I see you've played knifey-spoony before...
A blind woman can now see spots of light after being implanted with an early prototype bionic eye, confirming the potential of the world-first technology."
Link to Original Source
That, and if you don't teach people about them they won't know which icon to click to save their work.
It's still common for people to purchase software, with the ability to use it indefinitely. Sure, it might not be supported, or updated forever, but I don't believe that would stop it working... Most things are relatively stable by the time that happens anyway.
Number of people forced to reverse engineer the binaries of an accounting system would be very small, especially at the SME end of business.
Number of people having to re-enter every transaction due to incorrect setup, backup, etc etc would be much greater. Regardless of the system chosen.
That said - I totally agree with your last sentence. Always have an exit plan.
As anyone who had to turn in a paper with a page limit also knows... that and the spacing between characters, words and lines all helps!
My comment was not so much about the ability to access later - more about being able to watch it when not at home. The time-shifting provision is probably a combination of a technical delay to record, transcode and then stream, along with potentially a nice legal out.
Totally agree that it's the internet streaming $ but isn't the trade off the free to air rights are now worth more?
What is often overlooked in the media coverage of this issue - i haven't read the article but i assume it's no better - especially by the sporting bodies (AFL/NRL) and others is that the feed that Optus were providing this service on was a Free To Air broadcast. This creates the following situation:
Firstly, the sports bodies (AFL in particular) have sold the TV rights for a large sum of money separately to the "internet" rights. Telstra have the sole right to transmit over the internet, and are obviously pissed off about their competition. However the Free to Air networks should be jumping at the chance to get their feed to more people - after all, the more people watching increases the value of their advertising, and in theory would increase the value of the rights they have paid.
Secondly, with the focus on protecting the value of the internet rights alone they are missing two other opportunities - namely the chance to get non-Telstra subscribers to have access, and secondly the chance to get more people overall to watch the sport. More eyes is more advertising, more merchandise and more members - and possibly more gambling revenue too.
Finally, I have an objection to people complaining about what happens to a FTA broadcast once it's put into the air... I don't believe people should be able to make multiple copies and sell the works, but it's already being broadcast... the method for an individual recording and viewing should not matter.
Their major compeitor and number one broadband provider, Telstra, has existing rights for mobile streaming of major sporting events, and claimed that this was a breach of copyright.
Optus's lawyers successfully argued that TV Now was a modern interpretation of the video recorder because a separate recording was made for each individual.
Justice Rares found that, when Optus customers "clicked" on record, they were programming a recording for their individual use. Therefore Optus was not re-broadcasting copyrighted material to the public."
Link to Original Source
I planned on getting rich by now. It didn't happen, I guess something changed.
I think you'll find there are lots of examples of companies planning to do something and then changing their mind. Not sure any of it is newsworthy...
I think it was a hierarchy of open-ness, not evil-ness.
The Nike "Swoosh" is a TRADEMARK. A REGISTERED TRADEMARK. Yes, it's minimalist but that's not quite the point.
are you crazy?
Also... i assumed you asked her what happens to her stuff if the server is reset to factory settings?
Should you go, or should you submit a paper?
These events, while they can be expensive are worthwhile for all the reasons above. However, submitting a paper is quite a few steps away from paying for flights, accommodation etc.
If you think you meet the brief outlined in the call for papers - my advice is to submit one. Especially if you have work that is already done and can be easily adapted. You need to be accepted. Possibly edited, then approved etc etc before you actually worry about getting there. Only once your work gets you that far should you worry. If it looks positive, see what your professor can help with. If you are asked to present at a conference, I would suggest you do everything you can to get there (often your conference attendance is free for presenters), so take advantage of the opportunity to show what you know and how good you are.
Of course, if your paper is not accepted then you don't normally need to attend, and you're only out of pocket your time, so what's the worry?
But there wasn't. According to this article, there was one worthwhile competitor. and it was shit.