3825

I think we have enough information for Google to plausibly deny involvement.

It is not just a PR gimmick. Look at this line:

>> No cash required! Donations will be charged directly to your Uber account.

This is big as most everyone who signs up now has an account with Uber. Once Uber has my credit card information, I am less hesitant to use their service in the future. It sounds like a great way to reduce friction to me.

Off-topic: I remember when the only reason I signed up for Living Social was because Amazon.com was giving me $10 in gift certificate. I thought they were idiots for giving me free money. Of course, I don't think twice about having a $90 gift card balance "because it never expires".

Sorry for the trouble you had to go through. If you have access to an FTP client, you can go to ftp://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest

or you can go to http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases... from a traditional web browser as well

Cheers!

Let's take a step back at what value LinkedIn Intro is supposed to give to me. What would be a better way to deliver this value?

I'd argue the best way to deliver this would be by working with mail providers not by subverting them. LinkedIn could open itself up and allow people to query names and profile information (probably would have to be opt-in) given an email address. A client would just send information an email address, and LinkedIn would hand back name and (public) profile information. If the client chooses to send their own email address, LinkedIn could send back a richer set of information including connections. The email client would then display the information in a way that it knows best.

The whole idea is so simple and straightforward that I cannot help but think LinkedIn's ultimate goal is not to just know who is sending emails to whom but also what they are saying. Cory Scott may know that the implementation is solid but I doubt he knows the motivations of his corporate overlords.

Perhaps LinkedIn should put a badge on all profiles of members who have opted in to the Intro service so I can cut all ties with them.

> Mr. Muhtorov is accused of planning to travel abroad to join the militants and has pleaded not guilty.

I don't want to distract anyone from the conversation but I don't understand the case. The prosecutors are just accusing him of planning to join militants? No actual firm conspiracy/plans to actually cause any physical harm? No actual target to attack?

What crimes are the prosecutors trying to prove here?

For what it is worth, that is what Debian[0] seems to call it as well.

[0] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds

No, but there was no technological measure preventing you (serial number or phoning home) that would stop you as far as I can recall.

You can buy a single copy or a family pack for five computers.

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-10-4-Tiger-Family-Pack/dp/B0007LW1...

http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Mac-10-4-Tiger-VERSION/dp/B0002G...

You would think everybody with a shred of conscience at cnet would quit after the DirecTV Hopper debacle but that didn't happen. cnet still exists and people still work there.

> "CNET is not going to give an award or any other validation to a product which CBS is challenging as illegal, other networks believe to be illegal and one court has already found to violate the copyright act in its application. Beyond that, CNET will cover every other product and service on the planet," a CBS spokesperson said.[0]

USA Today questioned CNET's as well as CBS' credibility going forward:

> CBS, once called the Tiffany network, will never be viewed again as pristine. The ethical media rule is that corporate business interests should never interfere in journalism – or at least not so blatantly, publicly and harmfully. It made me wonder if 60 Minutes had ever suffered the same treatment.[1]

Why does CBS still exist? Why does CBS get a free pass simply for being the second largest broadcaster in the world? Why aren't we actively boycotting everything CBS lays its slimy hands on?

I am sad to conclude that your conclusion is correct. Nobody cares. Once you are big enough, you know you can get away with certain things.

[0] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57566906-93/cea-gives-dish-...

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/30/cbs-cnet-ce...

(I can't reply to your child comment so replying here.)

>Any move to give preferential treatment to MS's own hardware is the push the OEMs need to convert their Windows Tablet initiative into an Android Tablet one.

I hope Microsoft's OEM partners don't think this way for the sake of progress. It is a scary thought that MSFT/Google would not optimize their reference hardware for the sake of pleasing OEM partners. I have a Nexus 4 phone. I certainly hope when they write an update for mako, they optimize it for mako.

It doesn't mean OEM partners can't use similar optimization. However, to my naive mind it is absurd to cripple reference hardware for the sake of pleasing OEM partners.

I thought Windows RT existed mainly as a way for Microsoft to send a signal to Intel. Am I reading too much from Intel's involvement in Tizen[0]?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tizen

> Today you still cannot boot a windows server without a GUI layer.

Please give server core on Windows Server 2012[0] a try. They could use your feedback.

[0] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh84...

Is that to meet the money laundering/auditing requirements?

I may be reading too much into it but the following[0] just reads as entitled to me.

> if Google had tested in IE11 and discovered all was great, it's very easy for them to contact us to remove them from the list

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6576981

May I ask you to get rid of this CV list altogether? We don't live in the walled garden Aol envisioned. Don't you agree that everyone hitting the same browser should see the same UA string.

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

If not, can you please elaborate on this:

> If you currently use the x-ua-compatible header to target a legacy document mode, it's possible your site won't reflect the best experience available with IE11. For more info, see modern.ie. ?

If a site is on the list and they declare "edge", will they see the real ua string? What can someone on the list do to get the real ua string?

Just wanted to link to a desktop version of Amazon.com link

http://www.amazon.com/Reboot-Your-cking-Computer-v2-0-ebook/...

