I've heard stories from people who worked in one of the not-so-nice areas of Milwaukee. They'd often bring people in for interviews, but the candidate would no--show: they'd drive into the neighborhood and turn around to go back to their hotel. While they had 24/7 security patrolling the area they still had occasional bullet holes in the walls of the building.
With Windows you can file a bug report and hope Microsoft fixes it. But if you're using Windows 2000 they're going to tell you to shove off and you have no recourse.
I can go back and hire someone to port a feature or bug fix back into the 2.2 Linux Kernel if I want. It will be costly, because not many people are familiar with the 2.2 kernel anymore, but I bet I could find someone if I looked hard enough and paid well enough.
How hard would it be for OpenSource Projects and Small Companies to file for a declarative judgement lawsuit for every software patent held by trolls? I'm assuming that filing fees would get cost prohibitive quickly, but would we be able to DOS attack the patent trolls and the courts they use to prove the point?
The main contractor was Oracle, so large, complex systems that are somewhat illogically designed are their specialty.
It's the equivalent of paying someone by cutting your gold coin in half.
I'm sorry, but what does a low speed, differential serial bus network used primarily in Automobiles and Industrial controls have to do with preventing ISPs from changing content providers to provide faster transport?
Yes, even though I use CAN in my job, I did Google looking for a version that fit your post, but did not find one on the 1st page of results.
You're at a Fortune 500 company.
Document issues, why they are regulatory violations, document that your raised them to your boss and got pushback (agree with the "offsite hardcopy" backup).
Then call the Ombudsman and raise the concern to them. That's what they are there for- Issues where the company itself could be screwed by individuals trying to make numbers any way possible.
Diversifying his portfolio.
Betting entirely on Bitcoins as becoming the de-facto virtual currency is risky.
He's not talking about Sys Admins, he's talking about DEVELOPERS.
Yes, I expect someone with an IT degree and 5 years of Sys Admin experience to spot those hardware errors, and they usually will. But a guy with a Software Engineering degree and 5 years of Java development? Some of the ones I've met can barely find the power button, let alone know that they should occasionally defrag the hard drive on their Windows machine.
According to relative frames of reference, it revolves around me at the same rate I spin on my internal axis.
The compiler (and support stack) is a MS compiler, and MS is already owned by "the man", so as Kernighan demonstrated you still can't trust it.
The only issue then becomes if you drop the gas tax you'll have people filling up as they travel through the state and paying no taxes. There are already issues related to this on Diesel taxes: Some states tax it heavily, so don't, so truckers fill up before they cross state lines, and plan their trips so that they fill up where it's cheapest.
In the real world of actual technology development your competitors also have patents in the FRAND pool. A common way to deal with this is to cross-license, saying "I'd like to use your patents, you'd like to use mine... let's just give each other licenses and call it a day so we don't have to fight over percentages when it's all going to wash anyway".
This is what 90% of the hardware vendors do.
But Apple & Microsoft don't have patents in the FRAND pool because they don't invest in hardware research (Microsoft does now, so they are starting to have a patent portfolio that may end up in FRAND pools eventually).
Now you have to figure out what each company wants for it's patents. Is 2% fair? Maybe. Maybe on the books Motorola is paying them 2% for that patent, and Samsung is paying them 2% for a different patent, so in the end it's a wash.
The other interesting thing here is that, at least in my city, there is a "comparable performance clause" in the agreement between the city and AT&T/Time Warner for the Phone/Cable monopoly.
It basically states that if another area gets quantifiable better speeds/options, they need to justify why it's economically infeasable to provide the same level of service in my community or they risk losing their license to a competitor who can. There are some limitations (like the deployment being in the same state) and it would mean that the city counsel would have to fight it and likely a legal battle afterward, but it is a route where a door could be opened to requiring big players to upgrade service to levels equivalent to Google if they try to fight in select areas instead of their whole service area.