Forgot your password?

Comment: There is no should. (Score 1) 182

by ConfusedVorlon (#47966173) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

Should is meaningless in this context.

Unless you have it written into your contract, they don't have to pay for this.
If they do - then you might consider that a valuable perk.
The value to you may be less than the ticket/travel/accommodation price (or even negative if you hate conferences and are required to go).

Ultimately - it just weighs into your assessment of whether you are getting a good deal at work, and whether you want to stay.

-how much do they pay
-how much holiday do you get
-how much are you learning
-what are the benefits like
-etc, etc, etc

Asking who should pay for your conference is like asking who should pay for your coffee. Nice to get it for free - but just one factor in the mix.

Comment: Re:Again? (Score 1) 200

hardly: If he sent mails about these issues, then he would be complaining in good faith, and would have sent them on the standard internal network.

If he had sent emails alleging impropriety from secure external system, then that would
a) probably count as leaking confidential info (sending confidential info on an external service)
b) raise every red flag in the organisation and probably result in him being fired (why are you trying to keep external records of this secret matter???)

Comment: Re:We really need (Score 1) 533

by ConfusedVorlon (#47857111) Attached to: AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

If it was just about population density, then the USA would be rocking decent internet in any large urban-ish area.

I live in the UK in a suburb of the 10th largest city. shows me
ping 8ms
down 127mbpx
up 1.4mbpx

this (including my phone and cable tv) costs about $70/month
obviously that includes 20% sales tax so a USA equivalent should be about $60.

does that sound like what you'd expect to get in a USA suburban area?

Comment: Reckless (Score 1) 184

by ConfusedVorlon (#47309307) Attached to: EFF To Unveil Open Wireless Router For Open Wireless Movement

Nonsense. There is no law that makes you responsible for what other people download. (at least, not in any sane first world country)

It is a disgrace that you are so terrified of your government that you think sharing your bandwidth with a stranger is dangerous.

I have been helped many times in the past by the kindness of strangers who left their wifi open - and I will continue to leave my wifi open for other strangers to benefit in return.

Many (most?) modern routers support this safely by allowing you to provide a guest network which is isolated from your own wifi network.

Comment: Re:Sounds awesome except.... (Score 4, Insightful) 191

Whilst I agree that a lot of bad patents are certainly granted, I actually think the systemic problem here is actually the review process after the initial grant.

Even if USPO was a lot better, then it is safe to assume that some crappy patents would get through when an examiner was having a bad day.

It's ok to have errors like that if you have a decent fast review process to fix mistakes.

This might be something that a judge could request before a case went to trial.
The patent would be re-reviewed by a senior patent examiner who would make an new judgement:

1) this probably should not have passed. (Inventor can appeal, but legal process assumes that patent is invalid until the appeal).
2) this is a solid patent that probably should have passed. (the infringer can appeal, but legal process assumes the patent is valid until the appeal).

given that only a tiny fraction of patents will ever get taken to court, this isn't adding a huge amount of re-work to the USPO, so they can handle this stream as a high priority.

This does somewhat reduce the certainty of the initial patent grant, but that is no bad thing.

+ - Windows App Store reduces developer share from 70% to 56.1% for some sales.->

Submitted by ConfusedVorlon
ConfusedVorlon (657247) writes "The Windows App Store originally offered developers a 70% revenue share (like the iTunes store and Google Play).
They have now introduced the 'Commerce Expansion Adjustment' whereby some sales are made through methods such as carrier billing and the developer will only get 56.1%.

There is no option for developers to opt out of this type of sale; Microsoft suggests that 'You may want to consider if the Commerce Expansion Adjustment applies in a country/region where your app is available and factor that into your market pricing strategy'

As a veteran of the store pricing wars on Palm OS, I have seen how this plays out. Stores competed to sell through new partners, and offered increasingly large shares of revenue to those partners. Inevitably, that came out of the developer share.

I would be very happy for Microsoft to offer me an option to make additional sales at a lower revenue share — but I'm not happy at being forced to suck it up."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:McAfee in trouble (Score 1) 139

agreed - entering negotiations doesn't show they needed the licence.

However - assuming the requirement for a licence is real (e.g. terms and conditions on the site are clear and forbid taking all the data for commercial use) - it makes it hard for McAffee to claim that they didn't realise they needed one.

Given that they seem to have been deliberately trying to avoid security restrictions (by rapidly changing user agents) - then it is even harder for them to claim an innocent error.

Comment: Re:McAfee in trouble (Score 3, Insightful) 139

If the site is clear about it's terms up front, then this seems like a serious issue.

McAfee clearly knew they needed a licence; They asked about getting one. Presumably, they just didn't like the price.

Plenty of software licences are the same; Free for personal use, paid for commercial use. The fact that the company does the world a favour by offering free access for some people doesn't make the commercial theft of the whole database less serious.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.