This is all true (though note that if you're selling physical goods the rules are different, presumably because Apple don't want to own that space, yet).
It's also true that Apple is abusing their stranglehold on the market to try to wring all possible money out of developers, and cripple the software of competitors like Amazon and Google. That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
Please provide links to the stats, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
I saw some stats once for iOS sales which were made up based on a lot of dodgy assumptions and one total sales figure, they were far from what you could call 'scientific'. As far as I know Apple have not released stats in this sort of detail, if they have it'd be really interesting to see them here.
People can post compromising pics to any website, not just FB. Having an account there just leaves you open to crap like this, now and in the future, not having an account means you can safely ignore the doctored donkey pics, and if someone asks you about them, tell them you have no idea what they are talking about, and that they're probably someone's crude idea of a joke.
How naive, do you think for example your isp wouldn't sell your usage data and links you visit, and all other information about you if they could get away with it?
Good thing the ISP can't get away with it then isn't it? If they do it without the permission of their users, they could be sued.
There's a big difference between opting in to having your private information made public, and your social graph used as a product, and having private information used illegally.
She did friend the coordinator of the Queer Chorus group, as well as her dad. That coordinator then added her as a member of the discussion group.
I think Facebook was in the wrong here (as usual), but having a Facebook account was, in all seriousness, her first mistake. Trusting a company like that with your identity is not a good idea, and there are plenty of other sharing services for simple sharing of photos etc. If she must join it, she definitely should not have added her dad to a site intended for sharing your life when his opinions on her lifestyle were likely to be so vitriolic.
Facebook wants to make your entire life public, if you are not comfortable with that, you should get off the service now before it is too late.
Emailing a photo doesn't waste any more bits than uploading it to facebook. You send it once, it is downloaded multiple times - as long as your mail client or you resize it to a reasonable size before sending, it's not an issue. It's no less efficient and if your only argument for using facebook is sharing photos, there are plenty of other sites for doing that without the baggage of Facebook. You can then easily email the people *you* want to see it. That is as much control as you'll ever have over who sees an image - any controls you put in place can be subverted easily by her sisters if they wish.
Trusting Facebook to provide privacy in a case like this is madness given their well known default to making all information public.
The EU sees the US as far less trustworthy than you do, and expects to come into conflict with it again - war is unlikely but economic and policitical spats are quite common between the two. In addition to that galilleo lets them have greater accuracy than the US will allow with GPS, and ensures that they don't have a strategic dependency on the US in space.
Strange how myopic and solipsistic the view from the US is sometimes.
Let us know when you successfully [sic] run the largest software company on the planet.
MS has lost mindshare, marketshare, and profits under Ballmer. What has it gained? Zune, PlaysForSure, Courrier, Kin, Windows Phone 7, Bing, aQuantive, Surface tablets - a string of might-have-been products hamstrung by weak execution and weaker leadership. The stock price eloquently expresses what the market thinks of Ballmer's performance:
I don't think you can say that Ballmer has run Microsoft successfully in any way, unless you feel he has successfully squandered the legacy of Bill Gates.
How do you know there are actual humans controlling the accounts?
I'd be willing to bet real money that there are thousands of small shell scripts out there like me toiling away on automatically updating profiles and taking bidding from our masters on irc in preparation for the robot apocaly?)&@)&? END CARRIER
As long as they have always dropped any characters after 16 before hashing, and continue to do so, they could easily still be salting and hashing those first 16. For the vast majority of customers it will make no difference, and for those who use phrases it will only be slightly less secure.
If they can actually recover the pass phrase however that would be a different matter.
And when a carrier sinks, it takes that full array of armed forces with it. It would be interesting to see how long they last in a war between evenly matched sides where the carriers are vulnerable to air/missile attack.
IMO, currency has its value because people put trust in it. There's a collective agreement going on that it's assigned a value that's universally recognised.Especially in more recent times, it's clear that authority is abusing its power, making huge loans to other nations when they likely don't even posses the amount of money required to extend the loan in the first place.... printing up more paper whenever they feel it would "help the economy" to do so (vs. letting things play out naturally), etc.
There is an argument for steady (low) inflation for currencies in growing economies, and some manipulation of currencies is not necessarily a bad thing, but obviously gross manipulation and competitive devaluation as we're seeing now is dangerous, but this is by no means the first time it has been seen. This has happened before many times though when currencies were gold (and doubtless when they consisted of other mediums of exchange) - it is almost inevitable.
A currency is only worth what you think the organisation backing it is worth - it's a bet on their continued existence and reliability, and when they start to debase the currency, it is a symptom of problems, but you can't fix that problem by changing the currency to another one like gold, that's just trying to treat the symptom, not the cause.
As the parent poster intimated, hyperinflation is not linked to the form of the currency, it's a consequence of debasement of the currency (be it gold, promissory notes, or wheat (mixed with chaff)). Whatever we use to exchange value, people will try to game it, and governments will try to debase it when they need more of it, with the acquiescence of the population because they prefer that to harsh taxation.
