I can't believe Kelley was screwed around like that. For chrissakes, he was the only actor in The Motion Picture who appeared to have any motion, and he was absolutely critical to TOS's success. In fact, one of the big problems I have with the fandom TOS continuations is that they haven't found a strong Dr. McCoy, and it feels like a jelly filled doughnut without the jelly.
She may have been a minor character, but I remember the first time I watched Return Of Spock, and there was her cameo in Space Dock as the wounded Enterprise limped in. It was pretty emotional scene, and it was nice to see one of the second tier actors again. I thought it was pretty damned nice of Nimoy to bring her back for that cameo.
Not sure why you're being dense. Both managers and project managers "manage", and so there's going to be some overlap in what they do. The biggest difference between a project manager and a manager in that a project manager has specific projects, with specific scopes of work, and essentially only has purview over those specific projects.
A manager may also manage projects. That doesn't mean it's the same job. If you treat them like the same job, you're going to do a very bad job at one of them, if not both.
I'm afraid your "history" is too recent. You seem to be referring to the feature filled but UI altering rewrites over the last 5 years. I was referring to the even older history, where Microsoft _lost_ various lawsuits about their abuse of their monopoly to enforce the use of Internet Explorer in the USA, back in 2001.
If you'd please stop cursing, you can look at the court history and the hands-on memory of admins, including me. The fraud by Microsoft about inability to remove IE was a problem. The punitive licensing for OEM's that dared to include Netscape on their systems were profound, non-technological abuses by Microsoft against Netscape. The requirement of IE to access Microsoft updates was a third.factor, partly technological, but primarily a policy decision. Netscape market share grew in spite of these illegally monopolistic practices, so they clearly used to have serious advantages, and your claims that older versions of IE were ever "not nearly as buggy" are not based on any reviews or experience I can find. It worked well with Microsoft's own web server, but both the web server and web client violated published standards at every opportunity.
The "works best in IE" coding practice is documented in software I continue to work with, 20 years after it was written, and was in place when it was first released. It was a problem for web authors who actually followed the RFC's and various coding practices.
You seem to remember the Netscape vs. IE vs. Opera wars rather differently than I do. I admit that Netscape was quite buggy until it went open source with Netscape 4, when it improved and stabilized rapidly.
According to William Seabrook, who had more range of diet than many human meat eaters, it is pretty good and tastes like high quality veal.
A guy lecturing others on maturity when he starts off with the term "libtard". My irony meter just exploded.
It's also often a corporate standard, especially for companies and their clients with older, Windows specific software tools. And many proxies are configured to lie about the web client they are proxying for, in order to provide access to upstream websites which demand IE. There are many examples, such as:
My concern was more that AT&T is unusually cooperative with federal monitoring of communications. There are reasons to want the data, and even good uses for it such as letting this senior AOL user has accidentally built up an extraordinary phone bill. But there are so many _bad_ reasons to want the data, such as personal or meta analysis of anyone with political or media use of personal telephones, that I'm forced to remember that AT&T has cooperated in aggressive secret domestic surveillance programs with no apparent objections.
I've no personal ability to prevent the analysis or meta-analysis of customer data: I'm concerned with possible, even likely, abuse of the information.
Unlike all the others? The most infamous such case was that of Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
You have valid logical and legal points. But the acts would be considered felonies if committed by an adult. The subtle difference between a delinquency and a felony in the early stages are subtle enough not to confuse the typical reader with.
Why would the EFF be involved? They're not "the protectors of all technology", there has to be someone whose rights they'd be defending. That would be the owner of the open source, or possibly free software, copyrights. And given that the first case the EFF ever helped litigate was against the US Secret Service, and that the lawyer involved is still there, I think they'd be willing to take on Goldman Sachs if needed.
Unfortunately, none of the copyrights or of open source or 'copylefts' of "free as in speech" software require returning your modifications to the world at large. You _only_ have to provide them, if asked, to the client you wrote them for or provide binaries for, and that requirement applies only to "free software", not to most "open source". The open source licenses generally _deliberately_ allow you to proprietize your personal version of the software, and do not require you to publish changes, precisely so that the "business model" of providing your own secret enhancements can continue. This is the core of a great many open source projects funding, including Citrix Xen, Zmanda, and Sun Microsystems before Oracle bought them.
This one way relationship with free software is extremely common, especially in the financial software community. I and my colleagues are considered fairly odd because we publish our patches, and send them upstream to the code authors. We sometimes have real difficulty negotiating IP clauses in contracts with others because they do not understand, or profoundly fear, the practice. And the difficulty is not with the engineers doing the work. It's with their own lawyers, frightened of providing any information which could be used as any kind of leverage at all in any other case, and their managers, who argue that if they are not _compelled_ to, why should they provide this assistance to competitors?
My team tries to sell it on the basis of supportability. If they patches and improvements get published upstream, other eyes can enhance it, they don't have to maintain and keep spending resources to maintain their own in-house fork, and upsream changes are much less likely to become incompatible with their in-house changes. Then, if necessary, we point out examples, ideally with software they're already using. But it wastes a lot of early setup time getting this negotiated.