Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement!

Shady competition seeking to pay pittance for million+ Euro development, read all about it!

Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement! Slashvertisement!

This.

I deal with ignorant, easily-angry, huffy, unwilling-to-learn boobs whose conception of "the internet" is "my computer is on it's the internet, off it's not!" all day. (People who call angry demanding we don't charge them for internet service because the computer's broke.) Metro isn't user-friendly AT ALL.

AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THINGS AREN'T DISCOVERABLE (thought that's major).

Windows was an evolution: e.g. in little things the control panel improved year to year, (they broke this in Metro to remove features and things and force people to go through metro). That said, by things not changing too much, even willful-idiots could get by. Metro attempts to force everyone to use Microsoft's new paradigm to force the willful-idiots (who only begrudgingly learned what was already there because they can't understand why the damn thing just can't read their mind--and I'm not really exaggerating that much) to become familiar so MS can dominate different platforms with one interface: trouble with this idea is that MS (as you say) hasn't made an intuitive interface, e.g. the search for the start screen is hidden in Windows 8.0, but not just because of that: it's the fact that even if everything was exposed desktop+tablet=unuseable; you can't mix them for different forms, such that the willful idiots can use Android apps because they don't really have to learn much, just pick-up some muscle memory, while with Microsoft the expectations they had already and so could rely upon are gone--they're as pissed as we are.

Basically people like me are happy to recommend what software they need to restore the look and functions to Windows 7, and which apps they need to restore the crap that MS removed or moved for no other reason than to make the desktop less efficient/convenient/useable to force people into Metro, not to mention to recommend (if I discover they just nee "the internet") leaving Microsoft altogether.

But RMS's predition about them trying to cartel-ize and make that move away from them impossible, as we've seen, is always tenuously close, e.g. Microsoft locked-in all the businesses to ActiveX (most of them are still virtualizing or running XP or Server200x for that reason), sent its execs to take-over and ruin Nokia (legislators on boths sides of the pond 'mysteriously' doing nothing to prosecute intentional and obvious incompetence to ruin and under-value a stock before MS tries to take over), 'influence' and lock-in Netflix with their tech (after making deals promising DRM built-in to the kernel, which also happens to make it less stable and secure by nature of adding code), etc. such that those studios also pressured Netflix. If people weren't idiots they'd choose to read a book rather than pout about being more free but unable to use Netflix, as though TV is essential rather than a drain on most lives.

Problem with this is, they're decisions also affect you and I. Not to mention, the "oo shiny" that also infects the minds of the FOSS community's devs means things are constantly being broken that don't need to be: when that sort of indiscipline results in a community where discipline can't be imposed, oh no...right now I rather put people on Windows 7 than risk Linux breaking things, but I'm sure in a couple years updates from MS will begin to flow that break little things to 'encourage' upgrades.

Until it becomes unacceptable to permit people who believe mere existence requires you somehow contribute money to their personal interests to be in any position of power, which includes not only the business interests but the political elites they back, this sort of thing won't continue. It's interesting to note this: the tacit compromise the parties consistently make is to deny the equality of rights, as they define new ones that take the old ones away, or that they are natural rather instead of constructed, so that they can define new ones and take the old ones away, or speak as though rights are like interests, that they can contradict instead of move around one another.

WHO ELSE IS ABOUT TO ABANDON /. UPON BETA UPGRADE????????? AND GO AROUND WARNING ALL THEIR NETWORK CONTACTS ETC. TO STAY AWAY FROM SOMETHING RUN BY THOSE WHO DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR USERBASE????????

Except that according to the general rules "astrology" is THE proper word for "astronomy", but since the spiritualists hooked onto it the former was eschewed for the latter: in other Germanic languages and concept-related/history-shared languages "astrology" (modified to fit the language) is used, e.g. in German and in French. So it's not a poor concept of English, it's a lack of exposure to the domain-specific conventions of certain disciplines who arbitrarily avoid one for another to avoid spiritualist associations.

p.s. I get the joke, I just wanted to put that out there since it might enrich the thought processes of somebody: this sort of realization that background and experience is everything not only to processing, but getting why people process or recognize or choose in certain ways in a language, is related to a lot more than just conceptions about what constitutes good use/familiarity with language.

p.s. is nobody going to mention and detail in-depth, and cross-related, the same effect on outcomes, dependent on word choice, when taking surveys and polls?