In other words the volatility in gold is the result of manipulation.
It doesn't matter why something is volatile when considering an investment, just that it is, and is unlikely to stop being volatile. Market manipulation is not something you can do something about, and actually gold is already quite regulated, but still the market is full of fake gold, paper gold (ETFs etc) which encourages speculation, and as it is a popular inflation hedge, it is liable to manipulation, panics, cornering etc etc. On top of the volatility, It's also vulnerable to being targeted by governments when they run out of other ways to tax people (as it has been in the past), precisely because it is popular as a store of value (in spite of being unreliable).
It doesn't tend to track inflation when set against something like the Dollar, on the contrary, it is prone to sudden booms (as everyone piles in to protect their wealth), and long busts (as everyone converts it to something they can actually spend and forgets all about it in the good times), which are completely outside your control. I'd say it fluctuates even more than fiat currencies, which are usually pretty reliable in depreciating slowly.
About 13,200,000 results, of which the vast majority are not there with copyright holder's permission. As to the adverts, those are making money for Google, not for the copyright holders, which is why they don't really care if the situation continues.
It's interesting to see just how sociopathic Google is becoming now that they are in a position of dominance, and have grown to be a large company. What's interesting about Google's position now is that because they dominate search, and yet make money from ads, the less effective the search is at finding things the better for them - it means they sell more ads to sites desperate to rank well again.
Not joining Facebook is not an antisocial indicator.
There are plenty of other social networks, some people run their own blog/site and want nothing to do with the sociopath who runs Facebook and the massive tracking of all internet activity they indulge in.
Slashdot Mirror
The title was rewritten by slashdot editors I'm afraid... It did start with his name, but presumably that was considered too obscure?
Here's a free hit with the clue stick - the comments here on Slashdot are from more than one person, their views are not homogenous.
This is all true (though note that if you're selling physical goods the rules are different, presumably because Apple don't want to own that space, yet).
It's also true that Apple is abusing their stranglehold on the market to try to wring all possible money out of developers, and cripple the software of competitors like Amazon and Google. That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
Please provide links to the stats, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
I saw some stats once for iOS sales which were made up based on a lot of dodgy assumptions and one total sales figure, they were far from what you could call 'scientific'. As far as I know Apple have not released stats in this sort of detail, if they have it'd be really interesting to see them here.
I think you'll find the parent *is* al gore, and he invented the Internet after dabbling in plate tectonics when he was younger.
Show some respect!
You wouldn't believe how many women consider consensual one nighter as rape when it involve [sic] alcohol
Slashdot, how could this kind of misogynist bullshit reach (Score 5, Insightful) on a story about a young girl bullied into suicide by shame over sex?
No, better you don't.
People can post compromising pics to any website, not just FB. Having an account there just leaves you open to crap like this, now and in the future, not having an account means you can safely ignore the doctored donkey pics, and if someone asks you about them, tell them you have no idea what they are talking about, and that they're probably someone's crude idea of a joke.
Being on FB just exposes you more, not less.
How naive, do you think for example your isp wouldn't sell your usage data and links you visit, and all other information about you if they could get away with it?
Good thing the ISP can't get away with it then isn't it? If they do it without the permission of their users, they could be sued.
There's a big difference between opting in to having your private information made public, and your social graph used as a product, and having private information used illegally.
She did friend the coordinator of the Queer Chorus group, as well as her dad. That coordinator then added her as a member of the discussion group.
I think Facebook was in the wrong here (as usual), but having a Facebook account was, in all seriousness, her first mistake. Trusting a company like that with your identity is not a good idea, and there are plenty of other sharing services for simple sharing of photos etc. If she must join it, she definitely should not have added her dad to a site intended for sharing your life when his opinions on her lifestyle were likely to be so vitriolic.
Facebook wants to make your entire life public, if you are not comfortable with that, you should get off the service now before it is too late.
Emailing a photo doesn't waste any more bits than uploading it to facebook. You send it once, it is downloaded multiple times - as long as your mail client or you resize it to a reasonable size before sending, it's not an issue. It's no less efficient and if your only argument for using facebook is sharing photos, there are plenty of other sites for doing that without the baggage of Facebook. You can then easily email the people *you* want to see it. That is as much control as you'll ever have over who sees an image - any controls you put in place can be subverted easily by her sisters if they wish.
Trusting Facebook to provide privacy in a case like this is madness given their well known default to making all information public.
The EU sees the US as far less trustworthy than you do, and expects to come into conflict with it again - war is unlikely but economic and policitical spats are quite common between the two. In addition to that galilleo lets them have greater accuracy than the US will allow with GPS, and ensures that they don't have a strategic dependency on the US in space.
Strange how myopic and solipsistic the view from the US is sometimes.
The one who tries to insist all code in the world should use their preferred license.
And if it leads hardware vendors to avoid writing sophisticated drivers for Linux (a far more likely outcome), what then?