Sorry, I try to err on the side of caution as well but there is no way to do that in this case. Microsoft is clearly at fault. Adding someone to a "compatibility list" is a unilateral action Microsoft took.

If it works fine without being on compatibility mode, don't add it to your compatibility mode list.

Thank you for your help. I agree that the information in the URL is not always enough. I am glad it started a discussion and I hope pg reads the rebuttals to what I wrote. (github.com) is a good example. It shows why github was so eager to move gh-pages to github.io

Perhaps a way to get around the ambiguity (at least in case of github) would be to encourage people to use/link to gh-pages (so we see github.io as distinct from github.com) when they are available?

To play the devil's advocate, we already have the URL so the title (at least directly on https://news.ycombinator.com, experience on hn-android and other clients will vary):

    A New Beginning (us.php.net) 

Is that not good enough?

Dual monitors (Lenovo L1951p and L194 on Thinkpad W510 here) seems to work fine, at least on the 24 hour preview (you have to click the sinusoidal wave).

> This is not about the US. Those of us who live in the rest of the world and pay taxes would also like companies like Google and Apple to pay tax in the countries they operate in.

Hang on a minute. Maybe I am a little naive but I don't understand what all this hub bub is all about. Are you saying that people in country X (not the US) pay Corporation A real money but Corporation A legally does not pay taxes in country X? If that's the case, I think the fault is with your tax code than with corporation A.

I am sorry but if I could get away with paying less in taxes, I absolutely would. There is no shame in trying to pay as little tax as one legally can.

How do I PM someone on hacker news?

I don't mean to derail this conversation but I thought to HR I am just "Contingent Labor". How can I be considered management?

Hm... I guess I got a little carried away. I still don't understand why a security instructor or an engineer would be considered management. I'm sure there's a rationale. Somebody want to help me understand this concept?

If we could lose jobs and still run BART safely and efficiently, I am all for fewer jobs (or even no jobs) at BART.

> Suppose there were some technology that rendered BART’s whole workforce unnecessary. Robots maybe. Or some super-efficient private contractor. The public would face a choice: we could lay off all the workers and use the savings to send trains more places, more frequently, and at a higher level of comfort and safety. Or we could carry on.

Sorry but BART does not exist to provide jobs. BART exists to run a public transit. If we don't need those people working in BART, I am sure their hard work will be useful somewhere else.

As Shirley says:

> For another, what does 80k really mean? Is it the average of their base salaries or their total costs of employment? And who are included in this average? Certainly, if management salaries are included, it'd unreasonably skew the data!

I am concerned why there are 217 people in management. I am sure we can find some other people who will work in management for less. Fire the management!

If it were up to me, I'd stick to the BART compensation for everyone but the utility workers and increase their base by about 1k over current BART proposal. I'd make up for that by cutting down on management costs. I would not necessarily decrease pay outside of those with corporate title but they have to start letting some of the people in management go. My goal would be to reduce the number of management employees from 217 to 150 by the end of 2014. Nobody needs 17% of their workforce to be in management. Trim that fat.

I don't have much confidence in either the unions or the management to do their job. I bet everyone involved is very glad that I don't run BART.

They are spending $26,982,431 in base salary to management. Almost $27M for 2013 and that is base salary alone. I can't find it acceptable either. They need to start letting people go in the management.

If you are going back and forth often and end up spending more time than half the time south of the border, it might just work for you :)

Here is a quote from their fine print

> Not for extended international use; you must reside in the U.S. and primary usage must occur on our U.S. network. Device must register on our U.S. network before international use. Service may be terminated or restricted for excessive roaming or misuse.

> Countries don't just skip that stage in their evolution, short of some mythical utopia project, however much we might like to think they can.

However, countries cannot simply follow other countries' recipes for "success". Unbridled optimism hurts. Economic development (not to be confused with economic growth) is not an inevitable process. There are many pitfalls and it is a constant effort to stay on the path towards economic development to reach a point where you become a developed nation and can look forward to growth.

There is no simple blue print for guaranteed success. What worked for South Korea might not work for Bangladesh.

I was using Windows XP last week to make sure I didn't break compatibility and I miss little things like snap[0]. It is remarkable how quickly we build muscle memory because I really didn't use Windows 7 until about the third quarter of 2010. I was either on Tiger on my personal computer or XP for everything else.

[0] http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/feature...

Sorry but I don't make much money and I don't know how taxation really works but if people outside the US paid [CorporationName] and the income is being taxed outside the US (albeit at closer to 0%) why does [CorporationName] have to pay taxes in the US?

I think we have to use common sense here. I can see why we want to tax a corporation if they just set up a shell company and pay royalties to the shell companies from revenue generated within the US but if the income is earned outside the US, why do we care? Why do we tax income that was not earned in the US?

A simple (but very difficult) way to fix it would be to eliminate all tax incentives, reduce the tax rate, and peg tax to revenue and not to profit.

So if you had revenue of $100 and expenses of $110, you would still pay taxes on the $100 revenue (at a newly reduced rate). This would encourage people to try to improve efficiency and profit margin.

After all, I pay income taxes on all my income, not on the savings after I have spent my money. Why should companies get to pay taxes on "profit" and not on revenue?