My theory is that Linux is used by experts, usually people with high-paying programming jobs, who can afford to drop a little more money. Macs are more expensive, so they'll also belong to people with higher income. Windows machines are cheap, so they're bought by everyone else, and (on average) they can't afford to drop as much money on the various bundles.
Also, since Windows machines are cheaper, they're more likely to be bought by cheapskates.
Well, yes. When your enemies are working on something, you want to see if their stuff is good. If it's good, then you use it yourself. This isn't "stealing" as much as it's "I really don't want the other guy to have a strategic advantage." If it doesn't work (apparently, this idea didn't), then you drop it.
It sounds like you're agreeing with the article - things work on Linux when you have a deep understanding of them. While it's good to encourage a deep understanding, the group of people using any given OS will always follow a curve of some sort. There will always be beginners; there will always be people who know just enough to be dangerous; there will always be experts.
Requiring everyone to be an expert will prevent Linux from being a dominant OS, because most people do not care enough to gain a deep understanding of any OS, so they'll pick one that's easier to learn the easy bits.
Even a non-profit insurance company would want to know about your genetic sequence; if nothing else, it would help them predict how much money they need in order to treat you over the course of your lifetime.
I'm in a driving study right now that installed a black box (plus a couple of cameras) in my car, to see how people drive. The study took care to make sure that the recorded footage and sensor data can't be accessed during any incident; it's encrypted, they resist requests from the police, etc.
In a related note, I can't cross US borders until the driving study is over; the border police are Not Amused at being recorded, and the researchers really discourage trying to cross a US border in the car that the gear is installed in.
Part of the trouble is that the victims often aren't local. Police departments, humanly enough, care more about solving local crimes that hurt local people, rather than crimes that hurt people "somewhere else." I agree that the FBI and other such agencies would be interested, but it's still a non-violent crime, and their resources might be better spent elsewhere.
Of course it doesn't say it in black and white. That's why people use the phrase "in the spirit". The trouble with LendInk is in how the metaphor of a book changes once it's online.
With a physical book, you have to learn that your friend has it, either by seeing it on their bookshelf or hearing them talk about it. Then you ask for the book. So it will happen every once-in-a-while; depending on how many reading friends you have, you might lend out a particular book 0-5 times before the book falls apart.
But LendInk is advertising what books are available, and it only needs to find one owner, somewhere, anywhere, who's willing to lend it to you. You don't even have to know them, because there will be some owners who will gleefully lend anything to anyone. So instead of having to individually learn about the 100 books your friend owns, or the 1000 books that your ten friends own, you just need to show up on LendInk, ask for a book, and get it sooner or later. The books on LendInk are too available.
"Putting the video out there" is an experiment. It's not rigorously controlled, but it's about as controlled as a website is likely to get. So they put something out there, see how well it works, and maybe tweak it.
That's the very essence of scientific experiments. You don't always need a "hypothesis" to do science. (Or, if you like, the hypothesis is "This video will teach students to do X.")
The cynical side of me says that, while warrantless wiretapping is bad and the NSA will get a strongly-worded condemnation, not much else will come from this once the furor dies down.
The trouble is that ultra-low-overhead charities can be completely ineffective. If a charity doesn't pay for computers, utilities, sorting machines, postage meters, etc. (or pays for only the bargain-basement minimum), then each hour of volunteered time is less effective than if there are sufficient facilities available. Overhead is, in reasonable quantities, a good thing.
Those might be vulnerable to anti-spam agencies actually hacking the control protocol. Or maybe it's just harder and the spammers don't want to spend as much time designing it. If government agencies keep taking these things down, and if they can do it quickly (not four years later), then it might be worthwhile for the spammers to have more robust control mechanisms.
What if you're running late to do something, or you are anxious to get access to the data behind the authentication for some other non-duress reason? Duress-detection will be tricky (but I look forward to them doing it!).
The point is that churches attract people who think they are doing good, and each church attracts local people. So you have a group of people who like being good to other people, are local, and some subset of that also enjoys activities centered on the church. (The rest just show up for services and then go home.)
This is a group of local people with a common cause, and that makes a good place to meet friends. If you're already religious, then you can easily go to church, join the activities there, and make friends.
Many users have figured out that if they click the OK button (or maybe the Cancel button), the dialog goes away. In this case, they know that they get what they want (downloaded file) if they hit the right buttons; they've probably hit exactly this before, on innocuous programs, and don't trust the warning messages.
Or we might just have a bunch of reasonably-savvy users that have realized that lack of a signature is not the same as untrustworthy software.
It depends on how well I know the item. If it's a commodity where I've bought exactly the same thing before (Charmin Extra-Strong Toilet Paper), then price rules all. If it's a new item that I'm not sure what I need about it (chef knife, bar stool, etc.), then seeing the item in person helps determine which item I need.
Yes, of course. Refute them if you can do it without being a dick. Ignore them if you can't. Even if you never interact with them directly ever again, they'll talk to other people, and you don't want to give them fuel to burn you with.
Depends on the manager, and probably labor supply. I worked a minimum-wage stocking job a while back, gave my two-weeks' notice, and worked those two weeks. YMMV.
He doesn't have to be corrupt; he simply has to believe that ACTA is good for Europe. If he's trying to circumvent various obstacles in his way, it's because he thinks they're wrong.
That's quite horrible! Fortunately, it's obviously horrible, and since "goto" has such a stigma attached to it, programmers will only use it when it's necessary. (Cross your fingers.)
I would love to not drive. I have a 45-minute daily commute each way, and paying attention for 45 minutes of driving is not something I look forward to. I'd rather surf the web, stare out of the windows, or just about anything else. Some people love driving; good for them. But for me, driving is just the thing you have to do to get to point B, where the interesting thing is.
Yes, there are plenty of ways to circumvent the block, but some of them take more technical know-how (or social links to people with that knowledge) than others. A block will definitely cut down the traffic to TPB.
No, the point is that all of the current & older versions of software would still be GPL. Only the author's next release (possibly released today) would be under different licensing terms. You can't revoke the GPL.
What if you spammed out one to every reference the candidate has? If there were, say, four or more emails, you'd get a decent chance of a reply if the guy really was stellar.
The idea is to not always say "we'll do it later". "Later" works fine as long as the various decision-makers involved can be talked into doing it later. If their answer is always "if it works, don't touch it," then they are the target audience for that old saw.
Another example: Collision detection, finding the shortest path, and other physical-world problems are NP-Hard (as the number of dimensions increases, it gets really disgusting to find intersections and paths). But there are a large number of 3D games out there, because "3" is few-enough dimensions that we can compute it with modern computers really fast.