Group chat has been something that other apps have provided on facebook for over 4 years, nothing new here, just move along. As for video chat, that hasn't been in Google Talk and Skype for a very long time, has it? It's interesting to see confirmation that facebook is actually teaming up with Microsoft, the new owners of Skype. Maybe this is how M$ will try to make themselves relevant again, other than by being a patent troll.
They failed to price the tablets towards a market that would bear the cost. My daughter's pediatrician has been using Windows based tablets since I started going to them in 2006. It simply boils down to the fact that they had a business need and could justify the expense. Apple is mostly ground breaking in that they're making a consumer need for a tablet, and people with discretionary income are deciding to pay that expense.
I didn't know companies had a right to be mentioned on wikipedia. Now it is enforced by the government?
I think it's more likely a right to not have content arbitrarily deleted by a competitor. Imagine the uproar there would be if a Microsoft employee removed all references to Apple Computer from Wikipedia.
Wow! You get all that about freedom? Most of what I see are complaints about the bad translation, comments about how Wikipedia is not the place to advertise, and statements about how it's against Wikipedia's terms to post links mainly for advertisement purposes.
If their company is anything like the one that I work for, they own their IP address. If the company is being sued for 25k Euros, it would seem to be valid if it's based on the fact that an edit came from an IP that the company owns. They can't say that something that was modified in a way that was to their benefit, by an IP address from within their company, was unlikely to be done by an employee with permission to do so.
Ever see this site? Yeah, it seems like Google bought a company that was facing massive copyright infringement suits, a few years back. It's also bringing more hit music videos to the public than MTV is, and guess what? Many of the musicians are small bands who aren't signed with the major record labels, yet. Google may not be particularly "funding the creation of music", but they are absolutely funding the mass distribution of independent music and music videos. They're also leaving the nasty recording industry out of it while they're doing so.
The insanity here is that Apple and Amazon have already fixed this, for the most part. I'm not much of a fan of either, but at $1.00 per song that is a good bitrate with no cracks or pops, and no surprises(!), it's worth it. The RIAA need to start coming out with music videos that they post on Youtube with links at the end to the album or song on amazon.com or iTunes. There is now a good business model, it works, and it makes really good money. People now have quicker, easier access to music than ever before. I'd be willing to bet that people spend a lot more money at $1/song than they would at $20/album. Anymore, when I hear something on the radio that's worth buying, I'm downloading it on my Android phone from Amazon MP3 almost immediately.
RIAA, get over it, you don't control what's popular anymore, but on the bright side, you don't have to wine and dine anyone on YouTube to get a video to a hit.
It is the average income in the US that makes us docile. As that declines, so too will our apathy. It isn't income disparity that makes a difference for armed revolution. It is the fact that even the working class in the US often has multiple cars in their family, as well as an income that supports a home with a bedroom per person. As income declines and costs go up, this calculus will shift. This is why we have congressional elections every 2 years, the goal is to flush the turd before it stinks up the bathroom.
I think your success story about spam is actually Gmail, which seems to be better than a lot of COTS and OSS spam filters. It's amazing how well you can filter out spam based on that broad of a user base's opinion of what is spam. On the other hand, I'm running a well known commercial email product with an equally well known spam filter at work, and it isn't blocking spam nearly as well.
Actually, this is quite common. It's not that I agree with it, but here's how this happens. Development is less mission critical, so it gets security updates first. Firewall rules can be written willy nilly in development environments. Custom applications get security bugs worked out of them in development. The next place all of these changes go is a testing environment. The testing environment is far less wild-west as far as what can be done, in an enterprise environment. It's still easier to get the necessary changes approved, and work done. Once all of these items are rolled out, in the test environment, it's found that some critical or perceived critical piece of the system is broken by the security modifications. The company then goes back to the drawing board, and modifies the development environment until everything looks smooth. Rinse and repeat. If you have silos that don't communicate, you get developers, sys admins and net admins all testing changes at the same time. We mistake meetings for communication. People in change review meetings rarely listen in on the other 300 changes that need approval, and most people drop from teleconferences when their piece is done.
I would argue that it's more of a mismanagement issue than an economic or cost issue.