In the US our constitution usually trumps all other law. Look to the old "Jim Crowe" laws we used to have. They were basically like this, rules that at first appearence appeared to be meant to do one thing but what they actually did was infringe on constiutional rights. They were all struck down eventually.

Don't put your hope in that: the courts have concocted the equal application doctrine, meaning that a law which facially is not discriminatory in application will be deferred to or ruled, essentially, " Constitutional" so long as it appears to be intended for a supposedly " Constitutional" purpose, even when it is intended to harm someone, persecute a group, etc., e.g. zoning laws against poor, blacks, and now hispanics; "anti discrimination" laws targeting the religious (hence LGBT actively targeting religious people and anything they do to make a living by demanding they provide services/support/approval/etc., e.g. to things they couldn't possible provide support to in good conscience). It was actually a doctrine contrived by authoritarian statists on either of the political divide's sides who sit on the bench because one can concoct fake rights and serve constituencies their privileges while the other can take real rights and justify their racism as law based on authority that isn't attacking anyone in particular.

And this doesn't sound like a law, but a police contrivance up with which no court need put. You know the courts and powers give a damn/do the right thing not when it's in the name of something popular (free speech) but something unpopular that their own enemies could twist as [fill in the blank: racist, sexist, homophobic, pro-greed, anti-freedom, anti-"rights", pro-"rights", pro-religious, anti-religious...].

Uh huh.

The US government accessing all the data and metadata of private companies by the companies involuntarily compliance, without permission or need or notice to affected parties that dealing with those companies or services means serving the data to the government, and under gag orders with criminal penalties for saying anything--and with the government requiring entry for any of its agents to their facilities to take-over machines and interface at the government's will, is the same as what companies are doing with the metadata.

You need to try again.

Legal tender is whatever type of payment you are REQUIRED to accept. If you eat at a restaurant and when the bill comes you try to pay with a check, they can say "we don't accept checks." If you refused to pay with anything other than a check, they could call the police or sue you for the $12. They can also say "we don't accept credit cards.". They HAVE to accept cash. If they refused your cash and then tried to sue you, the judge would laugh and tell them to read the $20 bill. It says right on the bill "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private.". That means you can't refuse cash and then claim that someone didn't pay. THAT is legal tender.

How is this insightful? The treasury and Fed alike both themselves deny this is the case. The original intent behind "this note is legal tender for all debts, both public and private" was, indeed, to force that kind of thing--but only for private actors who demanded FDR and his progressive buddies (who scummily auctioned-off rights, allowed the titans of industry to openly collude and fix prices, and any number of other feloneous and subversive acts) actually pay, as the Constitution requires, their contracts in gold. He didn't want to so he tried to force fake money down their debt-holders' throats and, in fact, he lost--in the Supreme Court! Until...he tried to stack it (the cowards on the Supreme Court have been "deferring" up-shit making ever since to justify ever-expanding Federal lawlessness).

If you walk into my bar and I have a sign, very plainly stating--or even if it's just generally understood--"this bar only accepts Bitcoin", and you drink then produce a bill, guess what? You haven't met your contract obligations and have acted in bad faith--you're going to jail and I'm going to get a judge to make you buy however many BTC my prices were set in, and then fork-up.

What do you think the trading, commodities, gold, Forex, etc. markets do all day every day? Again, go and read the government's own announcements on these issues--you aren't required to accept payment in US dollars anywhere with the exception, sometimes, since the federal level is so imperial and lawless, the Feds are forced to cough-up dough to you--even then it's not guaranteed anymore. It could go either way because there are still the true-believers in the fake bullshit up-made by FDR and allies and rammed down the courts' throats, and frankly reminding the courts of this bitter subjugation and threat to their independence is probably a means to only widen continually the gap between that doctrine from actual enforceability.

p.s. my primary sources on these matters are a Constitutional lawyer and son--the son being a high-clearance forensic investigative auditor and fraud examiner for the Feds.