Why would nvidia want to deal with fanatics like this when they can just ignore them?
Let us know when you successfully [sic] run the largest software company on the planet.
MS has lost mindshare, marketshare, and profits under Ballmer. What has it gained? Zune, PlaysForSure, Courrier, Kin, Windows Phone 7, Bing, aQuantive, Surface tablets - a string of might-have-been products hamstrung by weak execution and weaker leadership. The stock price eloquently expresses what the market thinks of Ballmer's performance:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/chart-microsofts-performance-under-gates-vs-ballmer/35415
In June this year they announced their first quarterly loss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18917906
I don't think you can say that Ballmer has run Microsoft successfully in any way, unless you feel he has successfully squandered the legacy of Bill Gates.
How do you know there are actual humans controlling the accounts?
I'd be willing to bet real money that there are thousands of small shell scripts out there like me toiling away on automatically updating profiles and taking bidding from our masters on irc in preparation for the robot apocaly?)&@)&? END CARRIER
Form -> truncate -> hash -> compare
As long as they have always dropped any characters after 16 before hashing, and continue to do so, they could easily still be salting and hashing those first 16. For the vast majority of customers it will make no difference, and for those who use phrases it will only be slightly less secure.
If they can actually recover the pass phrase however that would be a different matter.
Thanks. That page on Altruism was wrong though, so I improved it for you.
And when a carrier sinks, it takes that full array of armed forces with it. It would be interesting to see how long they last in a war between evenly matched sides where the carriers are vulnerable to air/missile attack.
Yeah but if you have gold you can BUY the land, BUY the weapons, BUY the soldiers when the time is right
The Romans tried to buy the Visigoths - it didn't end well.
You'd better use up your gold before any apocalypse and trust your mercenaries, as having gold after a catastrophic even just makes you a target.
IMO, currency has its value because people put trust in it. There's a collective agreement going on that it's assigned a value that's universally recognised.Especially in more recent times, it's clear that authority is abusing its power, making huge loans to other nations when they likely don't even posses the amount of money required to extend the loan in the first place.... printing up more paper whenever they feel it would "help the economy" to do so (vs. letting things play out naturally), etc.
There is an argument for steady (low) inflation for currencies in growing economies, and some manipulation of currencies is not necessarily a bad thing, but obviously gross manipulation and competitive devaluation as we're seeing now is dangerous, but this is by no means the first time it has been seen. This has happened before many times though when currencies were gold (and doubtless when they consisted of other mediums of exchange) - it is almost inevitable.
A currency is only worth what you think the organisation backing it is worth - it's a bet on their continued existence and reliability, and when they start to debase the currency, it is a symptom of problems, but you can't fix that problem by changing the currency to another one like gold, that's just trying to treat the symptom, not the cause.
If we were on a gold standard or currency, they'd just find ways round it by adjusting the standard - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debasement
As the parent poster intimated, hyperinflation is not linked to the form of the currency, it's a consequence of debasement of the currency (be it gold, promissory notes, or wheat (mixed with chaff)). Whatever we use to exchange value, people will try to game it, and governments will try to debase it when they need more of it, with the acquiescence of the population because they prefer that to harsh taxation.
In other words the volatility in gold is the result of manipulation.
It doesn't matter why something is volatile when considering an investment, just that it is, and is unlikely to stop being volatile. Market manipulation is not something you can do something about, and actually gold is already quite regulated, but still the market is full of fake gold, paper gold (ETFs etc) which encourages speculation, and as it is a popular inflation hedge, it is liable to manipulation, panics, cornering etc etc. On top of the volatility, It's also vulnerable to being targeted by governments when they run out of other ways to tax people (as it has been in the past), precisely because it is popular as a store of value (in spite of being unreliable).
It doesn't tend to track inflation when set against something like the Dollar, on the contrary, it is prone to sudden booms (as everyone piles in to protect their wealth), and long busts (as everyone converts it to something they can actually spend and forgets all about it in the good times), which are completely outside your control. I'd say it fluctuates even more than fiat currencies, which are usually pretty reliable in depreciating slowly.
YouTube is full of pirated material nowadays, and it gets put back up as fast as it comes down, even with their automated systems. Here's a long list:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22full+movie%22
About 13,200,000 results, of which the vast majority are not there with copyright holder's permission. As to the adverts, those are making money for Google, not for the copyright holders, which is why they don't really care if the situation continues.
It's interesting to see just how sociopathic Google is becoming now that they are in a position of dominance, and have grown to be a large company. What's interesting about Google's position now is that because they dominate search, and yet make money from ads, the less effective the search is at finding things the better for them - it means they sell more ads to sites desperate to rank well again.
Not joining Facebook is not an antisocial indicator.
There are plenty of other social networks, some people run their own blog/site and want nothing to do with the sociopath who runs Facebook and the massive tracking of all internet activity they indulge in.
Err, they've been saying that since Malthus at least, so for centuries.