://www.amazon.com/AudioQuest-K2-terminated-speaker-cable/dp/B000J36XR2/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
And the reviews are just as good. ;)
"Global Rainmakers Inc."
What we need in response is clearly:
"Umbrella Corporation"
What could possibly go wrong? ;)
That's 1 cut above "given money, trees and an infinite universe, somewhere money does grown on trees"
No because life does exist here. Money doesn't grow on trees.
If money did grow on trees here, then given money, trees, and an infinite universe, its probable that money grows on trees somewhere else too.
I can't dig up the acceptable use policy, but basically students were prohibited from changing *anything* about the laptop. They weren't allowed to install software, or tamper with the hardware in anyway.
I shouldn't have worded it so that one would beleive there was a specific rule against tampering with the camera operation; it was only a generic prohibition on tampering with anything. But I had heard that they weren't allowed to, for example, draw on them or attach stickers to them in general... never mind to cover the camera.
I expect they would have gotten away with a post it note or a folded piece of paper (as another poster suggested) as those are "non-permanent". But duct tape over the camera (or even anywhere else on it) would certainly have been a 'violation' of the AUP.
It's not like users will abandon something they need if they have to download a free, vastly superior browser to use that.
a) It's not like most users will download a free alternate browser just to use something they found on the web.
b) Most corporate users can't even if they wanted to.
Oh no! Duct tape, electrical tape or pink duct tape on the built in webcam! Problem solved!
If you had been following the case you would know that students were expressly forbidden to put tape over the camera. They would have been punished had they done it.
"Easy. Mount an nfs share from another box. Bam, more storage space."
If I already have another box running, why do I need this walwart PC again then?
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."
Its perhaps ironic that the only credible threats to the constitution reside near the top of the chain of command. Terrorists have never threatened our constitution. A succession of American senators, congressmen, and presidents have done all the damage.
"So he disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why shouldn't his ass be sitting in a cell?"
No good deed goes unpunished.
We were early adopters and went beta. I remember actually buying used movies, including porn because it was quite a LOT cheaper to pick up former rentals in the clearance bins than blank beta tapes.
We took it home, watched it once (maybe), peeled off the label, threw away the box, marked it read/write, and then overwrote it with recorded broadcast movies movies, TV shows, and whatever, else until it wore out and then threw it away...
Ok... I'm fairly ambivalent to whether such ignition locks are a good idea or not, but this part strikes me as odd:
"The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit."
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
By that logic, the US should cease to be democratic republic and return to being a monarchy, because democracy clearly has some flaws. Reform the system; don't scrap it.
Not at all. There would be several identifiable downsides to that.
My arguments -do- address your points. The existing system affords the 'small inventor' you exemplified the same effective protection that no patent system at all does. So if we're hanging onto patents to protect small inventors then yes we might as well scrap the whole thing as a waste of time.
Reform the system; don't scrap it.
Suggestions that would actually work would be welcome. Its easy to say 'reform it'.
Personally, I think that if they can't follow through on their promise, they should be obligated to refund the purchase price of the product, but I realize this kind of common courtesy is none too common these days.
And how is a company that is bankrupt supposed to do that? Perhaps you don't understand what it means to declare bankruptcy?
In simple terms it means you owe people more money than you can pay back, and all the money you have is divided up amongst the people you owe money too, and this division is overseen by people whose job it is to see that certain classes creditors are paid back before the next class.
There is absolutely no chance they would even be ALLOWED to start sending refund checks to people who they don't legally owe money too, as 'courtersy'. They'd have to pay back all their registered creditors back in full, first. And if they could do that, they probably wouldn't be bankrupt.
No, we didn't support the Taliban outside of humanitarian aid and a few million dollar to get them to stop producing drugs. It's not like we ever endorsed them or anything which is what it appears that you are attempting to make out.
Just an excerpt...
"From 1994 to 1997 the United States was well-disposed toward the Taliban. In October 1994 US Ambassador to Pakistan John C. Monjo, accompanied by Pakistan's interior minister, visited Taliban-controlled Kandahar without informing the official Afghan government, led at the time by Burhanuddin Rabbani. In September, 1996 American Undersecretary of State for Southern Asia Robin Rafel called the Taliban conquest of Kabul a "positive step." To be sure, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemned the Taliban's policy toward women in November 1997, but no sanctions were threatened. Washington obviously accepted a power that appeared to guarantee stability by taking up the tradition of a state founded on Pashtun tribes. The embassy of the anti-Taliban government in Washington was closed in 1998." ...
