It also needs a very wide variety of back ends. x86, powerpc, arm, cortex, avr, SH, 68K, etc. People doing C are all over the board with parts and not sticking with only Windows.
When I showed up for a parking violation and the officer did not the case was tossed out. If a judge makes excuses for the officer then the judge is not being impartial, and in many places can get in trouble as it's an elected office. If you've got the time then it can be worth it to show up, as it's often not worth the police time to show up.
Doesn't matter if you live there, but it does matter if you are involved with a matter that occurs there. He was not sued over issues that occured in Sweden but over issues that occured in Finland.
You don't go to jail for losing a civil lawsuit. Even if you can't pay the judgement you just get your wages garnished, and if you don't have wages they'll take your car. Since you lose if you don't show up there is no advantage to not showing up, unless it's in a country you'll never visit (and since Sunde has Finnish heritage and lives in the country next door to Finland, he might want to actually visit someday).
Is having location services on all the time useful for any purpose other than advertising? In the rare case that you need to use a map when you're lost then you can turn it on temporarily.
Really? My Walgreens card will work at stores that aren't Walgreens? Are we not talking about the same sorts of loyalty cards (are there such silly things as Coca Cola loyalty cards)? You don't even need to loyalty card as it's tied to your phone number.
I've got two, and they save money. Local drug store and the local grocery store. Advertisers probably already know I go there if they know my address (which is why I get throw away physical junk mail from them). This was the idea behind coupons also, give the customer a benefit and they'll come visit you. If other stores gave me 25-50% off by having a rewards card I might try them. Advertising is fine with me if the customer gets something from it, but that rarely happens these days except at some brick and mortar stores.
If the reward cards are tracking me and building up a profile, then they're doing a very bad job of it. I buy the same things nearly every time and yet they advertise stuff I probably will never buy. The point for the store is not to generate advertising revenue, but to get me into the stores at which point I will see the products.
Yes, but allowing your location to be known is optional. Turn off that feature and ignore the phone when it bitches that it can help show you better ads if you turn it back on.
Democrats are painted as the anti-war party too often, associations from the 70s with leftist leaning peaceniks, protests against American intervention in socialist movements in South America, and so forth. I think that encourages a lot of Democratic politicians to not appear too weak. Meanwhile there's a strong pro-military branch of the Republicans, always accusing Democrats of favoring diplomacy or wait-and-see attitudes instead of quick responses, or accusing Democrats of trying to pull out too soon, and that leads a general public association of Democrats being the anti-military party.
I don't think liberals love war more. Most wars, conflicts, and adventtures we've gotten into have been broadly supported across the political spectrum in congress, and widely represented across presidents in the last century.
Arnold had actually done some political work before then. Not a lot, but... Compare too: Arnold gets to be governor of California, and doesn't do a bad job. Jesse Venture becomes governor of Minnesota and does not do very well at all, $4 billion surplus to $4 billion deficit. Of course it may not be his fault, but if it had gone the other direction I'm sure he'd have taken credit for that, it's how politics works.
Except that no president can "fix" the economy. It's the responsiblity of the entire government not just whatever clown is in the oval office. Even then the entire government still has to rely on a good deal of luck. The government is basically able to nudge things in certain directions and provide for buffers against downturns. We've got one party who's mantra is to cut taxes when times are good and also cut taxes when times are bad, and we've got another party who is scared to do much at all for fear of spooking the middle class so they mostly just make big speeches.
There really isn't an option for positive change this time around. When you're down to your last dollar you dont put it into a slot machine at Vegas unless you're stupid.
The Republican race started with at least 12 candidates who were better than Trump. (hedging here because there were a tiny number who were probably worse)
For bad business, check the last decade of news about Trump. He always aims big, bigger than he should, and sometimes he wins big but very often he loses big. Often when he loses he's just putting his name on someone else's product (his ego forces him to say that his name is his biggest asset) and is just a minor partner, so when a big Trump Brand loses big he's not losing much money. And with America's short term memory he's not losing much popularity when he loses big. His followers probably think anyone suing him is a damn democrat or a damn mainstream republican or is just trying to get rich by suing hard working patriots.
Probably some people think he's the smartest person on reality TV, which may actually be true, and therefore he's smart enough to be president. Others think he has a lot of money therefore he works very hard (the American myth that if you work hard you will get rich and if you don't work hard you will be poor); or because he's rich he knows how to balance the US budget; or becuase he's got a self serving book about how how to make a Deal that he can negotiate with Putin or Li Keqiang.
