While some of this (particularly how vauge "core-experience" arguments can be) is a bit unsavory, it seems to be fully within the Terms and Conditions given when the phone is bought and when the AT&T account is opened. My major objection is that the data-plan is not truly unlimited, in that AT&T should more readily disclose the VOIP exclusion (or find a way to debit minutes for VOIP calls) and the limitations on video over 3G (either Apple or AT&T). Weather or not this is acceptable is up to the purchaser, but I can't see how anyone who took the time to actually read any information on the phone or the contract from AT&T wouldn't have expected these kinds of limitations. I certainly understand how folks could be upset about some of this, but I can't fault AT&T or Apple on the disclosure issue.

My second thought is that the App Store 2 week waiting period is not that unreasonable for software deployment. I think developers were completely unreasonable to expect a QA process worth anything under that load to be finished in a few days, and Apple should do their part to prioritize security and compatibility updates over feature or new-release applications. However, as is developers simply need to be more intentional and regimented in their releases and take advantage of Apple's willingness to QA their applications and help them in the long run produce apps that don't suck so bad they never get repeat customers.

I was kind of surprised when TFA said that he felt that 3PO was supposed to be a gay-stereotype. I always considered him more of a sterotypical british gentleman or butler.

As far as R2D2 not "speaking" with human-understandable voices, there are 2 concepts in play. Being a film, for the most part, there is no reason for R2 to speak audibly because as he works with other droids it could be assumed they can communicate through some wireless/radio method, making "speech" unnecessary and inefficent, other than the fact that it is much harder to show radio on the screen than gibberish noises. Having him unable to speak directly to the audience but having 3PO dialouge with him (for instance, in 3PO asks him to watch his language), it carefully peels away the simply utilitarian view of R2 and shows his anthropic qualities slowly and we eventually see that R2 is smart, and brave in ways that 3PO is not. It slowly exposes this quality in a way that develops the character, rather than having R2 come off as some smart ass child-bot.

Thirdly, some people consider not being able to talk as being "cute" like babies. It makes R2 likable when he doesn't really for much of the Ep4-6 series have much that overtly makes (or is designed to make) the audience particularly like or dislike him. For example in the Kirby cartoon the creator specifically required they not give him a voice as to not take away from the "cuteness" that is considered part of the character's success.

Though it is entirely possible that Lucas couldn't find a voice that didn't ascribe too much implied personality to a more utilitarian character. When non-human characters have human voices, you import a lot of understanding based on what you "think" the voice is (e.g. Jar-Jar), rahter than taking it as simply "just a voice."

I think the major difference that the tatics in use by most business software vendors are accepted because they for the most part don't try to engage in device lock-in like DRM'd music does. Once you've gotten a copy of the software, you're free to install it on a computer of your chosing, and when you want to move it to a new PC it is generally not too difficult to do (except for Adobe stuff.) This is not enough to satisfy OSS zealots, but is enough to keep customers relatively happy.

The other issue is that customers don't feel that they ought to have to buy a CD of a cassette the had. They don't feel they ought to have to re-buy Blu-Ray movies they have on DVD or VHS unless there is a significant improvement. When consumers try to move their media to newer platforms and the company actively prohibits them from doing so, and has build a business model on it, it makes people mad.

People don't feel "ripped off" when they can't drop their Chevy Corsica '91 engine into a newer car (maybe you can... I'm not a mechanic) because they see it as a utility, something that eningeering improvements have made the parts truly depreciated. For media, consumers see newer platforms as marginally better ways for companies to make them rebuy something that is artifically depreciated. Computer software fits into that category where one can reasonably expect 20 year old software isn't going to work, and isn't going to (usually) be as compatible as new software on a brand-new computer.

I also think the OP's comments about tactics and focusing on institutional pervasive piracy over individuals has paid off in the publics perception of commercial software and probably been more lucrative when litigation is necessary.

Why is this moderated "Troll?" The OP is correct. The companies are trying to reclassify an activity that has been legal (either truly a right retained by the people or so seldom enforced it is a right by default) to make it a criminal (or severly punished civil) act.

Who gives convicted sex offenders (by the letter of the law) the time of day to argue the appropriateness of the law that places them under that classification. Copyright offenders (under the new law) will be written off as well as people simply trying to escape the consequences of their actions; rather than a first hand, important, discourse a supposed "free" person has to attempt to have the law changed because they believe it is unjust.

If you can put the scarlet letter on your critics, you've just-as-well muzzled them in the eyes of the greater culture (at least in America, and probably Canada).

