"The section 49 order expired without further consequences to Love."
Why? Somebody forgot it was there? Didn't know what to do next? Or maybe there's a concern that there could be legal problems if they actually tried to enforce it.
16426 posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"the deputy chief of the Home Office was ordered out of a parliamentary committee hearing for failing to give proper answers"
Even better, AIUI, he was told to go and find out and come back with the answers by the end of the day. I hope the day in question was specified to avoid wriggle room.
"It was horrible for the weavers who were thrown out in the street."
Back in the early C19th it wasn't the weavers who were the Luddites. It was the cloth dressers or croppers who finished cloth for the clothiers - it was the clothiers who were the weavers. Under the factory system there were far more weavers then before. And as far as I can see the factory owners were largely those clothiers who could see what was happening and sold their farming interests to finance building mills; at least one of my 3xgreat grandfather's brothers was one (not that he was successful).
"Ask the luddites. They faced this same issue. Maybe you can learn from history."
It's an interesting matter. It wasn't quite a single movement and it the issues weren't necessarily simple. The outcomes varied.
For instance in the East Midlands one company that wanted to mechanise lace production was driven out of Loughborough by Luddism and moved to Tiverton in Devon. Workers who wished to remin with the company walked to Devon. Tiverton acquired a mechanised lacemaking industry at the expense of Nottingham's industry.
In the West Riding the Luddites were one particular branch of the textile industry, the croppers. Historically the industry had depended on clothiers, home-based family businesses carding and spinning raw wool and weaving it, often combining this with part-time farming. The clothiers depended on others for finishing, fullers, who mechanised earlier and cropping. As mechanisation extended the croppers tried to resist. AFAICT the numbers involved were tiny but reading between the lines of the usually politicised accounts they seem to have been trying to hold the clothiers to ransom. Some of the clothiers sold their farming interests and set up factories with varying degrees of success. Some moved out of the industry into others, quarrying for instance. Many must have ended up as factory workers. And the consequence, from the mid C19th to the mid C20th far more people were employed in textiles in the factory system than there ever were in the domestic system. Employment per se might not have been as significant a factor as remuneration and status.
And the moral is? Search me. Probably that the results are unpredictable. The set of circumstances that led change in the textile industries to raise numbers employed might not happen in the IT industry.
"Just as the purpose of marketing is not to inform customers. It is for the vendor's benefit, not the customer's benefit."
In some cases it can be very difficult to ascertain whose benefit marketing are for other than their own. They seem to assume that their pestering will not lose my custom. This benefits neither myself as customer nor their employers as vendor.
"How does that work?"
Second hand dealers buy books in bulk for bugger all. Some of them take library disposals. House clearances. Car boots. Remainders. Whatever. They can then afford to pass them on for very little. In fact many of them can sell for a nominal amount because they have enough margin in "post and package" charges.
"Sorry but you are plain wrong. That black and white enough for you."
Hi there, A/C.
Are you a judge who's had this case to decide? Because if you're not neither your view nor Stallman's nor Ubuntu's nor Linus's nor my opinion counts.
The contention on Ubuntu's side seems to be that loading a module does not create a derived work of the kernel, it's just two works sitting alongside each other in memory. Until we get a court ruling on that we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Stallman may have been responsible for the GPL but even he can't determine how the court will rule on the facts of a specific case.
"Ubuntu runs Firefox just fine. You think if it didn't, no one would have noticed? Your fault finding doesn't impress me"
Way back, when Ubuntu first went to Upstart, it became more difficult to diagnose incompatibilities between H/W & drivers or config settings. It was that issue with regard to graphics that pushed me off Ubuntu onto Debian. Of course when Debian Wheezy goes out of LTS and it's wall-to-wall systemd that particular solution will have been lost.
So I believe the OP. "Works for me" is not an example of skilled fault finding but unfortunately it always seemed to be the staple of a few voluble Linux fan-boys.
"If Gecko gets dropped"
It wouldn't matter if Mozilla drop Gecko, it would still exist. They could get together and maintain it themselves. In fact, as they'd then be in control they wouldn't have to spend their lives chasing the latest whatever-Mozilla-have-done-now.
"I moved off firefox to palemoon because the firefox UI had already changed to something I didn't like."
I use Seamonkey, partly for the same reason & partly because I prefer to have browser & mail/news client combined.
And, in response to Mage, it nails both interface issues but a pity about the selection issue.