Anyone who's on youtube to make money should be banned from youtube. That would clear up the problem... I've seen PBS pledge breaks that were shorter and had less pleading than some youtube videos promoting themselves and their friend's videos before and after showing a 10 second funny cat trick.
I can also skim when reading, being able to skip straight to the important point. Most people when they pick up a book aren't reading the preface completely, or the copyright page, and so forth. They want to get to the good stuff. If you read a newspaper you're flipping through to the stories that are interesting, headlines that catch your attention. But with video you are stuck listening to a very slow talker who takes minutes to get to the point; and if it's youtube you have a horrible UI that doesn't let you skip forward or backward efficiently like you can with a DVR (don't know what facebook is like there but I doubt it's any better).
There is almost no cases where video provides more information than a combination of text and pictures. The videos only exist for those who are illiterate or who want to turn their brains off temporarily (maybe that's the point of facebook?).
With youtube people create meaningless videos just to try and collect some ad revenue. A three line announcement from a company turns into a 12 minute video about that announcement with the actual announcement only being mentioned after 5 minutes. Or some ridiculous blog spends the first 5 minutes talking about themselves and how cool they are without getting on to the headline that made me click on the thing in the first place. Then they conclude by encouraging you to subscribe, click on other links, cross promoting their friends, etc.
Why is Android mentioned, that's not a full web browser, it's a phone/tablet that's going to serve up mobile versions of the web site, and firefox on mobile is always going to be used less than the built in browsers.
Web devs for years have been whining that they only want to support one browser ever, and now the IE is declining they're scrambling to find the next half assed browser to support and if it's Chrome we'll be stuck with Google's strange extensions to HTML instead of Microsoft's strange extensions. The more browsers the web devs test on the better the web site will be. If you want to slap 6-7% of your visitors then screw you (and I doubt your company's management have the same attitude you do).
Slashdot Mirror
Rich people don't use roads that have bumps in them.
It also needs a very wide variety of back ends. x86, powerpc, arm, cortex, avr, SH, 68K, etc. People doing C are all over the board with parts and not sticking with only Windows.
Why don't you go back to Europe?
When I showed up for a parking violation and the officer did not the case was tossed out. If a judge makes excuses for the officer then the judge is not being impartial, and in many places can get in trouble as it's an elected office. If you've got the time then it can be worth it to show up, as it's often not worth the police time to show up.
Doesn't matter if you live there, but it does matter if you are involved with a matter that occurs there. He was not sued over issues that occured in Sweden but over issues that occured in Finland.
You don't go to jail for losing a civil lawsuit. Even if you can't pay the judgement you just get your wages garnished, and if you don't have wages they'll take your car. Since you lose if you don't show up there is no advantage to not showing up, unless it's in a country you'll never visit (and since Sunde has Finnish heritage and lives in the country next door to Finland, he might want to actually visit someday).
He also can't complain that he wasn't served and didn't know about the case, given that we knew about the case way over here in slashdotlandia.
A moot once bit my sister.
Is having location services on all the time useful for any purpose other than advertising? In the rare case that you need to use a map when you're lost then you can turn it on temporarily.
Really? My Walgreens card will work at stores that aren't Walgreens? Are we not talking about the same sorts of loyalty cards (are there such silly things as Coca Cola loyalty cards)? You don't even need to loyalty card as it's tied to your phone number.
I've got two, and they save money. Local drug store and the local grocery store. Advertisers probably already know I go there if they know my address (which is why I get throw away physical junk mail from them). This was the idea behind coupons also, give the customer a benefit and they'll come visit you. If other stores gave me 25-50% off by having a rewards card I might try them. Advertising is fine with me if the customer gets something from it, but that rarely happens these days except at some brick and mortar stores.
If the reward cards are tracking me and building up a profile, then they're doing a very bad job of it. I buy the same things nearly every time and yet they advertise stuff I probably will never buy. The point for the store is not to generate advertising revenue, but to get me into the stores at which point I will see the products.
Yes, but allowing your location to be known is optional. Turn off that feature and ignore the phone when it bitches that it can help show you better ads if you turn it back on.
Democrats are painted as the anti-war party too often, associations from the 70s with leftist leaning peaceniks, protests against American intervention in socialist movements in South America, and so forth. I think that encourages a lot of Democratic politicians to not appear too weak. Meanwhile there's a strong pro-military branch of the Republicans, always accusing Democrats of favoring diplomacy or wait-and-see attitudes instead of quick responses, or accusing Democrats of trying to pull out too soon, and that leads a general public association of Democrats being the anti-military party.