But I'll have any easy time finding conservatives arguing for relaxed gun control and reduction of government. It's much easier to find liberals who believe in gun rights than it is to find conservatives that believe in freedom other than the rights of the wealthy and the corporation.
Outlawing something that most people don't find wrong and part of the population wants is mostly a way to get such illegal activity.
And it all starts with speeding on the highway. Such a minor crime, and we see people getting away with it all the time. People do it because they think they have something to gain, but it really isn't much. Just a few minutes a day even if they're driving for more than an hour each way. The governments legitimacy as a rules and standards making body declines from there. Citizens see that some of the laws really aren't that serious. Hell, even the police speed everywhere. The citizens start to wonder about the other laws, and which of them is legitimate and right, and are the cops breaking them too?
Now, is it the liberals or the conservatives who want the drugs to be illegal? What about speeding? And gay marriage, fully automatic weapons, abortion, and freedom to worship the Pagan gods of old? I must be an ultra-conservative, because I want the government out of everything to do with personal choices and decisions that don't infringe upon my neighbors' rights. I must admit that speeding could affect others on the road, and I don't recommend breaking that law (by much).
I'm just curious, where would you draw the line with minors viewing sexual content? Would it only be procreation, or would any form of smut or strange fetish also be acceptable? At face value, I agree that there is a strange disconnect in violence being okay and sexual content remaining taboo. As soon as I start to think about what should be permissible sexual content, I stop. I wouldn't want to begin to dictate what other people's kids are allowed to see at what age.
On a side note, before there were prepaid debit cards, when we wanted "R" rated movies or cigarettes we just stole them. Kids will always find ways around age restrictions, sometimes what they do to get around the restrictions is worse than what's being restricted.
In particular, it's sometimes hard to determine whether or not you *are* selling to a minor - consider an online retailer: it would be pretty easy for a minor to order something with their parent's credit card, name, address, so they wouldn't know they were selling to a minor.
If it's the parent's credit card being used, the parent will learn about it when they look at their statement, I know I reconcile mine. If it's a stolen credit card being used, there are already bigger problems in that household than a child buying a violent video game. Ultimately, the online purchase age verification takes care of itself with the use of a credit card.
Offers? They'll probably provide it by default, it will install upon log in. Then it will auto-recognize the artists and recommend you "like" them. It will hit everyone who just wants to get to quickly, as they'll just click okay to get the pop-up off of their screen.
While it is good for the IT industry as a whole, as far as investment in infrastructure and qualified administrators, it is also bad for Internet freedom. The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be. Today we have the "sexting representative", tomorrow it will be a senator that looks at free porn on his home computer. The extreme cases convince us that we need to lose some privacy, and then government passes laws that are harsher and harsher, and relaxes warrant requirements, because no one loses elections for being strong against "crime".
All the Android fans could only hope that Apple would be this galactically stupid.
Actually, I'm an Android fan that wishes nothing but good things for Apple, and stronger iPhones. It's unbelievably awesome that iPhones aren't just limited to AT&T, I'd like to see every carrier have an Apple offering. We're not talking sports, were talking products. Better iPhones means that Android manufacturers have to do better to compete. Apple fans should be hoping for better Android phones to come out, to continue to push the iPhone to be better. That's the problem with Windows. As soon as it's the only game in town, it's not worth buying tickets. Get off your Apple high-horse. In the mobile market place, any sensible capitalist wants to see iPhone, Android and even Windows Mobile (or whatever they're making) do well. Complete market dominance is the worst thing that can happen for consumers of almost any service or product.
My concern is far less about what Apple wants to do, but more what RIAA's lawyers are able to get a subpoena to. When music I backed up from CD's that I own is sitting on my computer, in my home, there is a different expectation of privacy, and a different form of ownership, when compared to files on a remote server, housed by someone else. I won't use it or anything like it until read about the cloud provider insisting on a court order when RIAA comes knocking, and winning when they bring it to trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Group chat has been something that other apps have provided on facebook for over 4 years, nothing new here, just move along. As for video chat, that hasn't been in Google Talk and Skype for a very long time, has it? It's interesting to see confirmation that facebook is actually teaming up with Microsoft, the new owners of Skype. Maybe this is how M$ will try to make themselves relevant again, other than by being a patent troll.