For me, the choice is simple, I'll do what it takes to get the job done so long as management's expectations and goals assume a 40 hour week. I'll work after my 40 hours if to help out as needs so long as their expection and goal hits that mark. If they every give me grief about being a few minutes late due to traffic, etc... but don't pay me for the 20-30 minutes I worked over the day before, we'll have a problem and I'll never work another second over 5o'clock ever again.

Aside from that, they know the law and if they want something done bad enough to tap over 40 hours, they can pay time and a half, or decide that it can wait until tomorrow.

What I cannot imagine is how an employer can reasonably expect someone to work extra without pay except as part of a "lets keep it friendly and I might need you a little late every now and again and you'll want to ditch out a little early now and again and lets not make a federal case over it" mentality. If you had to contract out work to a plumber, per-se you'd instantly assume they would get paid hourly... period. What I understand even less is geeks who work insane hours knowing their company probably considers them at best, a necessary evil, full well knowing that it is the (legal) responsibility of the employer to either fund enough positions to get the hours of service they feel they need to cover, or fully expect to pay when they use the workers post 40 hour free-time.

I feel that if you are setting the employer's expectation that a technician (or whatever) is willing to work 60 hours' for 40's pay, you're harming all the technicans who do want to pursue outside interests on their own time, and when the day comes that you're ready to scale back to 40... you could have painted yourself into a corner.

It isn't just ad revenue, in some of these cases you can gather useful information as to "which" page in the series lost interest, which ones were linked to by third parties. This can also be done for performance in the case of large-ish images or for pages that scale well (or better) to mobile devices.

Not to say that any of these reasons of-necesity warrant this sort of design, but it isn't always simply revenue. My biggest complaint is where there is a complete lack of a "printer-friendly" option.

This is only scary because it is being implemented "electronicly."

If the iPod/iPhone had a strip inside that turned blue when exposed to moisture or red due to excressive temperature, or tore when disassembled, no one would bat an eye. Items like this are already in use in consumer and industrial electronics.

The problem is how verbose the technical method is (e.g. does it record with GPS where the temperature spiked, or what kind of moisture tripped the sensor) and how it is used or could be used. My only concern however apple does do it, that it stores minimal information and that the documentation clearly state what tolerances the sensors are looking for and if tripped, what the result will be (e.g. Leaving the phone above 120F for over 30 minutes will trip the sensor and invalidate the warranty.)

The advantage to the technical method is the device could warn the user that they are coming close to voiding the warranty before they do (e.g. a countdown when the temperature is too high).

One of the most frequent criticisms I often hear regarding FOSS is that the applications don't "look and feel" like the OS or other software in the ecosystem. They don't always use the system-default Save/Open dialogs, menu style and common controls and for a lot of users, like it or not, gives the perception of out-of-placeness or inferior. Firefox is a prime example where going out of the way to fit into the UI based on the OS has helped user-comfort and therefore adoption.

If Windows 7 is going to implement the ribbon system-wide, it makes sense that OO.org would minimally make this an option, if not the default on the Windows release, even though I am amongst those who are not fans of the ribbon.

The major difference between "educational" games and so called "non-educational" games, is that the developer's goal in educational games is to use the game to teach some "thing" where in non-educational games the purpose is generally the game-itself. This is a completely artifical distinction based on if you're teaching pure "content" (such as learning the colors, or geopgraphy) versus as "skill" (such as memory, or problem solving). For example, if my game is about teaching world geography, I wouldn't want to constrain the player to North America because they are not good at the execution of game (e.g. flying a plane to photograph landmarks). If the goal is teaching memory-through-geography, I would constain them to a small geographic area until they demonstate proficiency. (granted, this is an oversimplification)

The Sim City games are like this... resource management skills are fundamental throughout, but as you go later the balancing, scope and city size make that skill harder to execute, but doesn't require the user to engage in complicated play before reaching the "resource management" stuff.

Also consider the question; "Is this a game that is going to be used directly by schools as part of their cirriculm or is this a game you're hoping kids will come to of their own volition?" It completely changes the level of "overtness" in learning that you can use to get their maximum adoption. This makes the distinction even more important because a teacher does not want users (students) to not reach the educational content for lack of game-playing skills.

I've known some people that work at RS, and they all have refered to it as "The Shack." I think it is probably just the internal corprate culture leaking out. In addition, it is kind of a hail mary to rebrand, you might get customers coming back to see what "changed." Furtinture stores do this all the time. They'll have "going out of business" sales and then reopen with a new name, though it is the same owners. The goal is to get passer-bys to see if anything changed. Unfortunately, if you don't really "change" what wasn't working in the past the traffic you do get isn't going to turn into customers very easily.