Just want to point out that "free trade" isn't a bad idea, rather "free trade"with non-free countries where only those with pull, who participate in graft, who ensure large sums go to the gatekeepers...these are why this impoverishes people here: when the other country plays by a different set of rules and the result is a vampiricism enriching those here who help to enable it to get a (significant) chunk, and when those people there can never be permitted to be productive enough to counter-buy/participate (aka have economic means that might scare their governments), well...what do we expect?

It's called Human Resources, staffed as it is with people who look at certifications as though they must always be formal degrees: there's a reason even Forbes has called for literally firing every single human resources department in America (and possibly blacklisting those people), though they still haven't figured out that those auto-sorting-applicants computers/programs are about as bad.

Figures from a guy with "Religion is the greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time" as his signature. Frankly not surprising that someone who uses "religion" in the all-popularly vague manner and attributes it to all evil then goes on to be unappreciative:

Obviously there are a lot of potential (potential--repeat, potential) advantages and disadvantages to their approach. Of course, the work being done here means KDE is not so much simply a Desktop anymore rather than a giant set of resources designs precisely for accessibility: with each one being modularized, documented, and made ready to be called by any other app it means KDE is becoming more and more unix-like while also empowering less and less knowledgeable people without as much commitment of time to write and port and leverage applications and code.

I mean, though we all hate it, look at the explosion of apps and developments that took place when people realized they could use the COM object of IE and other Windows' parts in application, avoiding reimplementation and getting on to useful work: it does mean I'm still stuck--after years--with IE security/cert errors while using my work applications despite it pulling data over secured channels, yet my company's engineers did not have to rewrite a ton of functionality and then build a program to maintain the code.

KDE seems to be thinking far ahead: even if/when KDE the desktop becomes useless, its code should live-on: imagine Microsoft converting all its code into a set of plugins for its development frameworks: still assembled and offered as the Windows desktop and widely available as such a program, but useable for any other. I'm not even a programmer (I started in high school, got zapped for cancer, lost a lot of memory) and I think this rocks: it's open thinking, "hey use our stuff for whatever you need--we'll even make it really easy for you!" If only companies did this with their offerings. (Ask a giant like Oracle or Cisco some time about "hey we'd just like to use these functions rather than entire-system-sold"and see what happens.)

As for Javascript-like scripting...Javascript isn't sloppy: Javascript has a whole lot that Java and other serious languages lack. Javascript has advantages and disadvantages just as they do. And Javascript may or may not be written sloppily: with work like this, you can drop-in your own replacement if KDE provides a set of scripts that suck: one of the ideals for information in computing is the ability to transform the State of a system at will with a few lines of input or set of codes, and work like this only work to advance us nearer.

I'm assuming that the flippin' point is with crowdsourcing everything's laid on the table (or if not don't invest) and we should more and more stop asking gubmint to protect us (often some of the deepest pockets in the world). Those filing requirements, plans, etc...are all things that are business conventions anyways, why is the government involved in what would be demanded anyway? Oh yeah, some government-level bean counter needs to be able to crush small un-connected assemblies of people: this is unacceptable and my generation is about ready for revolt by holding these shittards to the fire for it.

it has no right to force its opinions about legal, private behavior on its employees, or to punish them for their purely private behavior.

What you are saying is, employees have a right to employment in someone else's organization and to disregard any kind of agreement made with conditions for said employment? Or that religions organizations have less right to discipline members for unacceptable moral conduct than corporations do for potentially embarrassing ethical breaches? You must have a brilliant mind in there.

I forgot to add that purely public and irreligious businesses can also impose morals clauses--which may even include restrictions on sexual behavior, even "deviancy" that includes quasi-protected choices of lifestyle and behavior like homosexuality--as these are considerations of image and what may affect valuation and confidence and purchasing decisions of and for the business. You're going to be pissed when you hear how the courts rule when employees challenge these...

I'll hint again: if you don't like it, don't agree to the terms and conditions for joining someone else's organization.

