Fine... Wrong word. Not duress. They'll only license when they think the licensee doesn't matter.

There's also a problem with that. Apple doesn't license their design patents, and will pretty much only license others when under duress.

That is totally fair. I do not know what STEM employment would be if programmers are excluded. If I remember right, there is something like 30% unemployment for people with a Ph.D. in Math, but I do not know what the figure is... I'm having a hard time finding a real number too... I know.. Irony.

I don't think the outcome of this bill would have had much effect on people on the level of a Ph D. My understanding is most of these Visas are for folks in the Bachelor/Masters range (which means these workers compete against me). The big issue facing a Ph D today is the fact that education spending has been reduced for over a decade. I don't necessarily think that getting a PhD is any easier today than it was long ago... Just more people trying to avoid entering the workforce in a tough time... Oh, and less opportunities once you get that high because public education opportunities are fewer and farther between.

First off... I applaud you sir. This post made my morning that much better. Thank you.

Secondly, with the immigration of STEM folks, I'd be willing to bet that many of these workers will demand comparable wages, because they know what the market is offering and there is a cost of living here to do those jobs. We can look at short term costs, and experience, and say that there are some otherwise perfectly capable geeks here who are still looking for jobs... And there are. The thing is... STEM unemployment as of June is 4.7% (assuming college degree, YMMV), which is pretty darn near what those economic models call "full employment." It sounds to me like the benefit of bringing in more geeks (like having a more educated society, more demand for arts, spending power, and those eurasian hotties on the horizon) would do more help for the economy than harm.

I might be biased too though... After all... parent did put forth a convincing argument.

The new pricing scheme was implemented in June. It wasn't until the end of July that the FCC dropped the tethering pricing ban on Verizon.

If anything, this will just increase the data demands for Verizon, and they'll keep charging you more... Because that's what they do.

"It is an iPhone"

IANAL, so I have to ask. If the company *knows* their software has a security hole, and intentionally disregards it, do they then become liable for some or all of the damages?

I have to imagine that if they were seriously trying to fix this, and it was just taking a while that there would not be such an outcry. Would it be necessary in the suit to prove that they are ignoring the problem?

That's only on account of them being unable to provide the services because of something beyond their control... specifically "on account of delay." This looks like a waiver for "things beyond our control" not "we're not making money off you anymore."

Also, I just went cross-eyed in the ToS. I saw no provision that said they could terminate or otherwise suspend this service or promise. They are allowed to if someone violates the ToS, but I don't see anything about updating or changing the ToS being allowed.

IANAL and YMMV, but I think there could be a standing for a class-action action here.

I'll give that former coworker this... That's certainly Microsoft's intent. I even happen to know someone who agrees with that assessment.

I happen to think that with this sort of change, it might encourage businesses to rethink their entire technology stack due to implementation costs. They might even consider just starting from scratch in the future... Linux business desktop anyone?

For the record, and since this conversation is way past the main page, you will probably not see this... But just in case you do:

I'm not blaming the union. I brought it up only because I had to explain why they had a contract and this protection built in. I hold nothing against them because those provisions do protect them from changes that could be detrimental as well.

There are places, including one where I used to work, where any variation on day-to-day work involved a contract item saying they needed "training" on how to do their job. The union portion of the workforce has provisions to prevent major change in job description to make sure there is adequate opportunity to transfer knowledge. A side effect of this was that a critical application launching shortcut had to be placed on users' desktops to launch. If it wasn't there after an upgrade, because it was only located in the start menu, then they would not launch the application and were "unable to do their work" until they received training.

Now, I don't want to argue the merits of that specific example, but I bring it up because your point is spot on. The Windows 8 UI is a change to the workflow, and what does this change bring in gains? I don't believe there's any gain to be made here for the end users. Because it changes the behavior of the system in general, this *does* greatly increase the implementation cost for that particular former employer, and for others reliant on a workforce with similar protections. The licensing is no issue because it is just part of the EA. The issue is the cost associated with getting the applications up to spec, and for having to retrain the entire workforce who will have to use those applications.

And how does it make anyone's job any faster or better to have a tile instead of a start menu?

Plus, I'm pretty sure a transcript would result in a TL;DR, so I'm concurring.

It wouldn't have even played. There would be no action taken. If they really wanted to lock it up, the company would just sponsor a "study" to "prove" whatever they wanted.

What I wouldn't do for a "+1, Sad But True"