|
Munchies_Matt wrote: One of the five worst slopes in the alps.
More challenging/dangerous? When you say worse, I think of insignificant, or not good.
Congrats though, on the accomplishment. Safety first!
|
|
|
|
|
(safe for work gif at imgur)
Is that you ?
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
That had to hurt.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
|
|
|
|
|
Ha hahahaha! What a berk, looking over his shoulder while skiing fast!
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'll stick to Swiss cheese and fondue, thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is not a slope it is a knee destroyer, the traverse would have been a major part of that descent.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The traverse was a major part, trying to scrub height. Problem with the 3 day old powder we had was that it isnt great for side slipping, so couldnt lose much height that way, it had to be turns, which also in old powder isnt much fun since the tips can catch quite easily, and if you do.... its a LONG way down.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds a bit like the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbühel (Austria). A few years ago a friend and I did The Strief; pretty much straight down for the first 80% and then slowing for a hard curve to the left to prevent flying off the edge and a loooong fall down to the village. After the hard curve the track narrows to about a metre and a half wide across a wooden footbridge with some vicious wooden handrails you absolutely mustn't touch!
Much screaming was involved but we ended up doing it three times that day! A hell of a trip.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you had a blast! Kitzbhuel is on the list, definitely going there sometime...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I've ever seen a "commercial software package" that included any warranty at all - even that the contents would contain any software at all, much less that it would work as described!
About the closest to that sticker would be the "by breaking this sticker, you accept the license T&Cs" you used to get across the envelope software CD's came in.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OMG that's stupid of the FTC.
I'm a pro "repair man" and if hp for instance, made a computer, offered a standard one year warranty, and the HD failed. I might crack the plastic trying to dig out that "hidden" hard drive. HP should not have to then warrant that pc and it's cracked case.
|
|
|
|
|
They're not saying "warranty void if you broke the device" is illegal, just that you can't slap a sticker on top of a screw and void the warranty for breaking the sticker to prevent people from attempting a repair.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Anders wrote: HP should not have to then warrant that pc and it's cracked case.
Why not? If the device had (for example) bad soldering on the memory and you open it up to switch the hdd, even splitting the case in two, why does that mean that if the memory fails a month later that HP aren't responsible for it? They're not responsible for the case you broke, obviously, but why are they no longer responsible for the bad memory?
In the above example HP are (wrongly) saying they're not, and the government are (rightly) saying they are, and laws like that just reinforce people's rights make it harder for companies to shirk their legal responsibilities. It also stops them ripping consumers off by charging extortionate amounts for repairs knowing you have no alternative (*cough*Apple*cough*).
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not, because software is (contrary to popular interpretation) not sold but licensed. You don't own the software that you "own", so any arguments relating to "stuff you own" don't apply.
|
|
|
|
|
ah, but the point is what if the software they give you is broken, and they do not fix it?
If you say rent a car and it's broken they rental co will usually fix it or more often give you another.
Now for software say microsoft provides a product that has bugs that sometimes date back years and often they won't even acknowledge let alone fix it. Taking them to court will never work - your attorney vs their large building full of lawyers and more. The agreement prohibits reverse engineering but it also states they provide a working product.
They've already broken the agreement, why can't your take measures to fix it? They provide the software to do X, it fails, you fix the product to do X - it necessitated some reverse engineering but that was never to steal secrets, rather to fix their product to meet their agreement.
So for mine, there are cases you should be allowed to take the lid off software code too, and if you want to sell (or give away) your fix to others also having the problem - also legal.
Here's a real case:
I recently helped a company move some XP software to new (well less old) hardware, microsoft no longer support xp and hence no will longer licence for it - previously under the licence it was allowed (with ms help) to move xp between machines [as long as the other machine is uninstalled]. ms will no longer help but the licence terms remain, and so the company that bought the software can take any other measures they want to achieve their goal, no breakage of the agreement by the customer, only ms broke the agreement.
Is "no looking at the code" the same as "looking under the sticker" - absolutely from where I see it, regardless if it's an item or licence to install and use software. (really software is just a visualised copy of a thing.)
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: but the point is what if the software they give you is broken,
No buts. The bottom line is that software is licensed, not sold.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Should Microsoft still be supporting Windows 3.1?
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
I say, fix the software all you want, but (IMO) you automatically lose any form of support the instant a single bit is changed. Code signing exists for a reason.
If a customer of yours changed the database schema for an app you've written, how reasonable do you think it would be for you to still be liable for the software's proper operation?
|
|
|
|
|
That is a rather gray area. I know of a case where a guy made a patch file for a racing game and he was sued by the owner of the game and, if I am not mistaken, he lost the case. He was not distributing any copies's of the game or any of its content. He just supplied a utility that would modify the game's executable file but that was enough for a lawsuit. Your question seems to be a very similar scenario to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Queen is to leave a day back to get chips are you sitting comfortably? (10)
|
|
|
|
|
Ergonomics.
Queen - ER
Leave - go
Mon(day) back - nom
Chips - ICs
Andy B
|
|
|
|
|
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