What you are saying is, employees have a right to employment in someone else's organization and to disregard any kind of agreement made with conditions for said employment? Or that religions organizations have less right to discipline members for unacceptable moral conduct than corporations do for potentially embarrassing ethical breaches? You must have a brilliant mind in there.

And they refuse them.

And as is their right, they refuse participation.

Any treatment can undergo a price increase so I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes: that's what a truly free society where people are responsible for themselves--as opposed to our increasingly totalitarian nanny-state--does: leave people who do not engage in any direct harm alone. Of course, your ilk are attempting to redefine mere verbal disapproval as "harm".

In other words, you believe in the power of the State to dictate how any service shall be performed, and therefore what can and cannot be accessible, and not the right to offer a service you know to obtain a living? Bet you believe in the right to free bread but define "business" as a non-right. Hint: business is just human activity to exchange goods and [abilities] so as to obtain the means to live--and for some who are lucky to have a little extra maybe to go have some fun, whether wholesome or whether that includes hookers and blo.

I'm sure you can cite the beatitudes to reimagine Jesus as an ethical-liberal hippie-guru like a lot of want-Him-for-his-name's-authority sophists too, but you'd be wrong and and idiot.

Great, "fuck them and let them die", I'm sure you'll try to write rules in accordance with "those who don't work, don't eat' (also in the bible) so they can have the right only to die if you don't like them. Newflash you know-nothing bigotted my-way-or-no-rights-for-your statist totalitarian nutjob: people like me are getting so fed up with threats-----even to others' rights: I lost my evangsmellical religion by disassembling the mass of contradictory bullshit I was taught as a kid when I finally had time not only to read the bible, but learn the historical data and hermeneutical principles--and smattering of Hebrew and Greek to handle exegetical tools and original language dictionaries and even a Greek New Testament now and then: it was quite useful actually--I fed the scoffers on our university plaza the questions necessary to expose the professional preachers who came for being charlatans and know-nothings that they were. Sincere know-nothings, but doing God's work for them seemed to mean they needed only know a few simple things, though pretending to be sophisticated (not just to other's) was a perk I guess--anything to get prayers of acceptance of Jesus.

But quite seriously to our times, here in America

"No one is forcing [PEOPLE] in the insurance business [to provide services against their will or deny them the right to their trade or chosen profession, because since]" "they can have any crazy rules that they want" [but nobody can be forced to purchase from them rather than another business if they feel their offering is better], [and since we have well-functioning courts based on rule of law principles and a high regard for substance over formalities and procedural technicalities that aren't made-up for the courts' own convenience any failure to provide what was agreed will result in a sure victory for the insured in their claims]; all because we thankfully live in a liberal or free society where rule of law--not merely the legal but law in that old sense of trumping arbitrary mandates and power since the latter destroy liberty--protects individuals in their right to purchase as well as to provide goods and services at their own rather than the government's leisure and, should the government feel there is an imminent need or problem for the general welfare, it can raise taxes and take any credit or blame and risk of failure or success on itself, erect the necessary programs or engage in the necessary actions, and get it all done for themselves without interfering in the economic privileges and immunities of the private markets! Isn't our nation of liberty and real law vs. arbitrary force swell! Glad we don't have totalitarian progressives or nepotistic euro-style aristocratic conservatives to screw things up. And that our populace isn't dumb enough to be duped by totalitarian arguments from force and authoritarianism, or arbitrary narrowing scope of religion to legally designated activities consisting only of singing and dancing and praying and preaching; or deciding that should you engage in productive activity to obtain a living and they call it "business", those in power and their supports can't conscript it for their own ideas and purposes and call it a modern privilege in the sense of something only to be done with their permission, according to how they see fit for it to be done: that would mean we would all be subject to the whim of whoever takes power, at any time, and have Old-european style authoritarianism, paleo-paleo conservativism! That would terrible.

