|
|
Why should they care?
There's no benefit to them keeping your information safe, it.
Perhaps that is the reason why the asker asked if there was legislation dealing with this. Then the corporation might care.
Nor should copying be considered some heinous crime. It isn't.
It is a heinous crime. It is a crime against our culture. It is a crime against everyone.
Not only should copying not be considered an offense at all, it should be encouraged because it is a huge social good.
The problem with copying and "sharing" is you are discouraging the creator to create again. And thus you rob everyone of this person's next great work of art. Not everyone can climb onto a giant's shoulders, and you are encouraging the giant to sit down, to stop standing and lending is shoulders out.
I appreciate this is a cool hobby project, I just wish the guy would use his not inconsiderable talents to work on something that has a more obvious real-world payoff
So people need to work on productive stuff that will save lives and treat disease, 24/7. They can't go to the movies, they can't go to the park, they can't take a break. The MUST always be doing something productive? You know, stuff like this is the way some people take a break from their other work. Maybe they enjoy solving problems, or doing something different sometimes. Maybe this person learned something from this?
Everyone can't be solving hard problems all the time.
Hey. I'm an American. Our H1-B visa program has tanked our industry. Substandard code, slipping release schedules, low wages.
Code was substandard, schedules slipped before the "tanking" of the industry. Some of the best programmers I know were hired on H1B visas... and some of the worst programmers I've worked with were H1Bs... But some of the best programmers I know are Americans, and some of the worst are Americans.
Not defending Apple's pricing, in fact I think that they are in many ways douchebags, but why is this an antitrust situation? They are negotiating with vendors to reach the price point they desire. They are just reaching for a higher price point, instead of a lower one.
Well whether you are a zealot or not, you don't have a choice BUT to pay Apple's prices. Even if you want to buy from Amazon. This wasn't about Apple setting a higher price point for Apple, this is about Apple forcing the publishers to set a higher price point for EVERYONE.
Sounds like Amazon's monopoly was broken. What's the problem with that again?
Monopolies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Instead of Amazon having a "monopoly" and charge decent prices. Apple and the Big 5 formed their own "monopoly" and charged higher prices... So in this case, for the consumer, it was a very bad thing
It's even amazing that the "fixed" prices are not essentially different than Amazon or Alibris or BN. Very clever price fixing indeed.
The "fixed" prices were drastically different than the prizes Amazon WAS offering. After the prices were fixed... well they were fixed.
. It may look fake only because
Because it is fake. If I was standing there with the photographer, the image he created wouldn't have been what I saw.
He deliberately muted the colors, to take your focus away from the vibrant colors. He highlighted the faces, to well highlight the faces. While he didn't add detail to the photo, he did change the lighting. Made it lighter in some, and darker than others. NOT something the naked eye would see if standing there.
In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range
He brightened faces and muted colors. So no, it isn't what the eye sees. While the original is a powerful image, it isn't as powerful as the manipulated version.
last election they gave you $50k in donations... voting against this thing they are "Strongly supporting" clearly means what to your next campaign effort? It's pretty easy to do the math.
How is that any different than an individual contribution? Other than the fact that corporations can donate larger sums of money, I don't see how it is any different. You said it yourself, an individual donates money because they feel the candidate will do the right thing in office (with "right thing" having varying definitions for different people.) So when the candidates doesn't do the "right thing" the individual will donate money to someone else next time. What is the difference?
Everyone should learn to program because programming makes the modern world go round, and it's good for everyone to have at least an inkling of what that involves.
I think we should give everyone an opportunity to learn how to code. But I don't think it should be required. Programming is HARD. And many, many people just don't get it. Requiring them to take a course or two in it, isn't going to teach them anything. For the other people who might learn something, but will never use it, what inkling will it give them?
Personally I think the confusion that it would cause trying to teach the people who just can't understand it, isn't worth it.
It tried Visual studio 2010
Uhm... I don't know what you think you tried, but Visual Studio isn't a framework or a language, it is just an environment. Mostly an editor that you can attache different compilers to. It helps manage your projects and even has hooks to source management. But you can use it for just about anything.
Why don't people start to differentiate in the actual "language" and the bloated "framework".
People never actually stop differentiating them. They are different. A framework is just a set of APIs, while a language is a bit more than that. While a good programmer should be able to easily transition to a new language, a good programmer should be able to transition to a new framework, in a language they already know, even easier.
Is their a steep learning curve creating for job security? Not in the least bit... Its just that, simply programming is hard.
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann