padmanabhan01

It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..

//No Transferwise/WesternUnion

Ok, who set up that ATM. If not western union, there is supposedly some other company taking some percentage doing this?

Isn't government the quintessential "single place" or "platform" problem?

has there been any generation that laughed in horror and derision at anything in history till now?

what's the difference?

The same way you make sure democracy or the majority has the right "fundamental principles"..

>couldn't they have worded this a little more sympathetic and a little less lawyer?

Sure, if all the lawyers will promise not to take some statement out of context and sue them over that.. As long as such lawyers exist and that's the way the legal system works this is what can be expected out of statements from companies..

Wait. Isn't the right approach to make sure money doesn't influence litigation or legislative process, than trying to ban someone from funding another party's litigation.

If money can influence litigation, isn't that a bigger problem than a third party funding some lawsuit for whatever reason?

Most are dysfunctional. You have to specifically look only if you want functional ones.

Aren't you hijacking the topic of homelessness here then? When people say homeless they don't mean someone who is homeless out of choice and can get out of it whenever they want to?

>I recently sold everything I owned and started living out of my converted dodge caravan while I was prototyping what I wanted to build next. With an eye on my burn rate, I lived as cheaply as possible. I can tell you without a doubt that there is no natural system in place for homeless to get out of that rut, and it looks and feels dehumanizing.

I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has enough skills to "build things" has enough skills to get an average software job. So, just curious, did you choose to build things and be homeless instead of getting a mundane software job and not be homeless?

I think its the state violating individual human rights if what consenting adults do with themselves without violating anyone else's rights is considered illegal. I am curious to understand how it is not or counter arguments if any.

//Apple could borrow the $600B at dirt cheap rates and go private asap

Ok, so you mean Apple (the public company) borrows money, and then goes private. Now who would that private entity be? And which entity would be repaying that loan now since Apple (the public company) that borrowed money would no longer be an entity as it went private.. care to clarify?

Share buy back is one thing. Going private using share buyback is another thing. share buy back cancels the shares that are bought back and that enriches the value of all remaining shareholders. to go private an individual has to buy back shares so his ownership gets to 100% which involves a lot more than a company using it's cash in balance sheet to buy back shares. not the same thing.

//Slowly, over time? It's not as though $600B cash is exactly out of reach for Apple

You do know that the cash Apple has in its balance sheet belongs to its shareholders and that Apple can't use that to buy itself and go private?

I find it to be one of the mysteries of bay area. I don't understand how a city this size can manage to have nothing open after 10 pm. Is there a reason to this? Surely it can't be all shop owners getting to gather and saying ok let's all close shop at 10..

Aren't you using different standards for the journalist and the individual? if what the journalist is doing is disturbing, so is what the individual is doing.. if the individual is breaking no laws, neither is the journalist by outing him or shaming him. Both are acting legally within the system..

I don't think anyone likes spending money on people who've broken the law. But given that the options are 1. Incarcerate and spend more or 2. provide assistance and spend less, it doesn't look like much of a choice.. unless someone can think of a better solution

Software having bugs is understandable and people live with it. But there are a few areas where such fuckups are just unacceptable. Deleting files, photos, security stuff etc fall in that category. And as more and more stuff move to the cloud, companies better understand the priority of this.

Seems like an open glaring flaw in the trading systems if it can be manipulated in such ways. Why not focus on fixing such flaws instead of legislating against such trades?

So, the law says it's legal to place order and then change one's mind and cancel it, but is not legal to place order with the intent to cancel later? Seriously?

I wonder how they are able to legally prevent new development just because it will decrease their land value.. Can such an argument hold up in courts? If it was because of safety or congestion issues, it makes sense. But how is maintaining existing land prices a valid reason for preventing new developments..

Well, one can still remote wipe if the phone is lost. So, while this may still be an issue, it's not as bad as what it would have been if that weren't an option..

//We have enough digits to print 1424978922 on a watch face - that is standard Unix time. Why humans can't just learn to read that simple number is beyond me

You really think people should be using 1424978922 instead of 5:30 or 9:30? That kind of thinking is what's beyond me..

//Apple is a hardware company.

How is a company that makes OS X, iOS, iCloud services not a software company? Sure it sells hardware, but not hardware that's a brick.. People buy the hardware so they can use the software which pretty much means they sell a package that includes both hardware and software..

years lost indeed..

//He said the average joe should acknowledge that it is a good idea

I'd rather have average Joe ignore and boycott vendors that install bloatware and make the vendors realize that's a bad idea..

Seriously? Why on earth should Joe Average be made to clean reinstall OS after buying a new hardware?

Articles like this help to show all the work involved in the path from a vague idea to a finished product. That's the hard part. Guess that's why they get upset when some other company just sees the end product and just makes a clone of it, without having to face all the hurdles to arrive there from the initial idea..

It's time they take some responsibility for the laws they make..

If your tax laws are full of loopholes, start by fixing them.

If it got so complicated that loopholes can't be avoided, try simplifying them.

Ranting about companies exploiting loopholes make no sense. But then, it's politics. So, I guess it's not meant to make sense..

if there were such an oath, programmers would write the code and the business will fill it with content..

//It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/05/your-favorite-progr...