I disagree. It is more than a fad in the sense that an e-ink reader actually improves reading in a number of ways. It is lighter than a single book. Can hold thousands of books. There is no curve to the page and can be easier to read than paper. It will sit flat on its own.
When "lying on the couch at home" it is superior to a regular book in every way. There are pros and cons for buying it since there are limited options to buy (but instant delivery) and there is no resell value of an ebook.
My point is that fixing the tax code is never in the direction of simplification. It always gets more complicated which means more people lobbying and more politicians taking more money.
The low corporate taxes now *are* the result of many many fixes. Yet people go back to the government and want *more* fixes instead of rolling things back and simplifying it because they all want to keep their particular fixes (hey, I want my mortgage deduction!).
It goes beyond their low threshold of what is an "emergency". It is also a matter of the government thinking they "need" to be first in line. There are limitless applications of the internet which may deserve higher priority. From reporting of the situation to keep the populace informed, routing food and water to those in need to just getting on with things if you're on the same cloud and not in the emergency area.
The government has no business demanding they can commandeer our paid for services at their discretion.
I haven't seen evidence of "knowingly and willingly" other than they wrote the code. Setting cookies like that isn't exactly ground breaking. Does google set their cookies this way for all browsers?
If they only set it for Safari, and only when blocked, then sure. I haven't seen anyone make that claim though.
Which browser is it that Apple made that protects the privacy of its users? It's not Safari. That's what this is all about.
Did Google "circumvent" only for Safari, or is this how they set a cookie for all browsers and Apple claims it's an exploit because they mislead their Safari users into thinking they had privacy.
I'm being facetious about investigating Apple. If it's not the way it should be, close the hole.
Google has code that raises its presence on a page to the level where it can then attach a cookie to the browser.
I'm unfamiliar with the exact nature of this problem, but is it a matter of:
if (BLOCKED) { circumvent() }
or just:
doSomething(); # Safari should have blocked this
It is my understanding that it does something of the latter. It submits a form in order to set a cookie so that things like the +1 button can be set. In my mind this is part and parcel of using Google's services. The code works the same regardless of the privacy settings.
Isn't Safari the one misrepresenting what the security settings do?
While I'm as shocked as the next person that google knows I've been buying windshield wipers, how is it that google is being held to the promises Safari has made to its users?
I suspect that the "Java failed" post was a sarcastic counter example of a language that stood on its own.
Java is unusual because it had a billion dollar marketing push explaining how it would change everything. Managers were taking Java classes to learn how it would change everything. None of this was aimed at the enterprise. It failed to be adopted most places it was aimed and somehow backed into the enterprise area due to lack of competition among Microsoft alternatives.
So the answer as to why Java didn't fail is probably that Sun bought it a place at the table. On its own merits, I don't think it would have gotten anywhere.
If I'm going around with my laptop, I put it in the inconspicuous place in my car *before* I get in my car. Not after I've stopped and everyone nearby can see that I'm hiding something valuable.
iTunes was able to negotiate price because they were by far the second most popular method of getting music. The most popular by far was copying (not sharing) music for free. People were still going to buy Apple's hardware whether Apple had a music store or not. Netflix doesn't have that luxury. They must have the content or else they will have nothing to sell.
Good luck getting a "no" out of a politician. You'll get an answer about how there is ongoing study in something vaguely related to the topic of the question. How they know that it is important to you and your fellow Americans and that they would like to see your freedoms to fruition but need to remain concerned that these freedoms do not infringe upon others when some mysterious, unnamed group exploits these freedoms.
Ah, I too long for the days of Clinton. If only he could come back and we could recommence the internet bubble.
Clinton is a good example of hands off government because the dems couldn't get anything passed and then the Republicans took over and nothing got done.
This isn't good leadership (by either part). It is what happens when the country gets left alone.
The government doesn't make jobs, it doesn't stoke the economy. It can put barriers (regulations) in place or move money from the most successul to less successful endeavors.
Have you tried to keep up with soccer in the EU? Highlights from last nights game...here are the pictures. Yes, pictures because you don't get to see any video.
PPV is a regular occurrence for main stream sports over there, no such problem here. Only obscure sports like boxing or UFC or soccer from Europe get the PPV treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain to me how having additional sources of energy would raise the price of natural gas.
I disagree. It is more than a fad in the sense that an e-ink reader actually improves reading in a number of ways. It is lighter than a single book. Can hold thousands of books. There is no curve to the page and can be easier to read than paper. It will sit flat on its own.
When "lying on the couch at home" it is superior to a regular book in every way. There are pros and cons for buying it since there are limited options to buy (but instant delivery) and there is no resell value of an ebook.
Not a fad, just a luxury.
My point is that fixing the tax code is never in the direction of simplification. It always gets more complicated which means more people lobbying and more politicians taking more money.
The low corporate taxes now *are* the result of many many fixes. Yet people go back to the government and want *more* fixes instead of rolling things back and simplifying it because they all want to keep their particular fixes (hey, I want my mortgage deduction!).
Government makes stupid laws.
Companies follow those laws.
This is the fault of the companies and requires more government.
"essential", "sharply", "emergency"
Yea, nothing vague there.
It's the masses voting to take what isn't theirs, plain and simple.
No kidding.
What are the benchmarks on all the non Apple hardware platforms?
It goes beyond their low threshold of what is an "emergency". It is also a matter of the government thinking they "need" to be first in line. There are limitless applications of the internet which may deserve higher priority. From reporting of the situation to keep the populace informed, routing food and water to those in need to just getting on with things if you're on the same cloud and not in the emergency area.
The government has no business demanding they can commandeer our paid for services at their discretion.
Peter Gunn or you'll never sell me one.
Springfield is in Oregon.
We know who that song was about.
Now if we could only figure out why Billy Joe jumped off that bridge.
I haven't seen evidence of "knowingly and willingly" other than they wrote the code. Setting cookies like that isn't exactly ground breaking. Does google set their cookies this way for all browsers?
If they only set it for Safari, and only when blocked, then sure. I haven't seen anyone make that claim though.
Which browser is it that Apple made that protects the privacy of its users? It's not Safari. That's what this is all about.
Did Google "circumvent" only for Safari, or is this how they set a cookie for all browsers and Apple claims it's an exploit because they mislead their Safari users into thinking they had privacy.
I'm being facetious about investigating Apple. If it's not the way it should be, close the hole.
Google has code that raises its presence on a page to the level where it can then attach a cookie to the browser.
I'm unfamiliar with the exact nature of this problem, but is it a matter of:
if (BLOCKED) { circumvent() }
or just:
doSomething(); # Safari should have blocked this
It is my understanding that it does something of the latter. It submits a form in order to set a cookie so that things like the +1 button can be set. In my mind this is part and parcel of using Google's services. The code works the same regardless of the privacy settings.
Isn't Safari the one misrepresenting what the security settings do?
While I'm as shocked as the next person that google knows I've been buying windshield wipers, how is it that google is being held to the promises Safari has made to its users?
I suspect that the "Java failed" post was a sarcastic counter example of a language that stood on its own.
Java is unusual because it had a billion dollar marketing push explaining how it would change everything. Managers were taking Java classes to learn how it would change everything. None of this was aimed at the enterprise. It failed to be adopted most places it was aimed and somehow backed into the enterprise area due to lack of competition among Microsoft alternatives.
So the answer as to why Java didn't fail is probably that Sun bought it a place at the table. On its own merits, I don't think it would have gotten anywhere.
And the guy who checks out the code base to put braces on the same line as the function; He's a hero, right?
+1 pure awesome, made my day.
If I'm going around with my laptop, I put it in the inconspicuous place in my car *before* I get in my car. Not after I've stopped and everyone nearby can see that I'm hiding something valuable.
Department of the Gravy Train
iTunes was able to negotiate price because they were by far the second most popular method of getting music. The most popular by far was copying (not sharing) music for free. People were still going to buy Apple's hardware whether Apple had a music store or not. Netflix doesn't have that luxury. They must have the content or else they will have nothing to sell.
Add in that your good and bad teachers are paid the same and have the same career prospects.
Not just watching it, but filming it, then destroying the film.
Good luck getting a "no" out of a politician. You'll get an answer about how there is ongoing study in something vaguely related to the topic of the question. How they know that it is important to you and your fellow Americans and that they would like to see your freedoms to fruition but need to remain concerned that these freedoms do not infringe upon others when some mysterious, unnamed group exploits these freedoms.
Ah, I too long for the days of Clinton. If only he could come back and we could recommence the internet bubble.
Clinton is a good example of hands off government because the dems couldn't get anything passed and then the Republicans took over and nothing got done.
This isn't good leadership (by either part). It is what happens when the country gets left alone.
The government doesn't make jobs, it doesn't stoke the economy. It can put barriers (regulations) in place or move money from the most successul to less successful endeavors.
Not everything in all the departments would be eliminated. Some would be moved to other departments.
Have you tried to keep up with soccer in the EU? Highlights from last nights game...here are the pictures. Yes, pictures because you don't get to see any video.
PPV is a regular occurrence for main stream sports over there, no such problem here. Only obscure sports like boxing or UFC or soccer from Europe get the PPV treatment.