You do realize it doesn't work that way, right? You can't just go "give me my dollars for bitcoin" and you instantly get it. There have to be enough requests on whatever exchange you like and depending on how much you trade you risk causing a price swing which ends up netting you less money in return.
It's just ICANN trying to get people who already have big websites to pay for another domain for the same site to keep someone else from registering it./quote?
Except that someone else won't be able to register one of these TLDs with someone else's trademark. That's the whole point of the manual screening process they are doing before handing out these vanity domains.
It's a good thing you didn't actually read the article, right? Or, hell, even read the summary as what you are arguing against was not what either the article or the summary was talking about.
They have, by failure to act in setting up an alternative or allowing their users to do so without beaching the click-wrap license, deliberately made their product unfit for the purpose it was sold for.
Is this ignoring their EULA which disclaims them from the very thing you are whining about?
That subset of users you mention encompass less than 1% of these browser users. Windows, OS X and iOS, Android, Windows Phone 7, even most major Linux distros all come with either build in software decoders or in the case of portable devices come with either software decoders or built-in ASICs for decoding. You would have to be using some obscure Linux distro or willfully choose to not install the codecs needed to make this possible. Such a group of people are statistically irrelevant.
1. combine this with Amazon Cloud Drive or Google Music and no, you won't need a system player or local MP3s.
Or you could use the already present music player in Google Music that will probably be far better performing than this Javascript turd that stutters to high hell.
2. MP3 playback requirement is prevalent all over the web, though thankfully it's becoming less common.
But how many of them are actually using a flash mp3 player over an embedded player using the system codecs? Seriously, almost no one is sticking to flash for mp3 playback so this will do fuck all to eliminate the flash plugin.
Except that this does absolutely jack and shit to phase out flash for almost anyone. How many people are saying to themselves "Well I'd only get rid of flash but I need a flash-based mp3 decoder!!". Anyone who is going to want to play mp3s on their computer are ether going to use a media player installed on the system rather than using a browser player to play mp3 files off of their hard drive.
Great. But do we really need a story for each and every piece of software written? Secondly, having used this decoder it is no where near as performant as a traditional decoder written in C and assembly optimization. It stutters quite badly.
Now you could write a C# interpreter if you want but that is not how C# code is executed. It is always compiled whether it be AOT or through a JIT compiler.
That and the fact that these third party companies realize that they will stop getting your business if they don't provide quality services. Internal IT monkeys fail to realize this until they are fired after years of headaches.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you have no such right at least not in the US. Such is clearly stated in the constitution as being a power of the government.
For those who won't realize before clicking the link the story is to an objectivist periodical that was co-founded by Ayn Rand. Take that as you will.
You do realize it doesn't work that way, right? You can't just go "give me my dollars for bitcoin" and you instantly get it. There have to be enough requests on whatever exchange you like and depending on how much you trade you risk causing a price swing which ends up netting you less money in return.
Wow do you even understand how these new TLDs work? Clearly not when you post this nonsense.
Then they shouldn't have made their postings available to those people?
Lots of money and lots of data to further sell to marketing firms?
Scammers don't need to own a whole TLD, they just need a close-enough domain in some new TLD.
What scammer is going to pay $185,000 and wait several months for a manual screening process to own a fraudulent vanity TLD?
It's just ICANN trying to get people who already have big websites to pay for another domain for the same site to keep someone else from registering it./quote?
Except that someone else won't be able to register one of these TLDs with someone else's trademark. That's the whole point of the manual screening process they are doing before handing out these vanity domains.
It's a good thing you didn't actually read the article, right? Or, hell, even read the summary as what you are arguing against was not what either the article or the summary was talking about.
They have, by failure to act in setting up an alternative or allowing their users to do so without beaching the click-wrap license, deliberately made their product unfit for the purpose it was sold for.
Is this ignoring their EULA which disclaims them from the very thing you are whining about?
And then during their first shower in prison, Bubba and his gang are going to have their own "epic lulz" with these kids' assholes.
now suck it up or revolt against it.
You first. Oh wait, you're a pansy armchair general.
Nearly 4 billion light years.
Will we also get a Packt Publishing book on some drupal extension called "Black Hole" as well? That would be the trifecta!
That subset of users you mention encompass less than 1% of these browser users. Windows, OS X and iOS, Android, Windows Phone 7, even most major Linux distros all come with either build in software decoders or in the case of portable devices come with either software decoders or built-in ASICs for decoding. You would have to be using some obscure Linux distro or willfully choose to not install the codecs needed to make this possible. Such a group of people are statistically irrelevant.
1. combine this with Amazon Cloud Drive or Google Music and no, you won't need a system player or local MP3s.
Or you could use the already present music player in Google Music that will probably be far better performing than this Javascript turd that stutters to high hell.
2. MP3 playback requirement is prevalent all over the web, though thankfully it's becoming less common.
But how many of them are actually using a flash mp3 player over an embedded player using the system codecs? Seriously, almost no one is sticking to flash for mp3 playback so this will do fuck all to eliminate the flash plugin.
Sure, Java does now. But originally Java was purely interpreted. C# has NEVER been interpreted.
But a Javascript API means PDFs be much more optimized, because you don't need a software plugin loading and running in the background.
Because Javascript just executes itself through magic and requires no background processes running to compile and run it, right?
Except that this does absolutely jack and shit to phase out flash for almost anyone. How many people are saying to themselves "Well I'd only get rid of flash but I need a flash-based mp3 decoder!!". Anyone who is going to want to play mp3s on their computer are ether going to use a media player installed on the system rather than using a browser player to play mp3 files off of their hard drive.
Great. But do we really need a story for each and every piece of software written? Secondly, having used this decoder it is no where near as performant as a traditional decoder written in C and assembly optimization. It stutters quite badly.
Exactly. Fart apps run much smoother on iPhones than their Java equivalents on Android phones.
Now you could write a C# interpreter if you want but that is not how C# code is executed. It is always compiled whether it be AOT or through a JIT compiler.
Even the fastest javascript engines don't even remotely compete with modern interpreted languages (Java, C#)
*facepalm* C# is not an interpreted language. The IL is either AOT compiled or JIT compiled to native code at runtime.
So now we're openly admitting these "tools" like OnStar are completely monitoring us 100% of the time?
Duh? Did you somehow think otherwise?
That and the fact that these third party companies realize that they will stop getting your business if they don't provide quality services. Internal IT monkeys fail to realize this until they are fired after years of headaches.