"The pressure that the Americans brought to bear on the Taliban after 1998 was obviously intended not to topple the regime, but to have it break with bin Laden. The sanctions against the Taliban that the Americans proposed in the United Nations Security Council in December 2000 had one objective alone: bin Laden's expulsion. They made no mention whatever of the Taliban's policies. The implicit deal on offer was a trade of bin Laden's extradition or simple departure from the country in exchange for acquiescence in the Taliban's policies in Afghanistan and the tacit promise of international recognition to satisfy the Taliban and their Pakistani backers."
http://www.ip-global.org/archiv/volumes/2002/spring2002/early-american-support-for-the-taliban.html
That all sounds like an 'endorsement' to me.
Do you actually comprehend what sort of people the Taliban are, and what they do to people who, for example, teach their daughters to read?
They are certainly no worse than serial killers in America. When was the last time police justified killing innocent American's in order to reach a serial killer by saying "Do you actually comprehend what sort of person he is. What he does to people? Sure I got a bunch of innocent children killed... but you don't understand... he was really bad."
You've never heard the police say that because it goes against everything we stand for. It ridiculous on its face. Yet if those innocent people aren't American's its somehow different? Who's moral compass is broken?
Oh wait... we're at "war" with them, right. And that makes it right how?
Are we at war with them because they are bad people who treat there daughters poorly and violate what we feel are their essential human rights? Of course not, we were even happy to SUPPORT them and PROVIDE THEM WEAPONS AND MONEY when they were serving our political interests... they weren't "nicer" back then, and they haven't really changed at all.
There is plenty of brutality in the world... Darfur springs to mind. Are we doing much about the genocide there? Hmm... nope. Genocide is bad too, right? I'd say it's even worse than medieval thinking about the education of women and outdated policies on beard length. Only a complete idiot would seriously argue that we are in afghanistan because the taliban are 'bad people'. The world is full of bad people. Yet we are in afghanistan while we write 'stern letters' to groups who are much worse.
If we were in Afghanistan to make it a better place, you might have leg to stand on. But we're not, and we're not going to make the world safer as a whole by invading other countries. Even if you WIN more innocent people have died due to the invasion than you would ever have saved by invading.
So far 15,000 to 30,000 *innocent civilians* have died in Afghanistan as a result of the war we are waging in Afghanistan. According to multiple sources we are actually killing more civilians than the Taliban are.
Good thing we are there making things better. Although I'm not sure exactly how killing innocent people more effectively than the 'bad people' makes us the 'good people'. Maybe we should stop.
I am sure the informants thought they were providing the information anonymously.
The information the informants provided us also led to lost innocent lives. Are they despicable traitors with no common sense too?
Funny how Assange is a despicable traitor "journalist" who gets compared with a Nazi.
But you probably view the informants themselves as heroes yet they are no different. Think about that for a second. Informant: by definition they are people embedded within within a group, informing that groups ENEMY information about the group.
Suppose it were an american telling the taliban information -- he would be an 'informant' too. If a person leaked documents with his name... what exactly would you say about THAT?
Remember that the information our informants provide us runs do lead to innocent people getting killed too. They give us names and addresses and the locations people will be... and we drop a bomb... and maybe we hit the guy we're looking for. Maybe we kill some innocent children near by too... or maybe the information was bad and we bombed a factory making bed sheets killing a bunch of innocent people.
The client is free, but when you download it, you agree (license agreement) to only use it to connect to official Blizzard servers. So there is no "I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with it".
It wasn't free when I bought it.
Besides, if the CLIENT is violating the EULA then your issue is with the CLIENT. At most you can sue people who use private servers for violating your EULA. What exactly have you got on the people who run them?
It does not matter if the server code is not exactly the same, if a player can just download the free client which is intended for the official servers, point it to a private server and then play WoW without paying Blizzard, that's just wrong.
Amen brother! My cell phone was free so it would be totally wrong for me to EVER use it on a different network right?
