Yes. It's a type of freedom. Not having to spend however many hours a year fighting tracking on the Internet means I can spend those hours doing something else.
It's not a trade off of risks. They have to guess what strains are likely to be the virulent ones this season (since they mutate so often). This year they guessed wrong, so only 30% of the strains going around are covered.
Now 30% is much greater than 0%, but it's still a one-in-three shot.
I was under the impression that many platforms required a code signing certificate specific to that platform. So how many platforms does that "under $200/yr" cover?
My understanding is, all of them: $99/yr - all Apple platforms, $99/yr - all MS platforms (at an app level, not driver level), $0/yr - Linux, $0/yr - Google Android, $0/yr Amazon Android, $0/yr Steam. Note, that doesn't include any consoles (including XBox), but that's a different beast altogether.
What infrastructure exists to let amateur developers obtain such "borrowed hardware for testing"?
Well, I meant informal borrowing in your dev community, but there are lots of services online that test them. The point remains though, if you don't test on a platform, you don't really support it.
Many anti-JavaScript hardliners are against "the many bundlers that create a 'native app' out of JS/HTML/CSS" for the same reason that they're against JavaScript
It's still a better solution than running random code off the Internet. If you read any/. comments, they're 99% wellfounded security or privacy concerns, with a heaping of "stop trying to coerce me into turning JS on to read dead content."
I will admit that it's not a great solution. Different OSes have apps look different, and apps should look like how that OS stylizes apps. But that's a problem that exists on websites as well. So if someone insists on HTML/JS/CSS as a dev stack, than it's an issue either way
Then you haven't checked in the better part of a decade. The generic JRE hasn't been ported, but you can encorporate it into an individual app.
Xamarin and Unity are proprietary software priced on a subscription model.
Proprietary, yes. But free as in beer for an individual or corporation making under like $100k/yr. So, if you're really worried about small projects, free.
And how ought an individual free software developer to afford hardware on which to build executables for all these platforms as well as code signing certificates for all these platforms?
Well, if someone isn't willing to spend the under $200/yr on code signing (or less as a student/academic), I don't want to run their code. My whole point is I don't want to run random code.
As for needing hardware, you don't. There are build-in-cloud solutions. But if you don't have the hardware, you cannot test your code, and if you don't test your code, it doesn't really work. You cannot just trust it'll work on a Kindle Fire, a Pixel 2, an iPad, an iPhone, a Windows PC, a Linux Box and maxOS if you test it on your Samsung tablet. There are a lot of issues that only pop up on one platform. The full suite of hardware is not that much (you can use used/borrowed hardware for testing) and is required if you're doing anything interesting.
I also note you left out my "just run one of the many bundlers that create a 'native app' out of JS/HTML/CSS". At least then the process of installation/whitlisting is not based on visiting a page.
You've created a lot of problems that frankly aren't even issues, and conflated real ones (write cross-platform code) with fake ones (run random code from a website)
We have tons of solutions to native application portability: Java,.NET (esp. with Xamarin or Unity for games), C++ and XWindows or other crossplatform UX, JavaScript wrapped into a native looking app. It's a flawed argument to jump from "we need a cross platform language" to "we need a cross platform language that runs by default whenever I visit a website". That's the part that we object to.
No, it's legal to do legal things. It is illegal to break up a transfer of 10k+ into multiple smaller transfers to avoid scrutiny. If that happens, you'll have to explain why you had a different reason for what you are doing.
It's perfectly reasonable that different circumstances cause different legality.
A hotel room may be more profitable, but still something a city wants to discourage. So people can afford to live in the city, say. Ever play Sim City? You need a mix of multiple land-use types.
Of course it's no difference from any other trading. But anarcholibertarians (who believe in bitcoin) think they don't ever owe taxes and other people think they don't need to pay taxes cause it happened on the Internet.
No, but there are laws against arranging transfers into a bank deliberately under $10k. (Or rather, arranging multiple transfers of money into a bank that total $10k for the purpose of hiding the fact that it's a 10k transfer.) It's called structuring. That's cause 10k deposits trigger reporting rules to the IRS that you look like you're trying to avoid.
Zombies aren't scary because they're physically stronger. It's because they follow outbreak rules, cause societal breakdown, etc. Look at how we really respond to pandemics (see: Spanish Flu) with total collapse of functioning society, people starving to death without food supply chains. Now imagine disease carriers are actively moving and trying to spread the infection, and you see where the true horror is.
You're definitely supposed to pay taxes on your bitcoin profits. It's not even close to a question. I'll be amazed if the IRS doesn't start calling on people who cashed in bitcoin and didn't report it. Plus,the fines and interest.
And, if you timed your sales so that each one is below the 10k reporting level, you might get a fun visit from the FBI for money laundering.
