Well this IS Brazil.
This same country allowed an American wife to abduct a child, and then after the wife died in Brazil, the country continued to hold the man's son for another ~5 years, rather than return the son to his rightful home in the U.S. and genetic father. There are around 100 similar U.S. children being illegally held by Brazil, and the courts/government refuse to do anything about it. Brazil is more akin to Mexico in its corruption of the courts.
So do I find this ruling that corporations like Google or Walmart are liable for the actions of their anonymous customers? Not at all. Seems par for the course.
I am not quite sure if the EU and the US would allow such a deal after all it basically would be problematic for an entire industry with billions of dollars in revenue.
ARM has pretty much a monopoly on handheld processors.
Job listings don't mean very much.
Employees that are very happy with a language, and productive in it, might keep their jobs for years; you may never even know that their companies were using that language. One productive employee might do the job of 10 people in some other language, and maybe that's why they aren't hiring.
Some job postings only made me cringe when I saw them, and many make me think to myself: "all-Microsoft shop, never heard of what X, Y or Z can do". Just because there's a job available, doesn't mean the language is popular; it might even mean the opposite, i.e. all the sane people jumped ship months ago, instead of trying to maintain a steaming pile of code, that a company is now desperately trying to hire people to support.
Don't ever learn one of the stupid programming languages just to get a job. Do something you enjoy...make money without programming if you have to, for awhile, until you find a job that requires languages and platforms that you actually like and can be productive in. Nothing else is worthwhile.
Hmmm, it will be interesting to see if Apple updates the iPad, or if we get a dozen router manufacturers all offering "fixes" for their products via firmware updates.
From the GP's linked article:
"most users on the forum who are running completely Apple-based networks are not having the same issue"
I'll bet they're not. Well done Apple. I wonder where they learnt that tactic from...
>>>It was a Constitutional question.
It turned Farmers into serfs, who were unable to grow any wheat except with the permission of the Masters..... oooops I mean the Congressional representatives. In the specific case, the farmer grew approximately 20 acres of wheat to feed his cows, sheep, and chickens. i.e. For his own usage. The Master... I mean Congress told the serf he's only allowed to grow ~10 acres.
Who here thinks this was the original intent of James Madison when he wrote the Constitution? When it was approved by the 13 founding States? To turn farmers into serfs like a feudal state?
Requirements management is hard.
(Actually, the sarcasm was directed at me.)
If you're not familiar with modern transporter as copy/destroy mechanisms, you'll enjoy The Prestige for the characters and the intrigue.
If you're familiar with this theory, you'll spot it in about no time flat, and will enjoy the anticipation of if/how it ties to the character intrigue.
It's really a story within a story with some interesting tangents - I really rather enjoyed it. Especially the part played by David Bowie.
My wife's the touchy/feely artist type and we talked about the tech stuff that she wasn't catching when watching - and in this instance, just didn't care, her enjoyment focused on other things.
In all honesty, I think I really only spoiled the movie for the slow and uninformed - not the typical
I think you're safe.
When ever the thread is on something that I am personally slow or uniformed on, and I see the words spoiler alert, I really appreciate it and stop reading right that instant - directing my peripheral vision to managing getting the post scrolled out of sight.
Best I could think to do was to recommend the movie itself, while doing my best to give unto others as I've enjoyed when given unto me.
Anyway - check out the flick. Not War and Peace, nor Avatar, nor Casablanca - but I liked it, hope you do, too.
How am I supposed to know if I haven't seen it if the name of the movie is in the spoiled text itself?
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. That's prestige for you.
Except that today, that will land your child a quick trip to Guantanamo....
Can you explain what, exactly, was uncertain about what new features IE8 was going to have, and (perhaps more importantly) what it was not going to have?
The point being, I spend most of my disposable income on media of various sorts, but that doesn't mean I can afford everything I want - and if I can have it, why not? No one would be getting my money if I didn't 'steal' it, so the only person losing out would be me. The whole argument has been rendered redundant in my case by me not having a huge pile of cash to hand over in the first place. The RIAA/MPAA/whoever can take me to court for however many millions of dollars if they want - they'll get a lower percentage of my income awarded to them than I hand over voluntarily.
From a practical, pragmatic standpoint your argument makes sense. The ultimate issue, however is moral and ethical one. The argument here is that although you can pirate the media, you shouldn't because you don't have a claim to it as agreed upon by yourself and the other party (the RIAA, MPAA, artist or equivalent in this case).
The fact that the RIAA/MPAA/etc engage in abusive tactics is irrelevant in this argument, although many try to make it seem that way. It's essentially "two wrongs don't make a right". The actual idea is that you could pirate, but you shouldn't (or don't) because you have a certain moral or ethical standard about how to behave with regards to society as a whole. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have culture where it's considered appropriate to deny one's immediate personal desires to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit over the long term. The opposite of this would more or less be to engage in satisfying one's immediate desires regardless of the ultimate effect that this has on society in general. Assuming others follow your lead, then you will have a culture that is not interested in a stable whole so long as one's individual desires are accounted for.
Note that I haven't stated that one way is better or worse than the other. Society goes where it wants, and I think it's useless to apply such values as good or bad. You have to acknowledge the change that's taking place and either figure out how to turn it to your benefit, slow it down, or stop it. It's important to note, however, that this is the real crux of the "pirate/don't pirate" debate. At least, as far as I can tell. From a practical standpoint, there's really no useful argument against piracy. People have surprising moral flexibility, and if you can live with it and get away with it, then you will do it. And, since people (especially on Slashdot) will always find a way to get away with it, the question is, should you be able to live with it? If you believe in the "benefit society" argument, the answer is no, and if you believe in the "benefit myself" argument, the answer is yes. That's all. Any debate beyond that is justification and useless proselytizing. It really comes down to what you think is the most appropriate way to behave as outlined above.
I'm sure there are more nuances to consider here, but I think that's the crux of it.
Do I seriously need to look into the past articles to prove how old this news is? Seriously folks; this isn't exactly rocket science here - this is all stuff everyone knows about by now. Hey, do I even need to point to the link to the story about how people actually prefer the sound of MP3 because of the encoding artifacts, much like how people preferred records after CD's came out because of the noise/repressed frequencies?
So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.
You don't see anything. NeXTStep ran on the NeXT machines which had 68030 and 68040 processors. I said nothing whatsoever about the classic Mac OS. But since you think you have something to contribute to this conversation, you jumped the gun and totally failed to read and understand my comment, which was written in relatively simple English. I explicitly pointed out that the machines were "more than superficially similar to macintoshes". The intelligent reader would infer that I was not talking about macintosh computers, and therefore must be talking about some other machine based on a 68k processor. You Apple fanboys must think that Apple is the only one to ever use a Motorola chip, but those of us who have more history than you and have used and/or owned MC68k-based NeXT, Sage, Sun, Apollo, Amiga, Atari, and yes, even Apple computers (among many others) know that you should just be quiet while the adults are talking. You might learn something.
Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge