The original firm should have to contact all the customers who's DNA they have, tell them what's going on, and give them the option to either have the data destroyed, or left alone under the same privacy policy once the new company comes in.
Technically it should; terminating someone because they were doing their job (ensuring that licensing is up to date is a job of an IT guy) usually doesn't fly. However, they'll never say that was the actual reason why he was fired, and unless they actually come out and say it, its incredibly hard to prove.
He says he paid the ticket (the part where he mentioned that he mailed it in, presumably with payment. He could have mailed in a ticket envelope with rat feces in it, but I think they would have remembered the address from that). I don't know about any of you, but any ticket that I've ever mailed in, I've never gotten anything back on. So once he sent payment for the ticket, there really is no reason to believe that something was wrong.
The FCC appears to care about the consumer a bit, as they are the ones that have recently refused to allow use of the broadcast flag and analog disabling flag.
That stuff's closed source, and you didn't ask for those. You were bitching about the kernel, and were spreading FUD about how it wasn't open. I disproved you.
Again, are you sure its intentional? If they added some additional compiler optimizations, and those optimizations generate code that the Atom can't run, then that's not really Apple's fault. They tried to make things run better for their customers, who are the ones that purchase Apple computers. Those computers would support the generated code, and they would have tested them to make sure they do.
There can be a downside for Apple. If someone decides to put OS X on underpowered hardware, then complains that it runs slowly or buggy, then someone who doesn't know much about computers might hear that, have no idea what a Hackintosh is, but know that OS X runs terribly, then those people might be put off of an Apple purchase.
Recently, there was a story about an iPhone Worm making the rounds. It got a decent amount of press, but hardly any of the stories that weren't aimed at the geek crowd mentioned that it only affects jailbroken iPhones. Now, the iPhone as Apple ships it isn't affected, but they still take damage to their reputation because of it.
If software freedom is one of your main concerns, then you probably wouldn't be using OS X (or Windows) in the first place. If that's one of your chief concerns, then you should be using and promoting Open Source software, not bitching about what other, proprietary companies do with their product.
And then their support costs triple, and their profit per unit falls. Whether after all that they still make more money overall is unknown, but they know they are making assloads of money doing what they're doing currently, so they don't see a reason to change.
It was a Commodore 64 emulator, but that's beside the point. If you look at the terms of the App Store, they specifically say that you can't make an app that runs interpreted code at runtime; everything has to be compiled. This may suck, and if you don't agree with it, then don't develop for the platform.
Yes, because had this been Dell, Gateway, or most other computer companies, they'd have given her the run around twice, and then said "Ooops, your warranty is up. Too bad."
The MacBook Air is their entry into the netbook/ultraportable market. It just doesn't seem that way because its much more expensive than any other netbook. But as been said time and again, they have no interest in getting into the netbook market, because the margins are way too small. Apple is happy, and very profitable at, selling fewer machines with higher margins. This helps them to keep their support costs lower, and profits per machine higher.
I'm fairly sure you need a Windows box to develop apps for Windows Mobile. I know you need to use Windows to develop hobbyist apps for the Xbox 360 (XNA). Are you going to bitch about their "exclusivity" too?
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
DMCA Title II. Also known as the Safe Harbor provision. States that an online service provider is not liable for infringement if they respond to takedown notices in a timely manner. If the poster issues a Response notice, the OSP can restore the post, and still qualify as a Safe Harbor until a court orders them to take it down. If the IP holder prevails against the poster, they still cannot go after the OSP, hence Safe Harbor.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew it! Obama's birth certificate isn't real! He's a secret Brit!
The original firm should have to contact all the customers who's DNA they have, tell them what's going on, and give them the option to either have the data destroyed, or left alone under the same privacy policy once the new company comes in.
Doesn't NASA have a page on Christmas Eve that shows Santa's journey, and where he is at any given time?
Technically it should; terminating someone because they were doing their job (ensuring that licensing is up to date is a job of an IT guy) usually doesn't fly. However, they'll never say that was the actual reason why he was fired, and unless they actually come out and say it, its incredibly hard to prove.