I'm just going to point out your interpretation is not what your facts indicate. Seems like as Europe phased in national health care, their suicide rate halved. They may have started with a higher baseline, but that doesn't seem relevant.
Sniffing is a minor concern. The bigger problem, by far, are third party tackers. This is more an attempt by Google to monopolize tracking data than preventing it.
Also, it only protects knowing which specific page I visit on a site (they can tell from the IP address what website I'm visiting, right?). And that's unnecessary on many or most sites. On , WebMD pages matter, but when you go to XKCD?
Of course most people feel apathy. But that's why I said "everyone".
Studies have shown that in the USA, religious people tend to live longer. It has nothing to do with violent ends. As for being shunned by families, that's exactly my fucking point.
Only psychopaths can put up with total apathy or hatred from everyone they meet. For other people it is very much a form of torture. That's why "living for your own sake" isn't really possible for most people. True, atheists don't need a belief in any deity, but they do need friends or loved ones somewhere in their life. Religious people constantly believe at least one being cares about them. That's probably why religious people tend to live longer... you cannot outlive your deity.
(1) That's a very questionable statistic. The biggest predictor, by far, of poverty is your parent's poverty. So focusing on how people become poor seems far less important than focusing on why people who grow up poor stay poor
(2) I'm not sure how "properly using birth control" is related to delayed gratification. I will say a lot of Republicans really really hate the idea of teaching birth control methods in school and making it freely available to students. Given that Democrats tend to be in favor of this, I'm imagine the only vilification would come from religious conservatives.
Both have essentially infinite resources. Tens of billions of dollars, and the need to win the case. This case will not be decided by who can outspend the other.
I'm dead serious. (Pretending all your cash was in the DOW 30.) Your 100k just turned into 95.4k. That's a massive loss. But BTC are cheaper. So, yesterday (Friday??) you could have gotten ~14 BTC (~7k/BTC) for 100k. So your stock is worth ~14.3 BTC. But now BTC dropped (to ~6.1k/BTC). So that's ~15.6 BTC. So exchanging your portfolio now nets you about 1.3BTC more per 100k you had in the market Friday.
There may be some tax implications, but I doubt that they apply. Most likely, moving a few percent of your gains into a future tax year. That's a good thing in general, cause if you keep pushing taxes into the future, eventually you pay them when retired.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's a type of freedom. Not having to spend however many hours a year fighting tracking on the Internet means I can spend those hours doing something else.
It's not a trade off of risks. They have to guess what strains are likely to be the virulent ones this season (since they mutate so often). This year they guessed wrong, so only 30% of the strains going around are covered.
Now 30% is much greater than 0%, but it's still a one-in-three shot.
My understanding is, all of them: $99/yr - all Apple platforms, $99/yr - all MS platforms (at an app level, not driver level), $0/yr - Linux, $0/yr - Google Android, $0/yr Amazon Android, $0/yr Steam. Note, that doesn't include any consoles (including XBox), but that's a different beast altogether.
Well, I meant informal borrowing in your dev community, but there are lots of services online that test them. The point remains though, if you don't test on a platform, you don't really support it.
It's still a better solution than running random code off the Internet. If you read any /. comments, they're 99% wellfounded security or privacy concerns, with a heaping of "stop trying to coerce me into turning JS on to read dead content."
I will admit that it's not a great solution. Different OSes have apps look different, and apps should look like how that OS stylizes apps. But that's a problem that exists on websites as well. So if someone insists on HTML/JS/CSS as a dev stack, than it's an issue either way
Then you haven't checked in the better part of a decade. The generic JRE hasn't been ported, but you can encorporate it into an individual app.
Proprietary, yes. But free as in beer for an individual or corporation making under like $100k/yr. So, if you're really worried about small projects, free.
Well, if someone isn't willing to spend the under $200/yr on code signing (or less as a student/academic), I don't want to run their code. My whole point is I don't want to run random code.
As for needing hardware, you don't. There are build-in-cloud solutions. But if you don't have the hardware, you cannot test your code, and if you don't test your code, it doesn't really work. You cannot just trust it'll work on a Kindle Fire, a Pixel 2, an iPad, an iPhone, a Windows PC, a Linux Box and maxOS if you test it on your Samsung tablet. There are a lot of issues that only pop up on one platform. The full suite of hardware is not that much (you can use used/borrowed hardware for testing) and is required if you're doing anything interesting.
I also note you left out my "just run one of the many bundlers that create a 'native app' out of JS/HTML/CSS". At least then the process of installation/whitlisting is not based on visiting a page.
You've created a lot of problems that frankly aren't even issues, and conflated real ones (write cross-platform code) with fake ones (run random code from a website)
We have tons of solutions to native application portability: Java, .NET (esp. with Xamarin or Unity for games), C++ and XWindows or other crossplatform UX, JavaScript wrapped into a native looking app. It's a flawed argument to jump from "we need a cross platform language" to "we need a cross platform language that runs by default whenever I visit a website". That's the part that we object to.