"For one thing, it will kill end-to-end encryption."
No it wouldn't. It would just mean USians would have to buy it from abroad. The interesting question is whether the abroad vendors they'd have to buy it from would be someone new or familiar names that used to be US corporations.
The amazing thing about legislators is that they never seem to learn from history. If you pass legislation that enforces something unpopular it doesn't get obeyed, it gets worked round in ways which were usually obvious to everyone else before you even passed the legislation.
You told the court in California that you no longer need Apple's assistance because you've acquired this tool that allows you to break into iPhones.
You told the court in New York that you need Apple's assistance because you can't break into iPhones without it.
To which court were you telling the truth?
And BTW, all those folk who said the San Bernadino case was just a one-off - are you still sure about that?
Meanwhile I spent most of the morning setting up a cousin's new HP inkjet.
Start with the Linux box I set up earlier. No Linux support on the CD, of course, but check if hplip is installed. It isn't so install it through Synaptic, then go through the printer control panel which instantly finds the printer on USB and installs it.
Next, the W7 laptop. This is allegedly supported on the CD.
After a openings and closings of the drive the CD deigns to autorun. My first attempt to click OK to the dialog that asks me if I want to install terminates with a loud burp that seems to indicate an error.
After a second attempt which isn't much better I get to a screen which tells me it can't install and offers to download a troubleshooter.
I let it do that and from this point on the CD is totally redundant. The troubleshooter asks me to reboot. After that it offers to download an installation wizard. I let it do that. I run the wizard which downloads the drivers and finally gets the printer installed. At least there was only one reboot which is pretty good for Windows.
The CD appears to have no function but to throw an error and initiate a sequence of downloads from the net. WTF has happened to the once-mighty HP?
"it's shockingly ignorant of the IT media to demand Microsoft have an App Store stuffed with as many apps on launch day as Android or iOS do now, when none of their rivals had more than a small number of apps on theirs when they started."
It is likely to get into a chicken-and-egg situation.
Punters. Does the Microsoft store have an app for xyz? No? OK I'll buy Android/IoS.
Devs. Not enough customers on MS, I'll develop for Android/IoS.
'Their idea of security is that damned 25 line disclaimer in their EMail Signature to the effect of "This communication is only for the intended recipient so if you get it instead, be a dear and delete it. K? Thx. Bai!".'
Probably true but very short-sighted. They, more than most people, should have their eyes on the consequences of hacking along the lines of "If someone holding my client's data got hacked how much would I be able to sue for?" followed rapidly by "But if I got hacked how much could I be sued for?". It seems likely that they couldn't afford to pay themselves for giving themselves that bit of legal advice.
"And, as with all established platforms that run up against new technology, it turns out that if you insist on users moving away from what they already have, they are at least as likely to move away to a competitor."
Or to put it another way: never give a customer reason to review the market. I thought that was ancient sales and marketing wisdom.
"that's ok - even if you post it to Facebook etc. But if someone takes a photo which is then uploaded for use by a web-site that uses that image for their own gain - even if there is no monetary gain - then that's exploiting someone else's work and that's not ok without their express permission."
Maybe you should have given this some more thought.
Firstly, what's the difference between posting to Facebook and uploading to a wiki? Where does a blog come in this hierarchy? Or Pinterest?
Secondly if we followed your wiki argument then it becomes possible to block photography of any scene by putting something that might be considered an artwork in it. This is made even more problematic on two grounds. One is that any building will be copyright of its architect originally - although that might have been assigned to the owner. The other is, buildings aside, how do you identify an artwork? Is that pallet of bricks plonked there for for the builders or was it intended as an artwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_VIII ?
"I hate to point this to you but a free user can't be monetized properly."
And I love to point out to you something I mentioned at the start of this thread: if monetisation of the users was the point of Revolv it must have failed, otherwise why would they close the server? And if that was indeed the case it might be ominous news for other "services" based on the same premise.
"Proper procedures are good for routine activities - they are not much good under exceptional conditions."
Your proper procedures should allow for emergency actions but require that the action taken is documented. One reason for employing experienced people is to ensure there's someone available competent to deal with the stuff that doesn't get documented procedures because it's unexpected.
"You won't get much profit, growth or senior management convenience if you have a leak from the air conditioning in the electronically-locked Boardroom which fails, and kills everyone senior."
If it's that limited it won't do any harm to profits and growth. In fact it might improve them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019