screw official apps, I'm tired of commercials, and spam in real life, internet and television, so I've cut cable went 100% pirate and said fuck you to advertisers.
And apparently to the hosts of the content you enjoy.
Better hope they dont respond in kind one day and show you the door...
Wow, they grew 100% from 1.6 percent to 3.3%! Im sure Google is shaking in their boots, since their 75% market share doesnt even mathematically ALLOW that kind of growth!
With DVDs, one can make the arguable claim to own the actual media in question in order to justify the format shift.
Here, you cannot. What exactly entitles you to all-you-can-eat downloads and timeshifting of Google's content? Or the right to strip out the only thing--advertising-- which makes Youtube a sustainable enterprise?
Entitlement mentality 2.0: I neither own nor have a license to the content, but dammit i still deserve as much of it on my terms as I want!
Normally I'd agree, but in this case it really seems like Microsoft is trying to meet the needs of their customers and Google is not cooperating Oh OK. Remind me, which statue was it that says Google needs to help a competitor satisfy their customers?
More seriously, if theyre already providing Apple with the means to get to youtube, what are the chances the problem is Google, rather than Microsoft?
Pretty sure the requirement to follow the ToS comes before any obligation on the part of Google to provide an API. "Having APIs available" isnt an inherent right, either.
Tor cloaks your requests both by encrypting the HTTP part, and by masking the DNS part. If you access it over tor at work, all anyone will know is that youre using tor.
It stagnated, and then was ruined when a new release was finally made after years and removed all of the features that made people actually want to use it.
Dont tell people to use msconfig, it will bug them with an annoying popup box on subsequent boots, and most people will never check the "dont bug me again" button because its poorly worded.
I suppose it works in a pinch, but theres a number of better ways, and the compmgmt MMC is a lot better, and less likely to tempt the user into pressing something tragic like "safe boot" which would probably break a lot of their programs.
So you've set an arbitrary point of rarity ("as rare as gold") and said that any metal that doesnt meet that isnt as good. The problem is that diamonds, sapphires, rubies, silver, titanium, aluminum, platinum, all could meet a lot of the qualities you mention.
I didnt listen to the podcast because Ive heard it before, and the argument seems to boil down to "gold is great because its the only metal with the exact same qualities as gold". There are a lot of other really great substances that we could have chosen, and the industrial qualities of gold really cannot be used to explain why gold is popular. Historically, its probably a stretch to say that people chose gold because of its resistance to acids or that it lasts for hundreds of years without tarnishing-- historical peoples were happy to use coins which tarnished, and various cultures prized shells over gold.
Gold just happens to have "made it", and it happens to be a pretty decent metal, but theres no reason that aluminum for example couldnt have been the currency metal.
Iridium is rare, hard, doesnt corrode, and is very durable. There are other metals as well. As a conductor, copper is better. In fact, I believe physically, silver generally has superior properties in most regards.
The question of why gold has value today is probably best answered "because it had value yesterday". If you go far enough back, Im not sure what that answer would be, but Im pretty sure "it was the best possible choice" isnt it.
A warrant from the district court of Maryland, does anyone know whether thats likely to be a state tax issue? If it were truly a federal concern, youd think the warrant would come from a federal court....
Or they could simply use their brains, and choose not to listen to advertising. I didnt have much trouble tuning that crap out last election cycle, i basically just watched general news aggregators, the debates, and cast my vote as I always do. Im not sure that I heard any political ads, honestly, unless they were youtube ads which (as always) are ignored.
So I hit the nail on the head with the comment about it being like a religion.
Perhaps I used the wrong term, as I mistook the meaning of that word to be something else-- I was meaning a strict adherence to the foundational document, that is sticking to the fundamentals. Sorry for the confusion, I had assumed that the word had a wider meaning than it does.
Huh? I've already explained that a blanket ban on TV advertising doesn't give anyone choice
Its still congress making a law on the thing that the first amendment says they cant make laws on.
I am perhaps not communicating clearly, but it sounds like whats being suggested is laws that would run counter to a strict interpretation of the first amendment: "Congress shall make NO law...."
Your take when it's an (R), "I have a feeling he's sincere. Think of the children!"
Er, that actually sounded like a (D) position, and when I posted I was unaware that he was a republican.
I also dont believe Ive ever called a Dem a corrupt bastard, ever. In fact if you go through my post history, I have tried to be fair to dems, and avoid resorting to ad hominems.
Programs themselves cant know whether they will work without access to something unless the dev tells it that. Sort of like how a program cant know what dependencies it needs; someone else has to package it into a format that has that info.
Slashdot Mirror
screw official apps, I'm tired of commercials, and spam in real life, internet and television, so I've cut cable went 100% pirate and said fuck you to advertisers.
And apparently to the hosts of the content you enjoy.
Better hope they dont respond in kind one day and show you the door...
Wow, they grew 100% from 1.6 percent to 3.3%! Im sure Google is shaking in their boots, since their 75% market share doesnt even mathematically ALLOW that kind of growth!
Oh, wait.
With DVDs, one can make the arguable claim to own the actual media in question in order to justify the format shift.