We have one right across the street from Wal-Mart. I asked they why they did that and if it was business suicide, which the clerk in a surprising moment of candor, said that everything in the store is about $1 more expensive than wal-mart, but due to their smaller size, they get customers willing to pay the extra dollar to get in-and-out fast or to walk to the counter and say "I need one of 'these' or something that fits in this $hole on this $device go get me one." In particular if you're looking for something esoteric, its easier to go there and have them say "we don't have that" than search high and low at the bigger store, particularly if you're not sure what you're looking for.

I remember that exact article, and you are right. I think RS does well in small markets (like where I am from) that doesn't have any of the big-box stores and tends to cater to customers who were told "I need a USB cable" but don't know what that is or where to get one. They expect they'll get marginally better (knowledgable) service than Wal-Mart with less hastle. Last time I was there in California a lot of people were paying the cellular bill there, which I don't understand why anyone would pay their bill in person when there are a lot more efficient method(s).

I think they key for them is that crowd, and the "I need it now so I'll pay a little extra" or the "I'll pay a little extra not to stand in line at wal-mart where the person in front of me wants to send a Money Order and buy a carton of cigarettes they have to get from the counter on the other end of the store."

They also do well when you're looking for esoteric batteries like for cameras, hearing aids, etc. They're also pretty good at having odd cables at decent prices (amongst other brick-and-mortars) such as a male-male 1/4" stereo cable for the AUX jack in newer cars. They are also good when you're traveling and need said odd batteries or a cell charger.

If the Federal government wasn't taking such a high percentage of tax revenue from the citizens and blowing it like it is going out of style, the states could operate the services they ought to and tax at a reasonable rate. Right now the states are doing everything they can to keep their citizens going home with more than 60% of their wages at the end of the day while still providing basic services. Because there is no national referendum and both parties are spending like mad, the state government is the only place the people have an opportunity to try to diminish their tax burdens that are crushing citizens and are making overseas pastures greener for job-producing companies. If the feds trimmed down their budget and only pursued the duties it has a constitutional basis to pursue, there would be more money for the states to provide the services they need to rather than depend on funding, under heavy inflation, that congress can shift around on an annual basis, causing instability of programs and decreased confidence.

I completely agree with you, however I get the feeling that the government feels they aren't dangerous enough to lock up, but are dangerous enough to keep tabs on; kind of like a sentance of jailtime plus a lifetime of probation.

What really bothers me is that there are offenders who are required to register who were sentanced before these registries came into being. If the judge feels they ought to register, while I disagree, so be it. But for the state to append to a sentance is precarious from a legal standpoint in my opinion.

Already the courts have decided a state can take "administrative actions" like revoking your drivers license if arrested for DUI without a trial by jury. Pretty soon the state will be able to do whatever they feel like short of incarceration without a trial.

I think the message that companies need to understand is that GPL != Public Domain. There are a lot of advantages for using GPL'ed code, but companies need to measure the risks/rewards of using GPL'ed software and how it might impact their product goals for the good or the bad because they are required to fulfill the requirements of the license, no matter how few and and inoccuous the license requirements might be. I don't think exploring that distinction is FUD, but an intellegent discourse that helps protect the vendors who utilize GPL code, their users (in the form of future releases not being interupted by legal issues) and the original developers who released their code as GPL and not public domain for a reason.

There are situations where it might be better for a company to reinvent the wheel than use GPL licensed code when you consider the long term implications of the license and the cost of compliance with the license and the risk of exposing proprietary code that interfaces with the GPL code.

I'm just glad companies are understanding they can't just copy and paste GPL code and be done with it like a fat kid in a candy store and not open themselves up to legal risks the could have avoided by not using the licensed code or using the code while respecting the term(s) of it's license.

Legally established ethical standards are completely independent of certification or other technical qualifications. Hiring employees whose experiences and interview responses demonstrate ethical behavior are a better solution. After employment, not tolerating unethical practices such as stealing user-data or selling/installing unlicensed software creates a culture of ethical behavior, where it is the rule, not the exception. Some shops establish unethical practices from the top and specifically choose workers who they feel won't question the practices or will sell illegal software/refurbed devices for a piece of the pie.

That being said, hiring workers who look at the $7.25/hr job as a good entry level position or a learning opportunity can be very rewarding for employer and the employee. A lot of us started there doing Windows imaging or basic computer construction/repair.

I'd be more nervous to hire an MCSE for this kind of work than an under-qualified but eager and capable of learning employee. The overqualified have a better chance of being disatisfied with the work or the pay and more ability to believe they can get-away with unethical behaviors.