Thankfully, if the people of these United States want a law or a service with qualities and features not yet offered, they have to abide by the Constitution in the first case; in the second, form an organization and make it and offer it themselves. Thankfully if the government wants to do something it has to abide within the intention and scope of meaning of the original words of the Constitution--thank God neither the progressives nor the quasi-Constitutionalists like Robert Bork et. al. with his denial of natural rights in favor of authority, have become influential or gained and advantage or station on the high courts; so that we may remain free and confident that whether rich or poor, in a majority or in a minority, no matter the case should someone make claims on our own property and interests or interfere with our ability to care for ourselves, they will lose at court; so that truly diverse--meaning disagreed and politically incorrect yet-unpunishable--supra-jurisdiction over varying and unlike societies with their own ways of living unregulable by either a naitonal or even the local levels of government, except to uphold contracts, prevent direct physical harm and deprivation of prior conditions enjoyed or properties owned, can flourish. Otherwise we would just, just...become subjects like the rest of the world, abused or approve by whatever power happens to take control, and filled with raving morons or useful idiots who even defend the powers that be--perhaps for benefiting from their tyranny in some way.

"And I'm glad to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...", and where I know my fellow citizens are well-educated rather than indoctrinated through a State apparatus that avoids facts in favor of politically-appointed committees and bureaus of "education" whose work is approved by the politicians and their stakeholders. Without a truly well-informed citizenry with diverse views, rather than a homogenous mis-education, we would be so...BONED.

It's long past time any [ideology] should expect the government to take any notice of its beliefs in a [baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here] society. A [baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here] society should ignore [ideology] because if you don't, how do you draw the line? Should I be allowed to stone my neighbor to death if he doesn't observe the [mandate to approve of and support activities of homosexuals just because they engage in a pornographic orgy the which I would never subject to myself otherwise except our [laden term here also] forces me to else shuts down my business and fines me, at their wedding]? [Ideology] has no places in making the laws of a [[baggage-laden and vague, almost-mythological, weaponized-and-undefined term defined only in the negative, never with meaningful substance, here]] ["]nation["]

Your packaging of your regurgitation of the unchewed pre-packaged "intellectual position" is leaking. The only thing sensible, because it is grounded in an actual phenomenological situation is "[should I] Allow my child to die from an easily cured malady because I believe in faith healing?" You do realize the US is actually among the most "religious" "nations" in the world right? Or that "secularism" is a well-critiqued, weaponized-for-politics, usually senseless term right? That Westphalia was not actually a secular triumph but that "secular" then meant the forcing of every jurisdiction to change religion and laws to accord with the religion of its Sovereign, to be altered and respected with whoever ascended to power? Do you even know the origins and development of "secular' and that it's a highly technical term which is, because of its history, practically wortheless, really? Merley saying it means "not religious" doesn't really help--"religion" tends to cover almost anything and everything except what a pompous bigot with too much sophistry for his own good definitionally tries to exclude so he can attack "religious" and disclaim attacking what he (and others) currently approve of.

The founders of the US said the opposite: they didn't want religion interfered with by government, they did want "good" religion influencing it extremely--even funded it (on George Washington's insistence--despite himself being a deist).

So does the Constition: in the words of my liberal Constitutional lawyer, "insular cases; court made shit up--pulled from ass--permit US be empire unsubject to own laws outside of States. Bad. [grunt]"

Then why do you? See Henry David Thoreau on "Civil Disobedience." It only inspired a jewish man in South Africa--who happened to give it to a young Hindu Laywer there named Mohatma Gandhi, as well as another little-known figured named Nelson Mandela, two of which brought-down governments become illegitimate through forceful disregard of their own Constitution--much like the English lords cornered the king for expanding his power beyond his charter; much like the English put royalty on notice throughout Europe that they become illegitimate by breaking or ignoring their own laws (margins of Geneva Bible); and much like the American revolutionaries overthrew the English King for overstepping his bounds and violating the formal legal measures instituted to safeguard their rights.

Indeed, Thoreau's disapproval lay in the illegality of the war committed by these United Stats with Mexico, and he went to jail rather than pay a tax for it. You think whether or not you have a religious or conscientious objection is dependent on whether the unjust power or actors will accept it without punishing you? You know why they will right? If more get such ideas the emperor's nakedness starts to show. Thoreau escaped with a light penalty and inspired the take-down of reprehensible regimes in the modern era.