You seem very defensive of the workers. That’s cool, I’m one of them.
Good workers will do better with the right tool. Bad workers, those who are resistant to change and are unwilling to learn, will never do better. So why cater to the bad workers? Now catering to the bad workers makes sense if the job is so basic that virtually no training is required, and bad workers need to eat, too. But saying we should all crawl because they don’t want to run is absurd.
Just because someone got used to walking around on their knuckles doesn’t mean walking upright isn’t easier and better overall. Sure, it will be difficult, it will be uncomfortable, and they’ll have to get used to it before they see any improvement, but once they get past those hurdles even they will be amazed at how fast walking upright can be. And in the meantime, no one else who already has a tendency to walk upright will have to go through the pain and inefficiency of walking on their knuckles.
A cogent argument. I’m convinced!
You specifically said you chose the MIT license because you wanted to use it in commercial projects. That’s business, no matter how small. As the owner of the property, you could have used any and all licenses available to you. Also, if you wanted to require users of your code to attribute or notify you, you could have. If you want to be disappointed in their behavior that’s perfectly fine, too. Corporations usually disappoint if you have any altruistic expectations of them.
Here’s the core issue. The developer didn’t know his rights, and made a mistake. I’m not criticizing, people make a career dealing with crap like this. But if you want to make a business out of something, it’s worth it to do some research or talk to a lawyer. I believe the MIT license has its place but, from what the OP said, this isn’t it.
I’m perfectly aware of how it works. My whole comment was a proposed way to manage it that doesn’t assume that everyone who uses outlook wants to use MS’s cloud service just because they also happen to use Outlook. I’m not sure how you missed that.
As for emphasis, “Press fucking backspace!” has a whole lot of it. I certainly would consider that, and not your hypothetical, as actively aggressive.
If you wish to talk about critical thinking, look at your own statements with respect to mine. Not once did I say cancel thenlink attachment, but this thing I didn’t say sure got you upset. Moreover, I wasn’t writing a formal specification. I’m sorry your assuming the worst and least likely meaning of what I thought was a pretty simple statement triggered you so badly.
Yeah, it sure does sound like it would be hard to have a notification if the attachment is going to fail due to size policies, and then have an option to use the link or cancel the attachment (and have you choose another way). It would also be unheard of for there to be a setting in that dialog to say to always do whatever action you take so it only inconveniences those who go with the default once.
User-hostile software is never a “you” problem. This applies to a number of FOSS products, as well.
I thought we were discussing what qualifies as structural. I guess we’re just talking about whatever you feel like talking about.
Most places that we’re going to talk about have an electrical code as part of the building code. Is electrical wiring structural?
Rough 2x4s were 2" x 4". Then we started finishing them for better consistency, taking about 0.5" from each dimension. Later we started using saws with narrower kerfs to have less loss due to saw blade width, better cutting and planing systems so the rough size could be smaller and still have the same finished size, then they lowered finished size some more.
And there’s that presumption. Just like the idea that a Faraday cage will block a magnetic field such as the earth’s. And unless your suggestion is that the poster just has to store his archive on the moon or farther, it will still be subject to influence from another magnetic field. And everything I’ve read puts bit rot at about 1% per year, which means, even with aggressive error correction about 50% of the archive will be lost within 70 years without an active refresh of the media. That’s not what’s generally meant by archiving. If it was, we would be talking about a process and a commitment by third parties to keep some random person’s archive intact for a century, unless what you’re really trying to suggest is that the real trick to building an archive that will last over a century is to live even longer?
Highly presumptive on many fronts, as well as conflating the ability to reliably write with the ability to read data over the same time span. So, tell me of the connector on this hard drive that you have that is older than me. And what do you use that drive for beyond as a curiosity?
HDDs aren’t written physically onto the plate. They flip magnetic fields. Anything relying on magnetic fields to store data is going to have a lifespan measured in decades, at best.
Or he could as easily block the ones he doesn’t like and stay in all. Just depends how picky he is. Granted, the fact we’re having this discussion implies he’s fairly picky.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer’s fees. We don’t get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
Worked as stated.
It could be trademark, certainly isn’t copyright. Trademark is use it and defend it, or lose it. Common trademarks that were lost are kleenex (tissue) and band-aid (bandage). Patents vary somewhat by industry, but in the computer world last 20 years. I think copyright is up to life of the creator plus 70 years, or 70 years if it’s owned by a company. This is why we hear about JRR Tolkiens kids having lawsuits about stuff related to LoTR, and why Steamboat Willy only recently went public domain.
The other response said it well enough, but I’ll go a step further.
MS made a tradition of moving functionality around in their OS for no other reason that I could glean than grouping things in an at least superficially comparable group and absolutely not where it was in the last version, merely so that certification from the previous version wouldn’t apply to the current one. They would do similar things with their Office application menus, in one version moving them around based on how often you used them (try doing phone support with that!), in another replacing them with little pictures that pretended they were related to their functionality, and again moving them around every version apparently for the sake of requiring recertification.
To top it all off, they would also not give you access to the old menuing systems. You could argue bloat, but that would be ignoring the massive piles of it they added for the sake of animating their new menus alone (which has value, to a degree).
I’m aware of some of the interesting bits of woodworking, as well. I can imagine the response if you told woodworkers that the only hammer/mallet they could use was a 16 oz claw hammer. And the reason we made all those different hammers is because they are the best option for the task they were designed for. You can get away with using a smaller set, especially if your workflow would require using some rarely enough that it isn’t worth adding in their storage and cost to be worth it, but a good woodworker will still be aware of those tools and be assessing their processes to determine if it’s time to expand their toolset.
And the difference between the physical world and the world of computer interfaces is you aren’t limited to just one. The open source world is particularly fond of including deprecated functionality because there are a lot of pieces working together and it will often take years to get everything updated, and you will never know when the last dependency is removed. Likewise with UIs. A lot of the time, a deprecated one can be kept around for those who can’t be bothered to learn the new one, but the cost of keeping the old version around for a few years is usually relatively low (and the developer can determine how much they are willing to have that cost be and do things to help make it stay within that limit). That’s no reason to leave the old version as the default, though.