See, I think they have to fabricate a charge to arrest you for before you can be resisting it. Otherwise they just add that one to the pile to encourage you to plea to lesser charges.
I don't think the US has outright contradicting laws, but they do have enough that you are probably guilty of something, and they do have the catchall "disorderly conduct" so the police can arrest whomever they wish.
FOSS is a wonder of the world. The idea that we can all run this stuff, read the source, and make changes is incredible. There is still plenty of opportunity to make money as a developer. If you have any skill at all, you should not feel threatened by a tweet scheduling app. And there's still software at $25 and up, even in the App Store. Just aim at a market that will pay for quality apps.
I don't know what the proper name of the button is, but my colleague's android doesn't have consistent behavior across all apps. I really meant it to mean that there are also a lot of things I'd want to change in Android also, but the topic was iPhones.
I want widgets on the desktop and/or on the lock screen (as a developer api), sideloading applications, some way to store data accessable to any app, a phone number black or whitelist, and a way for users to allow an app to do arbitrary tasks in the background or refuse any app from doing the Apple-allowed tasks in the background. Oh, and keyboards, developers should be allowed to make keyboards.
Then there are a ton of stupid UI issues they have, like when I open a new tab in mobile Safari, I don't want it to gain focus.
I'd like to be able to update the software on it without needing to rearrange apps into the order I want them yet again, I don't have any idea if that is possible or not.
Don't be ridiculous. If the premise is whatever creates business opportunity is good, why on Earth should we legally protect selling below cost and trying to make up on service charges, but not a business unlocking those devices and selling software for them? In fact, businesses can already accomplish the former through contract law. The only purpose that is served by creating laws against jailbreaking a device (in addition to laws against distributing others' copyrighted work) is vendor lock-in and monopolism.
The games are designed to both get people addicted, and to get your friends involved by manipulating social gift reciprocity obligations. I think we'd have settled for "awful" up until the clawbacks, now we know the leadership at Zynga is sociopathic at best. Maybe not evil, but totally unscrupulous, totally unsympathetic.
It sounds like you had interviews from irritating doofuses that thought they were brilliant. I don't know if it was ageism, but it sounds like could have been that you weren't doing things exactly as they were so they were unable to recognize your talent. (And they were to arrogant to look at it from another viewpoint.)
It's so infuriating that the lawmakers just don't get it. If I buy a console, I should be free to root it and run Linux or whatever. There are already laws against piracy, we don't need to throw freedom out to stop it.
That's not the experience of the majority of the artists, only a select few. For all practical purposes, if you aren't buying direct from the artist, you aren't supporting them.
Despite your condescending tone, I agree with the premise of your argument. But it's not like buying music from the distributors will help the artist, so the reasonable alternative is to get it from the source or not at all.
Maybe not, but they also have a list of exactly who was there at the time. We cannot examine the software, so we have no guarantee that it really blurs face and privates. Don't you think they might be able to do some analysis with either a full-body or partially blurred collection of scans over time?
People tend to get paid depending on how much they can negotiate from the market, which is not exactly the same as how valuable their contributions are, and at the executive level is more related to how good their contacts are.
Thanks for informing us that wealth is directly related to effort and taking risks, now that I know the 1% is doing 99% of the labor I guess their salaries are reasonable. They literally are doing the work of hundrededs of people, and their compensation is totally unrelated to the better education they had, or the wealthy contacts they've made during it.
Those relatively wealthy Americans should look at India and see how well-off they are in comparison, and then stop being so lazy, because it really is just that simple.
I'm really glad to hear this argument for open source, and doubly so to know you plan on voting with your money. I'm looking forward to the Firefox OS, I hope it gets a ton of traction. I'm pretty sure I'll be getting one too. Cheers.
If you aren't making money from having the majority of your trades inbetween two trades you are necessarily losing money. But HFT is profitable for you, which is a contradiction.
It's fake liquidity IMO, since HF traders are only willing to take a position inbetween someone selling at one price and someone buying a bit high. The trade was going to go through without them in the middle. They are just skimming some money from the buyer, who would otherwise have a lower price at the cost of delaying a trade for half a second.
Isn't Python open source? Along with a large quantity of server-side software? I'd assume everyone already knows my hash functions, I didn't make any new ones.
The US has basically the worst cost of healthcare to life expectancy rate out of all the first world countries. They're going to have to improve either of those statistics to even contend with socialized medicine.
I don't love negotiating, I don't do it as a job so I'm not as good at it as I am at developing. If this guy can get me an extra $X per year doing a job I'd like anyway it's only sensible that paying up to $(X - 1) is a win, and that's disregarding time saved.