The OP should care because he's probably gonna be the one who's ass the company serves up on a platter when the BSA comes calling.
He says he paid the ticket (the part where he mentioned that he mailed it in, presumably with payment. He could have mailed in a ticket envelope with rat feces in it, but I think they would have remembered the address from that). I don't know about any of you, but any ticket that I've ever mailed in, I've never gotten anything back on. So once he sent payment for the ticket, there really is no reason to believe that something was wrong.
The FCC appears to care about the consumer a bit, as they are the ones that have recently refused to allow use of the broadcast flag and analog disabling flag.
Having glanced at the title of that article, I'd say that the part about the Kernel being closed is definitely wrong.
That stuff's closed source, and you didn't ask for those. You were bitching about the kernel, and were spreading FUD about how it wasn't open. I disproved you.
If you need anything else, I'll be off getting coffee.
XNU Kernel Sources for Snow Leopard. Enjoy. http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1456.1.26/
Again, are you sure its intentional? If they added some additional compiler optimizations, and those optimizations generate code that the Atom can't run, then that's not really Apple's fault. They tried to make things run better for their customers, who are the ones that purchase Apple computers. Those computers would support the generated code, and they would have tested them to make sure they do.
There can be a downside for Apple. If someone decides to put OS X on underpowered hardware, then complains that it runs slowly or buggy, then someone who doesn't know much about computers might hear that, have no idea what a Hackintosh is, but know that OS X runs terribly, then those people might be put off of an Apple purchase.
Recently, there was a story about an iPhone Worm making the rounds. It got a decent amount of press, but hardly any of the stories that weren't aimed at the geek crowd mentioned that it only affects jailbroken iPhones. Now, the iPhone as Apple ships it isn't affected, but they still take damage to their reputation because of it.
But if you need to run Mac programs, wouldn't you already have... a Mac?
If software freedom is one of your main concerns, then you probably wouldn't be using OS X (or Windows) in the first place. If that's one of your chief concerns, then you should be using and promoting Open Source software, not bitching about what other, proprietary companies do with their product.
So you're complaining about them messing with the market, and then don't want to let them run their business and sell their products how they want?
And then their support costs triple, and their profit per unit falls. Whether after all that they still make more money overall is unknown, but they know they are making assloads of money doing what they're doing currently, so they don't see a reason to change.
It was a Commodore 64 emulator, but that's beside the point. If you look at the terms of the App Store, they specifically say that you can't make an app that runs interpreted code at runtime; everything has to be compiled. This may suck, and if you don't agree with it, then don't develop for the platform.
Yes, because had this been Dell, Gateway, or most other computer companies, they'd have given her the run around twice, and then said "Ooops, your warranty is up. Too bad."
The MacBook Air is their entry into the netbook/ultraportable market. It just doesn't seem that way because its much more expensive than any other netbook. But as been said time and again, they have no interest in getting into the netbook market, because the margins are way too small. Apple is happy, and very profitable at, selling fewer machines with higher margins. This helps them to keep their support costs lower, and profits per machine higher.
You're right! And don't think its a coincidence that I can only get a Mini from BMW. Its a conspiracy I tell you!
I'm fairly sure you need a Windows box to develop apps for Windows Mobile. I know you need to use Windows to develop hobbyist apps for the Xbox 360 (XNA). Are you going to bitch about their "exclusivity" too?
Still, this whole network thing has hurt their image. If and when Apple ends the exclusivity, there will be people clamoring to leave AT&T in droves.
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
DMCA Title II. Also known as the Safe Harbor provision. States that an online service provider is not liable for infringement if they respond to takedown notices in a timely manner. If the poster issues a Response notice, the OSP can restore the post, and still qualify as a Safe Harbor until a court orders them to take it down. If the IP holder prevails against the poster, they still cannot go after the OSP, hence Safe Harbor.
You also forgot to acknowledge the example of Michael Savage. That was a clear example of DMCA abuse.