They failed to price the tablets towards a market that would bear the cost. My daughter's pediatrician has been using Windows based tablets since I started going to them in 2006. It simply boils down to the fact that they had a business need and could justify the expense. Apple is mostly ground breaking in that they're making a consumer need for a tablet, and people with discretionary income are deciding to pay that expense.
I didn't know companies had a right to be mentioned on wikipedia. Now it is enforced by the government?
I think it's more likely a right to not have content arbitrarily deleted by a competitor. Imagine the uproar there would be if a Microsoft employee removed all references to Apple Computer from Wikipedia.
Wow! You get all that about freedom? Most of what I see are complaints about the bad translation, comments about how Wikipedia is not the place to advertise, and statements about how it's against Wikipedia's terms to post links mainly for advertisement purposes.
If their company is anything like the one that I work for, they own their IP address. If the company is being sued for 25k Euros, it would seem to be valid if it's based on the fact that an edit came from an IP that the company owns. They can't say that something that was modified in a way that was to their benefit, by an IP address from within their company, was unlikely to be done by an employee with permission to do so.
Of course, IANAL
Ever see this site? Yeah, it seems like Google bought a company that was facing massive copyright infringement suits, a few years back. It's also bringing more hit music videos to the public than MTV is, and guess what? Many of the musicians are small bands who aren't signed with the major record labels, yet. Google may not be particularly "funding the creation of music", but they are absolutely funding the mass distribution of independent music and music videos. They're also leaving the nasty recording industry out of it while they're doing so.
The insanity here is that Apple and Amazon have already fixed this, for the most part. I'm not much of a fan of either, but at $1.00 per song that is a good bitrate with no cracks or pops, and no surprises(!), it's worth it. The RIAA need to start coming out with music videos that they post on Youtube with links at the end to the album or song on amazon.com or iTunes. There is now a good business model, it works, and it makes really good money. People now have quicker, easier access to music than ever before. I'd be willing to bet that people spend a lot more money at $1/song than they would at $20/album. Anymore, when I hear something on the radio that's worth buying, I'm downloading it on my Android phone from Amazon MP3 almost immediately.
RIAA, get over it, you don't control what's popular anymore, but on the bright side, you don't have to wine and dine anyone on YouTube to get a video to a hit.
It is the average income in the US that makes us docile. As that declines, so too will our apathy. It isn't income disparity that makes a difference for armed revolution. It is the fact that even the working class in the US often has multiple cars in their family, as well as an income that supports a home with a bedroom per person. As income declines and costs go up, this calculus will shift. This is why we have congressional elections every 2 years, the goal is to flush the turd before it stinks up the bathroom.
Mod Parent up!
The best solution to SPAM has to also be the best solution to music/movie piracy. Adjust incentives until it is eliminated.
I think your success story about spam is actually Gmail, which seems to be better than a lot of COTS and OSS spam filters. It's amazing how well you can filter out spam based on that broad of a user base's opinion of what is spam. On the other hand, I'm running a well known commercial email product with an equally well known spam filter at work, and it isn't blocking spam nearly as well.
You will never get your parents to switch, but then again . . . you will never be able to get your parents to switch!
And the bar posts its Facebook page "Norm!"
Actually, this is quite common. It's not that I agree with it, but here's how this happens. Development is less mission critical, so it gets security updates first. Firewall rules can be written willy nilly in development environments. Custom applications get security bugs worked out of them in development. The next place all of these changes go is a testing environment. The testing environment is far less wild-west as far as what can be done, in an enterprise environment. It's still easier to get the necessary changes approved, and work done. Once all of these items are rolled out, in the test environment, it's found that some critical or perceived critical piece of the system is broken by the security modifications. The company then goes back to the drawing board, and modifies the development environment until everything looks smooth. Rinse and repeat. If you have silos that don't communicate, you get developers, sys admins and net admins all testing changes at the same time. We mistake meetings for communication. People in change review meetings rarely listen in on the other 300 changes that need approval, and most people drop from teleconferences when their piece is done. I would argue that it's more of a mismanagement issue than an economic or cost issue.
I guess 1777 is now just plain out the window as a good passcode.
