So, some users signed up for "Protected Registration" and are now pissed because GoDaddy is trying to... protect their registration? It doesn't sound like GoDaddy is refusing to transfer domains, just providing the service users have paid for. This is a complete non-story.
Someone has already tagged Razor-Qt as 'a KDE ripoff.'
And KDE is just a Windows ripoff. So really, Razor-Qt is just another Windows look-alike. That was actually one of the things I liked about KDE, the interface was so familiar to what I already knew, it made transitioning easier.
I like how his advice is coming directly from how he personally feels a UI should look and feel, instead of the potential mess of bringing in a group of average people and asking them to compare UIs, and performing usability tests to tune the UI towards the common user. But no, clearly every UI should be tuned for Paul Miller, he knows what a good UI is supposed to feel like.
I don't know if you understand the field of science properly, but it's not all limousines and mansions, you know.
After fourteen years of graduate school, Professor Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist. Fast cars, hot nightclubs, beautiful women... the professor designed them all, working out of his tiny, one-bedroom apartment.
They are even refusing to release the half of the debate containing Coyne's comments and questions, which is his intellectual property. And that latter is theft, plain and simple
So torrenting music and movies is OK, but as soon as it's something you support, it's suddenly theft? Nope, sorry, doesn't work both ways. That point has been covered many times here, you can't "steal" intellectual property like that. Coyne's comments and questions still belong to him, even if the video containing them isn't released. And he's still free to make his comments public however he pleases. I know Slashdot has quite a few militant atheists, but please try to sound objective in your summaries.
Yeah. I've heard of a similar, albeit more primitive, concept called "self-checkout lane" - that never took off, either.
I'm assuming that was sarcastic. If not, the rest of this doesn't make as much sense.
Self checkout lanes still typically have a person at the end monitoring a few lanes, and some scales you have to put everything on after you scan it.
As I understand, these still require a random audit, which isn't too hard to defeat still. For one, it's unlikely to require audits close together, so just keep an eye on things and then jump on the line that just had an audit.
Assuming the audit system is actually random, there's no way you can guarantee that two audits won't come up back-to-back either. Are you really willing to take that chance?
Alternately you can bury the thing you want to steal underneath a bunch of other stuff in the cart.
Now you're assuming they haven't been trained to pull items from random depths in the cart, as much of a pain as that might sometimes be.
Avoid a line that has the rare diligent auditor.
Self-checkout lanes where I live tend to be the cashiers that are more observant and reliable than the average cashier. I'd assume with a system like this, they'd tend to be even more so.
Lastly if you get caught just watch the process and as they go to scan a stolen item say something like "Wait, that's not supposed to be in there. I thought I put that back on the shelf."
Yeah, I'm sure he's heard that one before too. The guys manning these stations aren't likely to be that naive.
OTOH, that doesn't make this a show stopper. With higher custom satisfaction (which hopefully translates to a higher repeat sale rate) and reduced total cashier payroll this can still work to a net profit if the additional shrink isn't too severe.
People actually determined to shoplift are still more likely to just stuff the item in their jacket, where the auditor is unlikely to check anyway.
If you could sell me a 20 year old DVD player I would buy it in an instant for $1000 especially since the first DVD player was introduced in 1997. Hell I would demand all of Phillips income for the past 14 years.
DVD was launched in 1997.
Ok... but that's not the question he was asking. He said would you pay $1000 for a DVD player that was guaranteed to last 20 years from NOW, not would you buy a 20 year OLD DVD player that still worked. And the answer any sane person would give is "no" simply because in 20 years, DVD isn't likely to be relevant anymore. By then, everyone will have moved on to Bluray++.
The point (I believe) he's trying to make is that there's a trade-off between durable technology and price. If people were willing to pay massive amounts of money for technology that lasted 20 years, companies would be making them. But since people count on technology being obsolete after relatively short periods of time, they'd rather pay $100 for a player that will last 5 years that can be tossed out when upgrades come along or cheaply replaced if they should break.
When you're building something designed to go as far into space as it can before breaking down, cheap, fragile technology just isn't an option. A lot of money was put into making sure Voyager would be as durable as possible, because when it breaks down, there's no going out there to replace it.
Many social experiments Google ran have failed -buzz and wave comes to mind first- and yet they still keep pushing. People don't go to Google for interacting. Google means business, Facebook and Twitter do not.
This also reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force themselves into others' more lucrative turfs and looking pathetic in the process.
You mean like when Microsoft pushed into consoles? I'll grant you the original Xbox wasn't that strong, but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer that doesn't have an Xbox 360. Maybe Microsoft isn't as pathetic as you think.
Google should just stick to being Google instead of immitating others.
If Google just sticks to what they're doing, they'll just stagnate and ultimately fall behind. Trying to enter other markets is how these companies grow themselves. Sure there's going to be failures, but you can't have success if you're not even trying.
They are also doing the bonus adjustments wrong. It should be the other way around: If successful extra +25%, otherwise, regular bonus. After all success means (apparently for them) entrance to another market.
Ok, what exactly does the word "bonus" mean to you? If it was just a given that you were going to get a bonus, why not just include it in the regular salary? While I'll grant you that a bonus should be tied directly into the success of the product you're working on, I don't know what Google's internal structure is like. It's possible that everyone actually does have some stake in the success of the +1 feature.
A friend was heading home on an empty highway late one night after work, hadn't had anything to drink, was doing the speed limit, and obeying all traffic laws. He got pulled over.
Why? After determining my friend was free to go, the officer said there's plenty of drivers who know they're just above the legal limit (recently revised downward here, to a blood alcohol level of 0.05%, so quite a few women can't even have a single drink now) and do everything to avoid suspicion by being the best possible driver.
The officer, though good humoured, declined my friend's request to get a ticket for driving the speed limit.
So... he got pulled over for driving too perfectly? Isn't it illegal for an officer to pull you over without a single valid reason? And no, suspicion you might be driving drunk because you're driving perfectly isn't a valid reason. This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me distrust all officers, when you can't even have the peace of mind that you won't be pulled over even if you're doing nothing wrong. I'd be talking to a lawyer if that ever happened to me.
As a side note, that also removes all pretenses that such a low limit is to deter drunk driving. If people just over that limit are still able to drive well enough to "avoid suspicion", are they really too drunk to drive? Or is it just all about the money at this point?
Social Game Maker Zynga’s Market Valuation Tops $5.5B
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39869254/Social_Game_Maker_Zynga_s_Market_Valuation_Tops_5_5B
Who's laughing now?
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
