And lots of high rent to suck it up

The extra among you can earn there more than makes up for the increased rent - I don't live there myself, but I have lots of friends that do.

Fuck you.

You don't have to live there you know, I don't. It is possible to work in the tech industry elsewhere, and if that's the kind of reactions you have to postings on an internet board you may want to strongly consider it.

All corporations who have the opportunity will be salivating at the chance to do this.

They're all ran by the same kind of greedy bastard, and all the signals Microsoft is sending absolutely scream "you're either going to get ads, or you're going to pay to not get ads, or you're going to pay for what you used to have for free, or we're going to force you to use our online services ... where you're going to get ads, or pay not to get ads, and we'll sift through all your stuff".

Every damned corporation wants to monetize your experience and your data, have access to all of your stuff, and claim ownership to do anything they want to with it.

Microsoft has thus far failed to come up with a compelling way to do this because they keep putting out flops which don't catch on.

With Windows 10, between now expecting money for Solitaire without ads, or sharing your wifi password with people (including whatever government demands it), and pretty much everything else they're doing, Microsoft is trying to set the stage where they have access to all of your data, have everything in their cloud, and an EULA which says they can do anything they choose.

Everything about Windows 10 is screaming this will be terrible for the consumer. And it also tells me I want no part of it.

Microsoft is basically saying they will do anything with your computer, any time they want to, and you don't get a vote. Which means I expect Microsoft to be fucking up a lot of computers and leaving that to be someone else's problem.

Or, more likely, so they can fucking monetize your usage like the greedy self entitled assholes they are.

And I don't just mean Microsoft.

Thank you for staying on-topic.

By your logic, every artist should have the right to erase the memories of every person that ever heard one of their songs, because there is a copy of the song in those peoples' brains. Is that what you are asserting? That the songwriter owns my brain because his song is in it?

Next think you know, you'll be asking your neighbors to help pay for your porch light, because it reaches their yards and they are using your light.

So ... you are claiming copyright expiration is a seizure. How does that happen? Do jack-booted thugs show up at your house to take it away from you? No - you still have it. In fact, you can still sell copies. But you can no longer decide that the 2 dozen people that already have copies of your work cannot make more copies. Now there are 25 copies. Did you lose anything? NO. In fact, you were already paid by 24 people that were stupid enough to think a copy of your crap is worth paying for.

It already is. You have exclusive right to anything you create. Now, if you want to distribute it for a fee, then you are given a monopoly on the ability to make copies of that work. The only copy any owners of a copy of your work may create is the one in his/her brain. I have exclusive control of all the books on my bookshelf. Some of them I can scan into my computer and print all the copies I want. Some, however, I am forbidden from doing so by federal law. If I do so, the grantee of the exclusive right to make copies may sue me for infringement. If you create something and you don't want anyone from accessing it, you have a [god-given][inherent][whatever] right to keep it to yourself. When you make a copy for me, it is governed by "first sale doctrine" and I own that copy - exclusively - and may do with it what I want. See - it's not yours any more. That copy is mine.

That has nothing to do with anything. If the artist releases his work, it's done by creating copies. Those are paid for and owned by the purchasers. I have created MANY works using my brilliance and talent that I have never received any payment for. You do not have a right to be paid for everything you do. Nobody gives a shit about your time or talent if none of it is marketable.

Nope, that is incorrect. Property is tangible, and when stolen, you no longer have it. Copyright is not property. It is a right to make copies. A more rational analogy would be that corporations are stealing from people that buy copies of CDs with music on them, by manufacturing them with a limited lifespan. Without the right to make copies of that CD, purchasers are at some point deprived of their property (a copy of some musical bits) without compensation.

And as I have shown above, your point is demonstrably false. They already protect their copyright-holding citizens. By allowing them to sue someone that makes copies of their works without authorization.

But do they continue for 70 years after they are dead? Because the exclusive right to make copies of their works lasts that long. And it deprives the public of its cultural heritage and the ability to honor and celebrate their artists after they are gone.

Your inability to see the difference between a tangible asset (and depriving the owner of that tangible asset), and the grant of an exclusive right to perform an activity (copying), is truly a stunning example of your myopic view. The world does not owe you a living. And it certainly does not owe you and your kids a lifetime of earnings for a extremely short-term amount of work.