No, I don't think that all troops get air conditioning, but I also think that we have a massive presence in each country.
No, but I do believe that air conditioning in the desert for all those troops would indeed cost this much.
But I'll have any easy time finding conservatives arguing for relaxed gun control and reduction of government. It's much easier to find liberals who believe in gun rights than it is to find conservatives that believe in freedom other than the rights of the wealthy and the corporation.
Outlawing something that most people don't find wrong and part of the population wants is mostly a way to get such illegal activity.
And it all starts with speeding on the highway. Such a minor crime, and we see people getting away with it all the time. People do it because they think they have something to gain, but it really isn't much. Just a few minutes a day even if they're driving for more than an hour each way. The governments legitimacy as a rules and standards making body declines from there. Citizens see that some of the laws really aren't that serious. Hell, even the police speed everywhere. The citizens start to wonder about the other laws, and which of them is legitimate and right, and are the cops breaking them too?
Now, is it the liberals or the conservatives who want the drugs to be illegal? What about speeding? And gay marriage, fully automatic weapons, abortion, and freedom to worship the Pagan gods of old? I must be an ultra-conservative, because I want the government out of everything to do with personal choices and decisions that don't infringe upon my neighbors' rights. I must admit that speeding could affect others on the road, and I don't recommend breaking that law (by much).
I'm just curious, where would you draw the line with minors viewing sexual content? Would it only be procreation, or would any form of smut or strange fetish also be acceptable? At face value, I agree that there is a strange disconnect in violence being okay and sexual content remaining taboo. As soon as I start to think about what should be permissible sexual content, I stop. I wouldn't want to begin to dictate what other people's kids are allowed to see at what age.
Good point . . .
On a side note, before there were prepaid debit cards, when we wanted "R" rated movies or cigarettes we just stole them. Kids will always find ways around age restrictions, sometimes what they do to get around the restrictions is worse than what's being restricted.
In particular, it's sometimes hard to determine whether or not you *are* selling to a minor - consider an online retailer: it would be pretty easy for a minor to order something with their parent's credit card, name, address, so they wouldn't know they were selling to a minor.
If it's the parent's credit card being used, the parent will learn about it when they look at their statement, I know I reconcile mine. If it's a stolen credit card being used, there are already bigger problems in that household than a child buying a violent video game. Ultimately, the online purchase age verification takes care of itself with the use of a credit card.
Or, OP *is* the RIAA, fishing for geeks to unwittingly admit that they have "illegal" MP3's in their collection.
Offers? They'll probably provide it by default, it will install upon log in. Then it will auto-recognize the artists and recommend you "like" them. It will hit everyone who just wants to get to quickly, as they'll just click okay to get the pop-up off of their screen.
While it is good for the IT industry as a whole, as far as investment in infrastructure and qualified administrators, it is also bad for Internet freedom. The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be. Today we have the "sexting representative", tomorrow it will be a senator that looks at free porn on his home computer. The extreme cases convince us that we need to lose some privacy, and then government passes laws that are harsher and harsher, and relaxes warrant requirements, because no one loses elections for being strong against "crime".
All the Android fans could only hope that Apple would be this galactically stupid.
Actually, I'm an Android fan that wishes nothing but good things for Apple, and stronger iPhones. It's unbelievably awesome that iPhones aren't just limited to AT&T, I'd like to see every carrier have an Apple offering. We're not talking sports, were talking products. Better iPhones means that Android manufacturers have to do better to compete. Apple fans should be hoping for better Android phones to come out, to continue to push the iPhone to be better. That's the problem with Windows. As soon as it's the only game in town, it's not worth buying tickets. Get off your Apple high-horse. In the mobile market place, any sensible capitalist wants to see iPhone, Android and even Windows Mobile (or whatever they're making) do well. Complete market dominance is the worst thing that can happen for consumers of almost any service or product.
My concern is far less about what Apple wants to do, but more what RIAA's lawyers are able to get a subpoena to. When music I backed up from CD's that I own is sitting on my computer, in my home, there is a different expectation of privacy, and a different form of ownership, when compared to files on a remote server, housed by someone else. I won't use it or anything like it until read about the cloud provider insisting on a court order when RIAA comes knocking, and winning when they bring it to trial.