Oh wait... my cell phone provider covered their ass pretty intelligently... to get the phone for free I have to sign a 3 year contract. I can unlock my phone and point it at another network if I want but then I have to either keep paying for my contract, or buy it out... or wait to expire. However it goes down my cellular provider gets the phone paid for.
Maybe blizzard should have a business model that actually makes sense. Give the client away with a 1 year subscription. Then if the client points it at another network 2 days later, who gives a shit?
"Thanks for creating WoW, Blizzard, but we'll play it for free - by the way, when will you give us the next expansion?"
"give"? I had to pay for the expansions over and above my subscription, as they came out, or I didn't get to play them.
Here's the current reality: suppose you own a small business that has created a remarkable new widget which you patent. people like your widget, and you are happy to sell them widgets for a small profit. However, a very large company reverse engineers your widget, patents it in 47 other countries, and and starts to sell it for less in those 47 countries. Then they start selling it in your country too. Suddenly, you can't make any money any longer. The end.
Alternate extended ending: You contact your lawyer and sue the large company for patent infringement. They immediately counter sue you for patent infringement, and offer to cross license. You realize that settling will still have them under cutting you, while pursuing a patent lawsuit against them will take years and cost millions. Even if you eventually win, you won't likely make any money. The end.
Scooby-doo ending: While you are fighting the patent lawsuit, a volunteer organization donates money and time to invalidate the ridiculous patents being filed against you, pulling the rug out from the large-company. Several years later they finally come around and write you a licensing check that just covers your legal expenses. The cheque memo says "I wouldn't have had to write this cheque if it weren't for those meddling kids.". In the meantime, a new widget has come out making yours obsolete, and you can't make any money any longer.
They are the most singularly unhelpful and woefully incomplete design documents ever created.
They should be generated from the design, not the other way around.
Wow. No. Use cases are the single most important design document in a system. They outline a task that the user wants to accomplish, and software that isn't designed around them is always a PITA to use.
Here's an real world example I'm dealing with right now, anonymized somewhat.
We manufacture widgets to client specifications. The specifications include selecting parameters within a set range. However a set of 'easy' parameters is SKU X with one set of pricing, while if they spec outside those easy parameters within a more difficult set, its SKU Y, with a different pricing and warranty.
This is fine.
However the software was designed around the client calling up, identifying the product they want, and then listing the specs. The screens are set up in such a way that you look up the customer, create, and order, add the product, and then fill out the specs.
So far so good.
Unfortunately the people communicating orders to us don't differentiate between X and Y. They just want a 'widget' and then give us parameters. So our order entry people have to essentially take note of the parameters they want, determine which sku it is, and then enter the sku and then enter the parameters.
This is because the designer failed to understand the use-case for playing an order for these widgets.
Were are looking to rectify the system by creating a product 'families' which contain the same parameter inputs. This will allow the order entry person to select the product family (which the customer knows), enter in the parameters - which they know, and the software will determine the final SKU to use at the end, based on the parameters that were entered.
This is a design that follows a use-case. We are modelling the systems behavioral requirements by detailing the actual scenario under which it gets used; in this case the particular order information is 'naturally' passed from client to order entry.
Discounting use-cases results in software that doesn't work in a way that is convenient for the user. It may be more convenient for the developer.
Getting good use cases is difficult, and its frequently done VERY POORLY. Where they often model poor processes that were being done with 'the previous system' or 'by hand'. But use cases that model what actually needs to be accomplished, and reflect the flow of information proplerly, results in elegant and easy to use systems.
I've read the book for both and both were better with just the story to carry them.
I hold literal interpretations to a much higher standard than secondary definitions.
lmao. I'd give you +funny for that if I could. :p
Can you provide an example where an unregulated company that provided poor service suddenly improved dramatically in quality and/or price as a result of increased regulation?
ATT
They are literally flying at night? Then either they must be some kind of human-bird hybrid, or the airfares would seriously eat into their profits.
They are literally fly-by-night in that they literally flee and escape into the night when authorities come. This differs from the metaphorical fly-by-night meaning simply disreputable or untrustworthy, which is a likeness to those businesses that are so unreliable that they literally flee into the night,... as these guys do.
On a related note, my dictionary includes: "to flee or escape" as a definition of "fly". So even if you want to break down the fly-by-night idiom into its component parts, to flee is still a literal interpretation of fly.