I don't think liberals love war more. Most wars, conflicts, and adventtures we've gotten into have been broadly supported across the political spectrum in congress, and widely represented across presidents in the last century.
Arnold had actually done some political work before then. Not a lot, but... Compare too: Arnold gets to be governor of California, and doesn't do a bad job. Jesse Venture becomes governor of Minnesota and does not do very well at all, $4 billion surplus to $4 billion deficit. Of course it may not be his fault, but if it had gone the other direction I'm sure he'd have taken credit for that, it's how politics works.
"It's so crowded that no one goes there anymore."
Except that no president can "fix" the economy. It's the responsiblity of the entire government not just whatever clown is in the oval office. Even then the entire government still has to rely on a good deal of luck. The government is basically able to nudge things in certain directions and provide for buffers against downturns. We've got one party who's mantra is to cut taxes when times are good and also cut taxes when times are bad, and we've got another party who is scared to do much at all for fear of spooking the middle class so they mostly just make big speeches.
There really isn't an option for positive change this time around. When you're down to your last dollar you dont put it into a slot machine at Vegas unless you're stupid.
One of the Koch brothers has said he'll vote for Hillary over Trump.
The Republican race started with at least 12 candidates who were better than Trump. (hedging here because there were a tiny number who were probably worse)
For bad business, check the last decade of news about Trump. He always aims big, bigger than he should, and sometimes he wins big but very often he loses big. Often when he loses he's just putting his name on someone else's product (his ego forces him to say that his name is his biggest asset) and is just a minor partner, so when a big Trump Brand loses big he's not losing much money. And with America's short term memory he's not losing much popularity when he loses big. His followers probably think anyone suing him is a damn democrat or a damn mainstream republican or is just trying to get rich by suing hard working patriots.
Probably some people think he's the smartest person on reality TV, which may actually be true, and therefore he's smart enough to be president. Others think he has a lot of money therefore he works very hard (the American myth that if you work hard you will get rich and if you don't work hard you will be poor); or because he's rich he knows how to balance the US budget; or becuase he's got a self serving book about how how to make a Deal that he can negotiate with Putin or Li Keqiang.
Sanford Wallace?
Anyone who's on youtube to make money should be banned from youtube. That would clear up the problem... I've seen PBS pledge breaks that were shorter and had less pleading than some youtube videos promoting themselves and their friend's videos before and after showing a 10 second funny cat trick.
I can also skim when reading, being able to skip straight to the important point. Most people when they pick up a book aren't reading the preface completely, or the copyright page, and so forth. They want to get to the good stuff. If you read a newspaper you're flipping through to the stories that are interesting, headlines that catch your attention. But with video you are stuck listening to a very slow talker who takes minutes to get to the point; and if it's youtube you have a horrible UI that doesn't let you skip forward or backward efficiently like you can with a DVR (don't know what facebook is like there but I doubt it's any better).
There is almost no cases where video provides more information than a combination of text and pictures. The videos only exist for those who are illiterate or who want to turn their brains off temporarily (maybe that's the point of facebook?).
With youtube people create meaningless videos just to try and collect some ad revenue. A three line announcement from a company turns into a 12 minute video about that announcement with the actual announcement only being mentioned after 5 minutes. Or some ridiculous blog spends the first 5 minutes talking about themselves and how cool they are without getting on to the headline that made me click on the thing in the first place. Then they conclude by encouraging you to subscribe, click on other links, cross promoting their friends, etc.
I see Firefox at 14% (gs.statcounter.com). But you can shop around for stats, I still see one site showing IE at 33%...
Right now most web sites don't work at all on Firefox with no-script anyway. It's no big loss though, they're not web sites worth visiting.
Why is Android mentioned, that's not a full web browser, it's a phone/tablet that's going to serve up mobile versions of the web site, and firefox on mobile is always going to be used less than the built in browsers.
Web devs for years have been whining that they only want to support one browser ever, and now the IE is declining they're scrambling to find the next half assed browser to support and if it's Chrome we'll be stuck with Google's strange extensions to HTML instead of Microsoft's strange extensions. The more browsers the web devs test on the better the web site will be. If you want to slap 6-7% of your visitors then screw you (and I doubt your company's management have the same attitude you do).