Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this is precisely why contracts exist...so people can't commit to something, not deliver and expect to still get paid. If they refuse to fix bugs, have someone else do it, then take the dev to court and get damages in the amount of your costs of having someone else fix their bugs.

From the article, one of Syria's tld nameservers is unreachable. That shoudln't affect in any way the ability of folks in Syria to access any website that doesn't have a .sy extension, and it also shouldn't affect the rest of the world's ability to access any websites in Syria that have another tld. The headline is misleading.

This is akin to saying that I've fallen off the Internet if the DNS servers for my domain name are offline. While you can't get to my website, you can certainly get to other websites on the same server if they're using other DNS servers, and I can still continue to work normally because my ability to resolve my own hostnames is not a requirement for me to access the rest of the Internet.

The nod to section 31 was nice, after all I think this is perhaps the first time something created on DS9 was mentioned in a feature film. The problem I have with it is that all they did is name drop it. They mention the name a couple times then they're done with it. I think they could have tied it in a bit better, after all there have been multiple full episodes of background on 31, so there's plenty of content to tie in.

Similarly, I really enjoyed the scene toward the end of the movie where Spock pummels Khan. They tell you Khan is genetically engineered and reference him as a "super man", so between that and taking down a squad of Klingons single-handedly you get the idea that he's not to be messed with. From Trek dogma, we know that Vulcans are about 3-4x as strong as normal humans, so that means Spock and Khan are probably pretty close in terms of physical strength, but we've seen before when Vulcans lose their emotional control they're not to be messed with. So, I really enjoyed seeing Spock take Khan down a peg or two. That just reaffirms my belief that Zachary Quinto was the perfect casting choice for that role.

Doesn't the federal government enjoy the privilege of being one of the few entities that cannot be sued unless they allow you to sue them?

Most folks that think about this kind of stuff can do it themselves and would be disappointed with what furniture manufacturers think you want.

Instead of drilling lots of holes in your furniture, why not look at an inductive charging solution for phones? That would be much less obtrusive. For other devices the answers are going to depend totally on what kind of furniture you have, but in general it shouldn't be too hard to snake a laptop cord up through the bottom of a couch so it can be hidden under or behind a cushion.

Why is this news?

Potentially, depending on how the MDM software handles these things.

Good MDM software will containerize corporate data and put it in a 3rd party mail app which won't be backed up by iCloud.

Yeah, Apple should have thought of putting remote wipe functionality in the hands of an admin who doesn't have the end user's Apple ID credentials, and enabled them to do it in a way that leaves the user's personal data intact and only wipes corporate data. If they had, 90% of the folks using 3rd party MDM software probably wouldn't be.

I guess I'm not seeing where the unfair competition is coming from? So Tesla sells direct and everyone else doesn't and that apparently gives them an advantage somehow...why is that an issue that government or any regulating body should care about?

So, I'm going to extend this by analogy so it's really simple to understand, maybe someone can forward it to the cronies in NC. I'm going to start selling cars. I'm going to get a crack design team to come up with the best designs and build stuff that people will really like, but I'm only going to have a one day work week and sell them on Tuesdays, the rest of the week I'll be closed. Then I'll demand regulations be put in place to force the other car companies to stop selling cars on days other than Tuesday because it gives them a huge competitive advantage over me.

The point...why should the government care that other auto companies decided not to sell direct to the public? Tesla comes along and proves that it's a workable arrangement so the automakers go complaining about unfair advantage. What's stopping you from selling direct? Nothing is. They just don't like having to adapt to change, so they go to the cronies and try to put a stop to it. Just like the music companies when iTunes first hit the scene. Just like the movie companies when Netflix hit the scene. Just like the cable companies when the DVR hit the scene.

Get over it. Life and innovation happen. Sticking your head in the sand and trying to pass laws to stifle your compeition is not the answer. It just makes you look like a shortsighted moron.

Google should run an ad campaign about this.

1) I wonder why RIM would take one of the things people like about their platform and give it away free to competing platforms? It's not like BBM is a wasteland with no existing users.

2) If only Apple would open up iMessage, then this would be a real story. I can only dream of the day when I can iMessage from a PC using Pidgin.

As you said, they saved all that money ages ago when they got rid of the people doing the manual crunching. That's what I'd call "sunk savings", I.E. the opposite of a sunk cost. In other words, all that money they saved was so long ago that the costs they're operating with now are the new normal. You can't just go back and reference how it used to be a long time ago because that would throw all your finances out of whack with the rest of the market, which is operating in the here and now.

Any software that works is better than upgrading, unless 1) you're fairly certain you aren't going to have some sort of catastrophe, and 2) there's a compelling business case for doing the upgrade.

I can't whistle, but even if I could, I'd much rather say, "Computer, lights!"

The same way you get businesses to do anything else. Write down everything you want to accomplish and format that list as bullet points. For each item on the list, make a business case that shows why it should be done, what benefits will be realized by doing it, what risks come with not doing it and any other info you feel is pertinent. Then take that list and show it to the person that has the authority to implement the changes.

Unfortunately, many times, people will resist change if they feel it will hurt someone's feelings. This is especially true among small teams. If that's the case, then you just have to weigh the risk of not doing something against the turmoil it would create and figure out which is the lesser of two evils.

As someone who is responsible for purchasing software and maintaining license compliance for my organization, I love the subscription model. Sure you can say it takes away from the experience by never allowing you to "own" the software, but in most businesses you only use it until the next version comes out and everyone wants to upgrade.

But the biggest advantage here, bar none, is that everyone will always have the same version. Previously with Photoshop, we had our creative group which consists of about 10 folks and they always buy the latest version as soon as it comes out, then we have 10 or so random "power users" in the organization that also have photoshop but don't buy the new versions, so then we end up supporting multiple different versions and interoperability is a nightmare.

This causes significant budget challenges because when a new version is announced in May and released in July, and you didn't have any idea it was coming back in November of the previous year when you created your budget, now you have to figure out where to find money to buy it. The subscription model gives you an easily predictable cost, and users can always have the latest version. Additionally, you don't have to deal with folks installing rogue, unlicensed versions of the software so it greatly simplifies compliance.

We made the jump to Office 365 last year and in terms of licensing, you do pay a bit more for the subscription when you compare it to the cost of buying the newest version every 2-3 years, but the cost is steady and easy to predict and that prevents us from having to go and "sell" new versions to management and keeps us from ending up in a position where we're using an out of date version of Office for a few years.

The mistake Adobe is making here is restricting subscriptions with a 1yr minimum term. Microsoft did it right by allowing you to move your license count up or down on a monthly basis. Around this time of the year when my company brings in 10-15 summer interns, this is great. We can scale our license count up and only pay for those licenses when we need them.

It would help to know who this Vidich is without having to click through to the article. Editing fail.