Proponents have argued that the law should be changed to allow them for "forever minus one day". Same affect as your proposal, but the Mary Bono was testifying before Congress when she suggested it, and she was serious.

I agree. Best new troll since 2012.

Sure the chances are, as you say, low that the company you join will IPO and/or make it big.

That doesn't mea it doesn't happen though, and that the company you are joining might have an idea you like enough that you want to push to make it succeeded.

But even if you are just being cynical, there are still a lot of rewards to be had from joining a startup as (at least in CA) the pay is still really, really good thanks to large pools of VC money sloshing all over the place. There's a lot of room to navigate there in ways that mean your own personal success even if the company never hits it big.

Dear AC, you seem to be a cheapskate. You want "free labor"? Fuck off. Free software gives *anyone* the ability to pay someone who knows what he's doing to look at, and modify, the code. What more could anyone want? (except for cheapskates like you, but those people's " complaints" aren't worth addressing anyway) That's the beauty of Free: you don't *have* to trust any Google's, Microsoft's or Apples or anyone with your security, because you can choose who will do the work and what exactly the criteria will be for the investigation

Oh? Why not? Most people will be able to hear 1/50th of a millisecond of missing data. Regardless of bandwidth, if your transmission drop requires a round-trip re-request of data, the latency of the connection can delay the arrival of the data past the point where it is needed to be played.

that's enough. All it takes now is a few secret deals with high-fidelity audio manufacturers to intentionally degrade performance of their equipment when electric noise is detectable (even if it can be compensated for). The argument will then automatically become that you can't hear the difference because you are not using top-quality equipment in the 1st place. And then the manufacturers of the cables will be able to peddle it to everyone buying top-quality audio devices just because the devices will seem to need them. I am actually curious (no, I have not read the article) whether the cheap cables can still sustain the required rates. In other words, can they still sustain 1Gbps transmission between 1Gbps eth cards? Cat5e definitely CANNOT. It will top out at around 350-400Mbps. If these cheap cat6 cables have too much noise they can't guarantee 1Gbps. It may not matter to those using them with household devices, but it definitely matters to people have quality of service contracts which require them to pay when they can't supply a promised level of performance.

You would think a pair of gloves would render all the police fingerprinting useless, yet haphazard criminals are caught by it all the time. Like everyone else with limited resources, they either catch you because you're important or because you make it easy. Heck, I bet many criminals using computers don't even know what crypto is.

Honestly ... do you really thing do not track means a damned thing? Are you that naive?

Do not track says "gee Mr Website, will you be nice and not attempt to monetize my traffic". It doesn't mean a damned thing.

You should pretty much assume that everyone on the internet will track everything about you they can at every chance they can get. You should assume some greedy asshole with an MBA and a tendency to be a sociopath doesn't give a fuck about your desire not to be tracked is making the decision to obey no not track.

Do not track was an industry attempt to distract people from regulations which would have tried to stop them.

Do not track is a complete fucking lie.

Don't be all surprised now to find out it doesn't actually do anything or hold any weight. Which is why you should be actively blocking as many of these things as you can, instead of relying on the kindness of some greedy sociopath asshole who doesn't give a crap that your browser has pathetically announced it doesn't wish to be tracked.

Hell, do not track, when ignored like we know it is, just gives them another point of data. I don't even set it, because I know damned well it's not going to do anything.

When a company publicly says they won't respect do not track, you can pretty much assume every other company is already ignoring it anyway. There is not do not track.

Everything about you they can get, all day long, as long as the app is running.

They'll figure out what they can make money off later. Like, do people buy more gas in the winter or summer.

This is just greedy assholes maximizing both greedy and asshole. And this why I look at apps as basically ads and analytics in disguise, and why I don't feel compelled to have a smart phone with a data plan.

You can always not play the damned game.

Me, I want Android to return the ability to selectively turn off stuff that apps can do. If your app keels over because I won't let it access my contacts, I don't want your fucking app.

I view most apps as about the same as if a retail store demanded the ability to rifle through my wallet before I came in the store, only in the case of apps it's pretty much all the time.

No thanks.