Here, you cannot. What exactly entitles you to all-you-can-eat downloads and timeshifting of Google's content? Or the right to strip out the only thing--advertising-- which makes Youtube a sustainable enterprise?
Entitlement mentality 2.0: I neither own nor have a license to the content, but dammit i still deserve as much of it on my terms as I want!
Well, thats because 4 of those users appears in the last 3 months. Its kind of hard to compete with 300% growth in the span of 3 months....
The fact that Microsoft is doing it for profit will almost certainly carry some weight with the law.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case it really seems like Microsoft is trying to meet the needs of their customers and Google is not cooperating
Oh OK. Remind me, which statue was it that says Google needs to help a competitor satisfy their customers?
More seriously, if theyre already providing Apple with the means to get to youtube, what are the chances the problem is Google, rather than Microsoft?
Pretty sure the requirement to follow the ToS comes before any obligation on the part of Google to provide an API. "Having APIs available" isnt an inherent right, either.
(a user input - by the loader on good tanks, by the gunner on an Abrams)
Are you implying that a tank with one of the best operational records in the history of tanks doesnt qualify as "good"?
You could just install ghostery, which generally JustWorks (TM).
Tor cloaks your requests both by encrypting the HTTP part, and by masking the DNS part. If you access it over tor at work, all anyone will know is that youre using tor.
It stagnated, and then was ruined when a new release was finally made after years and removed all of the features that made people actually want to use it.
Dont tell people to use msconfig, it will bug them with an annoying popup box on subsequent boots, and most people will never check the "dont bug me again" button because its poorly worded.
I suppose it works in a pinch, but theres a number of better ways, and the compmgmt MMC is a lot better, and less likely to tempt the user into pressing something tragic like "safe boot" which would probably break a lot of their programs.
Thats probably a better answer than most that have been given, although lead probably meets that requirement as well.
So you've set an arbitrary point of rarity ("as rare as gold") and said that any metal that doesnt meet that isnt as good. The problem is that diamonds, sapphires, rubies, silver, titanium, aluminum, platinum, all could meet a lot of the qualities you mention.
I didnt listen to the podcast because Ive heard it before, and the argument seems to boil down to "gold is great because its the only metal with the exact same qualities as gold". There are a lot of other really great substances that we could have chosen, and the industrial qualities of gold really cannot be used to explain why gold is popular. Historically, its probably a stretch to say that people chose gold because of its resistance to acids or that it lasts for hundreds of years without tarnishing-- historical peoples were happy to use coins which tarnished, and various cultures prized shells over gold.
Gold just happens to have "made it", and it happens to be a pretty decent metal, but theres no reason that aluminum for example couldnt have been the currency metal.
How much did you care about this disease, 12 hours ago?
Iridium is rare, hard, doesnt corrode, and is very durable. There are other metals as well. As a conductor, copper is better. In fact, I believe physically, silver generally has superior properties in most regards.
The question of why gold has value today is probably best answered "because it had value yesterday". If you go far enough back, Im not sure what that answer would be, but Im pretty sure "it was the best possible choice" isnt it.
Even that "innate value" is only value because of the uses we apply to it. It is not an intrinsic property to the gold itself.
More practically, the "innate value" you describe is very low, and comprises a teeny percentage of the gold we mine and stockpile.
In what way does gold have innate value?
In a rare display of insight, yahoo answers actually explains why the whole premise is absurd...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120303200416AABp0fx
Neither does gold, by that logic.
A warrant from the district court of Maryland, does anyone know whether thats likely to be a state tax issue? If it were truly a federal concern, youd think the warrant would come from a federal court....
Can any lawyers comment?
If anyone ever asks "why do people still run IE 6", I would like to present Exhibit A.
Or they could simply use their brains, and choose not to listen to advertising. I didnt have much trouble tuning that crap out last election cycle, i basically just watched general news aggregators, the debates, and cast my vote as I always do. Im not sure that I heard any political ads, honestly, unless they were youtube ads which (as always) are ignored.
So I hit the nail on the head with the comment about it being like a religion.
Perhaps I used the wrong term, as I mistook the meaning of that word to be something else-- I was meaning a strict adherence to the foundational document, that is sticking to the fundamentals. Sorry for the confusion, I had assumed that the word had a wider meaning than it does.
Huh? I've already explained that a blanket ban on TV advertising doesn't give anyone choice
Its still congress making a law on the thing that the first amendment says they cant make laws on.
I am perhaps not communicating clearly, but it sounds like whats being suggested is laws that would run counter to a strict interpretation of the first amendment: "Congress shall make NO law...."
Your take when it's an (R), "I have a feeling he's sincere. Think of the children!"
Er, that actually sounded like a (D) position, and when I posted I was unaware that he was a republican.
I also dont believe Ive ever called a Dem a corrupt bastard, ever. In fact if you go through my post history, I have tried to be fair to dems, and avoid resorting to ad hominems.
Seriously, wtf?
Programs themselves cant know whether they will work without access to something unless the dev tells it that. Sort of like how a program cant know what dependencies it needs; someone else has to package it into a format that has that info.