I simultaneously have issues with Kurzweil's tendency to be overly generous with his "Mostly Correct/Correct" categories (check out my comments in other threads) - yet, at the same time believe it's important to look beyond the nitpicking of minor details. In the _specific_, Kurzweil is overly generous - but I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the fact that the general arc of his predictions, are, in fact, pretty good.
Critic is not necessarily pejorative. A critic can point out the good and bad.
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party?
I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
Yes, there is. I can't easily present a list, especially not one that shows it for multiple jurisdictions, but EULA's have existed since the 1980's at least and the general concept is well-accepted, in many countries.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!
I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate.
To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.
You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of that copy of the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.
Is it? I buy a PC loaded with Windows. I own the hardware. I have a license to windows.
I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.
I'd be interested to know why a contrary opinion honestly held and expressed deserves your downvote (or the 2+ it did get), or your pointless comment.
There is an HN Two Minutes Hate aspect to the steady march of "MS platforms stagnant / not supercool like the flavour of the week we're putting into production" posts getting voted into the front page. News about actual open source projects and cool stuff on C#/F#/.NET/Mono tends to languish / fail to hit front page, consistently. It's fair to call this out.
I'm not saying that open source is staggeringly vibrant and healthy on .NET, though it is making steady progress. I simply try to keep in mind that there is a whole wide world of workaday devs who punch a clock out there, and .NET has big reach into that world.
Sure, it is fair to call this out and I am glad people are doing so. What I find off-putting is the way in which the commenter did so. There is clearly no interest in a civil discussion when someone suggests that the opposing side needs to "Grow up" and that their opinions are the result of a mid-life crisis.
As for my comment being pointless, I agree. Shame on me. Won't happen again.
EDIT: Upvoting you for busting me on my hypocrisy.
You wanted volume licensing, but decided to be clever about it and 'test' the vendor. You inferred from their unwillingness to give John Q Random Customer a single pro version at the basic price that they would be 'inflexible' in an enterprise purchasing context, which is where your error starts and ends: it's an absurd leap to make, and you make a lot of assumptions to get there. You also manage to conclude from this that they "do not have a competent pricing structure".
Asserting that you gained any real insight into their business acumen or their suitability for your real purchasing needs with your strange test seems deeply misguided. And your delivery makes it entirely understandable if people take away from your post a reading that you are simply self-satisfied at having wielded that purchasing power so capriciously.
Now, after some initial rounds of criticism (and the consequent derail of much of this thread), you've stooped to repeatedly decrying the decline of HN and its devolution into slashdot (although you are apparently finding posts that agree with you to be restorative of hope on that front).
unwillingness to give John Q Random Customer a single pro version at the basic price that they would be 'inflexible
I have stated on several occasions that the flexibility that I was looking for was customer service in the sales process. I also clarified that it was the tone of the developers response served as a red flag to me, the discount was of ill consequence.
Now, after some initial rounds of criticism (and the consequent derail of much of this thread), you've stooped to repeatedly decrying the decline of HN and its devolution into slashdot (although you are apparently finding posts that agree with you to be restorative of hope on that front).
I chose HN after a long stay out of all communities because I did not like the direction that most have them had taken. If you review my post history, you will find it evident that I do not make personal attacks and when I respond to someone, I try to to show them that I value their comment by providing what I think is a well thought out response.
Given my history of finding most sites pointless due to the noise to value ratio and what I feel is an investment of my time to help contribute to HN to make it what it's stated goals are, I do find it disheartening when a comment, that, if you take away the emotion, is totally devoid of value and whos only purpose was to serve as character assassination.
I mean can you honestly look at the post I complained about and defend it as being anything other than a pop shot. One thing I can say for sure, is that no matter my position on a subject, I would not support such a post. I have seen the trend other complain about, and have tried to deny it, make excused for it and ignore it.
So with it so evident in that post I decided to confront it, because I really do want to know if, when critically analyzed, do the members of HN support that kind of regard for other members, that offer a genuine post (whether you agree with it or not, my intent was to contribute to HN).
So given that I feel that I contribute value to HN, I want to know if this is how people that contribute are valued. Because if the answer is yes, then it is time for me to go.
I realized when I posted it, that it would most likely come off as that I am just sour about my message not being received, and people are free to infer what they will about my complaining about it, but if you take away the bias of my original post, go back and read that post, I think you will find it clearly evident that there was little regard for the contribution of a member and an intent to aggravate and malign for having a different view point that the majority.
I asked and would love an answer to is this now acceptable by the majority of HN. Obviously for my continuing to post, I do not believe it is, but the seed of doubt has been planted by other members that I respect so with an example of it so obvious, I felt compelled to not only highlight it but to confront the issue head on.
Wow, does this unassuming post really constitute an appropriate venue for the old axe-grinding platform snark? Find something better to do with your Sunday afternoon, gents.
Marius, we're a small shop with 4 apps on the marketplace, and we'd be happy to help - will drop you a line.
I think the interesting bit is that Apple apparently isn't capable of producing a white iPhone. They've missed their deadline by 4 months already and they've just announced another 4-5 month delay.
Technically no one knows exactly why the white iphone hasn't been released. I've seen plenty of solid 'leaks' claiming button colors and camera problems, but no one really knows the real reason. It could be strategic for all anyone knows at this point.
I think I get where dangrover is coming from. You really want to support an organization that looks through the bills or at the situation and determines if it is really a threat and how much. Most people don't have time to read the bill or the RFPs the Federal Gov puts out (Lord knows, I had to do it for quite a few years and it was time consuming and painful). This is one of the reason people like to find experts who can do the research.
> Why would you trust anyone else to do your thinking for you?
Because there are only 24 hours in the day. Seriously, thew world is complex and it's impossible for one person to be an expect on everything. Therefore cognitive shortcuts are necessary.
Schemas are an optional part of Solr. Pretty sure that the default schema.xml has an example of a catch-all field definition, if you use that it will automatically deal with any key you want to throw at it.
Of course you need to specify one field type (analysis stack) to apply to all, but I don't know how you expect to avoid that - gonna have to express that metadata somewhere if you need more complex behavior.
Personally I think the _d, _i approach is ok, suffixes aside - complex field analysis options w/o a schema.
