zeeed

32 ms·

211.
by zeeed 15y ago
which is, in fact, fine with me. if we're enough people that are convinced and the politicians act like we want them to, then that's called democracy.
212.
by zeeed 15y ago
Elsevier (or any other company) that uses lobbying or gives money to politicians is just using the system in their favor. That's not evil. It's evil that the system allows for this to happen.
213.
by zeeed 15y ago
+1 for the "clean your desk, terminals, browsers". To me it's literally like cleaning a workbench. Every good craftsman learns that in his education, yet somehow as a software guys these basic principles have never been taught to me. It's a
214.
by zeeed 15y ago
thanks for the posting. Quick feedback: you use "lX" as a variable name. That makes the code barely readable, because the letter l looks VERY similar to the number 1 in most systems. It might sound nitpicky but it does distract from the ar
215.
by zeeed 15y ago
Microsoft once more does a fully automated update? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?! On the same note, it literally pisses me off how companies decide to intervene with my software installation. Allowing an "opt-out" is worth as much as Google
216.
by zeeed 15y ago
tl;dr: there's an SMS-activated backdoor and they do in fact collect URLs. They blame Trevor Eckhart's observations on the handset manufacturer who allegedly shipped debug code. They deny logging keystrokes or text messages. No explanation
217.
by zeeed 15y ago
that's all well and good. the key is that you can sell an app easily given a unified interface. that beats everything that is being done on the web, hands down. We have to understand that apps make money and that this is why people will hav
218.
by zeeed 15y ago
maybe it's just me but I can't see how either the original article nor the response is in any way significant. If I want to work in a startup wearing heels, then I'll do that. I don't need TC's permission for that. And, being in a startup,
219.
by zeeed 15y ago
In your example the treatment simply becomes too expensive with a slim chance of success. The relevant situation is one where a treatment is readily available (no assumptions about cost are being made) but covered by a patent, thus keeping
220.
by zeeed 15y ago
As much as I understand your argumentation from your first post, the author has a point. Whatever reasons about money, investment or other perfectly valid reason you bring up while advocating medical patents: No one on earth should be KEPT