Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Long shelf life when not exposed to light (like vampires, it bursts into flame in direct sunlight?)
Safe to use in a controlled environment (a hermetically sealed laboratory?)
Low environmental impact with proper disposal (encased in lead and stored in an abandoned mine which is subsequently sealed with concrete?)
The qualifiers make it sound like a software EULA.
Awww, give them a break. The second one actually carried two useful pieces of information: it has a pen, and it supports USB peripherals
Also, you seem to remember the ads quite well. Would that be the case if they had simply explained the features and benefits? Perhaps the whole thing is a devious plot to keep people talking about Surface simply by keeping people talking about how awful the ads are...
Isaac Asimov once said that almost every story edited by John W. Campbell had a Humans Are Special theme.
Sounds more like a cute story that at the same time panders to human ego than the author realistically proposing something like that might actually happen. I remember one science fiction writer saying in story notes how some sci-fi magazine editor really liked stories where some trait humans possessed made them superior to all aliens; this seems like one of those. Even in the story you describe, the ability to move things (gravity manipulation) is a weapon; the aliens could have simply bolted engines on a couple of big asteroids, bombarded Earth back to stone age and come back after the dust settled. Their matchlock weapons would have been quite enough to subdue what remained of the population.
On the other hand, another story of that type proposed that humans are uniquely gifted in weaponizing anything and everything; so perhaps there is some internal consistency there after all...
QML is optimized for writing the kind of fluid UIs that mobile applications favor today, meaning there is a lot of support for animations and other eye candy, and everything is heavily optimized to run smoothly on mobile devices. HTML, on the other hand, is not optimized for writing such user interfaces. So, writing a non-trivial, non-web-page-like user interface takes much less time to do in QML than in HTML (if it is possible to achieve in HTML at all) and the resulting user experience will be much better.
Of course, if your main concern is portability across mobile platforms, then HTML (and something like PhoneGap) is the way to go. Or, like a (fellow) Nokia employee put it: "If you want to go fast, use QML, If you want to go deep, use Qt C++. If you want to go wide, use HTML."
Acceptable, unless your legal system is based on a distrust of government and fear of persecution like in US. Then you would assume that the police who broke the law when gathering the evidence will only be prosecuted for show if at all, and will get a slap on the wrist at most.
Who knows, you might be right.
While I am no friend of DRM, there is a genuine ethical dilemma here. If someone (movie makers) is selling a product, should they be forced to sell at the same price to everyone? Especially when said product is not necessary for life and health? Note that this would harm people in the poorest countries because the seller would then set a price optimized for the more lucrative western market and would not be able to sell at a discount price in the poorer countries.
Outsourcing is a different thing - no one is being forced to do anything. It sucks for the local workers, but if the cheap labor abroad is treated fairly I do not see an ethical problem. Buyer's choice, just like you yourself can choose whether you shop at the local mom-and-pop store or at the big outside-town supermarket. Some people support the local store, others go there for convenience or buy there just those products which are better than at the supermarket, but most people just go to the supermarket because the prices are much cheaper. The corporations do exactly the same. Some feel social responsibility and hire local people, others hire locally only for jobs that are difficult to outsource, and the vast majority look at bottom line only. Supporting the community / local store is nice and often has long-term benefits, but I don't see why people not doing so should be condemned.
Everyone makes this about movie makers being the evil guys and the consumers being the victims, but isn't this essentially about consumers wanting to dictate to the movie makers the terms under which they can sell their product? I mean, it sure is nice for me as a consumer to be able to play my content anywhere I want, but I don't think that it is my god-given right. We can of course take the position that the public benefit (consumer benefit, faster development of new services, new innovative businesses, etc.) outweighs the rights of the movie makers, but that is a very complicated comparison. The state should not take away rights lightly.
All of a sudden, people who are thrilled by predator attacks and civilian deaths are outraged, outraged, I tell you that Afghanis might be at risk for collaborating with American forces. What a load. I don't believe for one second these war mongers give a rat's ass about what's going to happen to Afghani civilians who might be named in the Wikileaks papers.
You miss the point I think. They are not worried about the Afghani civilians at all. They are worried about the US ability to recruit Afghani informants.
It is insightful in the sense that companies typically ignore the law to the degree that they can get away with it, just like individual people do. And since an employee is usually at a massive disadvantage in the case of a dispute, a company can get away with quite a lot with regard to its employees. So, in that sense, they can do as they please. You can sue them, but then you have burned your bridges - it is not a viable strategy unless you are confident you can find a new job easily, or they are mistreating you so badly that unemployment is preferable by comparison. And by the way, prospective new employers do not usually appreciate workers who sued their former employer.
The last bit about standing up for yourself was somewhat unhelpful grandstanding without actionable advice, though.
UNICEF (and many other worthy causes) has a program for monthly donations. It may lack the warm fuzzy feeling of impulse donations, but it saves you (and them) a lot of time, adds up to much more money for the charity in the long term, allows the charity to predict their income better, and you can plan for it in your own budget. http://www.unicefusa.org/donate/monthly-giving/ for the US folks, http://www.supportunicef.org/ and click "Donate Now" for the rest of you.
(Feel free to reply and suggest other worthy causes that accept monthly donations)
How much to give? How about the same that a home internet connection costs where you live. Appropriate for Slashdot, eh?
Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with UNICEF other than having a monthly donation set up.
If you read the articles (yes, I know... this is Slashdot) you will realize it is not a problem with companies, but with computers and cell phones in general requiring the conflict materials. For some reason, the summary included a few random names and left out others, e.g. Apple most certainly belongs in the list as it produces both computers and cell phones.
What you can do, is name the companies who do try to behave responsibly and control where their raw materials come from. Quoting one of the referenced articles: "Cell phone manufacturers like Samsung, Motorola, Apple and Nokia have long had official policies against the use of conflict minerals in their products."
You know what this means: Next Star Trek movie will have a new ship in the historical Enterprises display...
(Yeah, I know the name has been known for a long time, but just came across it now and couldn't resist.)