You mean the apps that just spy on you and show ads to you? Yeah, I wanna review which of those apps my kids load too.
No, it's legal to do legal things. It is illegal to break up a transfer of 10k+ into multiple smaller transfers to avoid scrutiny. If that happens, you'll have to explain why you had a different reason for what you are doing.
It's perfectly reasonable that different circumstances cause different legality.
A hotel room may be more profitable, but still something a city wants to discourage. So people can afford to live in the city, say. Ever play Sim City? You need a mix of multiple land-use types.
Of course it's no difference from any other trading. But anarcholibertarians (who believe in bitcoin) think they don't ever owe taxes and other people think they don't need to pay taxes cause it happened on the Internet.
No, but there are laws against arranging transfers into a bank deliberately under $10k. (Or rather, arranging multiple transfers of money into a bank that total $10k for the purpose of hiding the fact that it's a 10k transfer.) It's called structuring. That's cause 10k deposits trigger reporting rules to the IRS that you look like you're trying to avoid.
Zombies aren't scary because they're physically stronger. It's because they follow outbreak rules, cause societal breakdown, etc. Look at how we really respond to pandemics (see: Spanish Flu) with total collapse of functioning society, people starving to death without food supply chains. Now imagine disease carriers are actively moving and trying to spread the infection, and you see where the true horror is.
You're definitely supposed to pay taxes on your bitcoin profits. It's not even close to a question. I'll be amazed if the IRS doesn't start calling on people who cashed in bitcoin and didn't report it. Plus,the fines and interest.
And, if you timed your sales so that each one is below the 10k reporting level, you might get a fun visit from the FBI for money laundering.
I'm just going to point out your interpretation is not what your facts indicate. Seems like as Europe phased in national health care, their suicide rate halved. They may have started with a higher baseline, but that doesn't seem relevant.
Sniffing is a minor concern. The bigger problem, by far, are third party tackers. This is more an attempt by Google to monopolize tracking data than preventing it.
Also, it only protects knowing which specific page I visit on a site (they can tell from the IP address what website I'm visiting, right?). And that's unnecessary on many or most sites. On , WebMD pages matter, but when you go to XKCD?
Of course most people feel apathy. But that's why I said "everyone".
Studies have shown that in the USA, religious people tend to live longer. It has nothing to do with violent ends. As for being shunned by families, that's exactly my fucking point.
Google didn't leak it. It was an OSS product when they acquired it. Hence, it had to remain open. They're just fulfilling their obligations.
However, they've spent a lot of money adding proprietary layers to try to make it more closed source (Think GApps and the play store)
Only psychopaths can put up with total apathy or hatred from everyone they meet. For other people it is very much a form of torture. That's why "living for your own sake" isn't really possible for most people. True, atheists don't need a belief in any deity, but they do need friends or loved ones somewhere in their life. Religious people constantly believe at least one being cares about them. That's probably why religious people tend to live longer... you cannot outlive your deity.
I'm confused on why you think it's an example of Simpson's paradox. Care to explain why?
There's no health care provider called "Obamacare". It's just a combination of Medicare and private insurers.
China seems willing to sacrifice innocent people for "societal improvement" or whatever euphemism they're using..
(1) That's a very questionable statistic. The biggest predictor, by far, of poverty is your parent's poverty. So focusing on how people become poor seems far less important than focusing on why people who grow up poor stay poor
(2) I'm not sure how "properly using birth control" is related to delayed gratification. I will say a lot of Republicans really really hate the idea of teaching birth control methods in school and making it freely available to students. Given that Democrats tend to be in favor of this, I'm imagine the only vilification would come from religious conservatives.
Looking up all facts on the Internet has never backfired! No misinformation out there.
Both have essentially infinite resources. Tens of billions of dollars, and the need to win the case. This case will not be decided by who can outspend the other.
I'm dead serious. (Pretending all your cash was in the DOW 30.) Your 100k just turned into 95.4k. That's a massive loss. But BTC are cheaper. So, yesterday (Friday??) you could have gotten ~14 BTC (~7k/BTC) for 100k. So your stock is worth ~14.3 BTC. But now BTC dropped (to ~6.1k/BTC). So that's ~15.6 BTC. So exchanging your portfolio now nets you about 1.3BTC more per 100k you had in the market Friday.
There may be some tax implications, but I doubt that they apply. Most likely, moving a few percent of your gains into a future tax year. That's a good thing in general, cause if you keep pushing taxes into the future, eventually you pay them when retired.
If you force most people to choose between Amazon & MS or Facebook, I'm not sure Seattle's the one that gets cut off.