As far as I know it's only the iOS and WP app stores that are anti-GPL. You can submit GPL'ed software to the Mac App store so Apple as a company doesn't even fully ban it.
Sorry but you're wrong. No one is going to think a classic movie is unwatchable just because something technologically better has come out and Hollywood would be happy to have a new technology to use to remake all those films in to get even more money out of people.
If it's all shit then how did they go from near bankruptcy to being so profitable? It's not marketing alone. Marketing alone hasn't saved Windows Mobile and that's because it's shit.
In case you forgot Apple almost went bust and even received money from MS just so MS could basically have a competitor. So do feel free to explain how they went from that to being some huge "evil monster" without having made something that people want.
If I came more frequently because half the stories are something I read on the register or reddit last week then that would probably change.
And I'm not entirely against advertising. I can fact remove advertising from slashdot for some period of time for whatever reason but I opt not to because while I don't use it as frequently as I used to I'm not a complete freetard and think they should get nothing out of me for a period of time.
Trust me, my friends make it clear they think it's stupid but think between the internet for news and DVDs / streaming there's not much point in paying for a TV licence and a Sky subscription. I'm struggling enough to have some sort of social life in between my hobbies without trying to keep up on TV. But maybe I'm too obsessed with computers and games.
I moved to the UK and I'm watch 'Once upon a time in America' on my 40 inch TV and I don't have a TV licence and it's legal. I don't watch TV through the TV (it's set up even so it can't pick up free channels) and iplayer doesn't require a licence even if I thought of watching something on there. It happens that I don't care for iplayer either but if I wanted to it doesn't require a licence. It's only lice streams that require a licence.
I'm starting to seriously think the job attracts people who get off on feeling up kids, handicaps, etc. They certainly aren't doing it for our safety. After all some were just caught out for letting cocaine into the country. That sort of thing is probably more common than we think.
I'd agree and wouldn't wear anything Abercrombie myself but the idea of buying an expensive computer and then having ads popping up because I upgraded the OS just doesn't make sense. Sure I can understand Jobs was more concerned with keeping people up to date whether it be for their good or to stop having to support older operating systems but a Macbook isn't NetZero or something like that. It just wouldn't be right.
You don't have to pay for TV in other countries. In fact you can watch the BBC without a licence thanks to the internet and yes in some cases ads aren't *that* bad but where ever possible I rather pay for things and keep the advertising out of my life. I'd rather work on getting a better wage than having free crap.
Yeah because the idea of having a photo of Visa in your home is completely normal. I assume you think it's acceptable to spend all night arguing about why your favourite corporation is better than someone else's.
It's not that expensive in the first place so while I'm sure it's not the worst thing in the world it's something I prefer not to have. Perhaps one of the only bad things to come out of the internet and the freeness of everything is people are more accepting to have their lives invaded by corporations. I'd rather demand a decent wage than get free stuff.
I suspect it will because why run Windows as a games console OS and why would you port Steam / Source to Linux when no one else will likely support it? Of course if they console is running on linux they can probably guarantee more games.
Programming isn't a retail job. It's something that takes some years to learn properly. So the odds of becoming a programmer late in life (or anything of a higher technical ability) probably isn't going to happen.
The only people who care about age over qualifications are those who don't care about quality (like facebook) and just want a bunch of slaves to work long hours for low pay. A lot of these issues would be resolved as well if we held software to a higher standard and you couldn't get away with releasing something completely broken with no repercussions. We don't buy cars and just accept they just don't work. We shouldn't accept it from software either.
Some people probably do deserve to find it harder to get a job. If you don't care to learn new things and just expect to be doing cobol, that's fine but realise there are far fewer cobol jobs going around so of course it's going to be hard to find something.
Zuckerberg is the last person anyone should listen to. He got lucky and he continues to prove he's an idiot by doing things like paying a billion for Instagram.
Why shouldn't it be? Software seems to be the only product you're allowed to sell in a broken state. No profit-centric company is going to pay for someone who knows what they're doing.
Yes but it ruins your company or career if you fuck up a surgery or home. No one holds software to any sort of quality standard so you pick the guy who's too stupid to know he's being over worked and under paid.
Which is why I rather back it up on something more secure like rsync.net and not give it to someone who wants to scan all my data in order to help themselves target me better with advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know it's only the iOS and WP app stores that are anti-GPL. You can submit GPL'ed software to the Mac App store so Apple as a company doesn't even fully ban it.
Sorry but you're wrong. No one is going to think a classic movie is unwatchable just because something technologically better has come out and Hollywood would be happy to have a new technology to use to remake all those films in to get even more money out of people.
If it's all shit then how did they go from near bankruptcy to being so profitable? It's not marketing alone. Marketing alone hasn't saved Windows Mobile and that's because it's shit.
In case you forgot Apple almost went bust and even received money from MS just so MS could basically have a competitor. So do feel free to explain how they went from that to being some huge "evil monster" without having made something that people want.
I like to make up stories too. I fought the kaiser in the great war.
So when is google going to open source those search algorithms?
Facebook will pay a billion for something as useless as Instagram and yet won't even touch Bing. That says it all really.
If I came more frequently because half the stories are something I read on the register or reddit last week then that would probably change.
And I'm not entirely against advertising. I can fact remove advertising from slashdot for some period of time for whatever reason but I opt not to because while I don't use it as frequently as I used to I'm not a complete freetard and think they should get nothing out of me for a period of time.
Trust me, my friends make it clear they think it's stupid but think between the internet for news and DVDs / streaming there's not much point in paying for a TV licence and a Sky subscription. I'm struggling enough to have some sort of social life in between my hobbies without trying to keep up on TV. But maybe I'm too obsessed with computers and games.
If you leave it open and on a page that is showing an ad. Otherwise it won't.
I moved to the UK and I'm watch 'Once upon a time in America' on my 40 inch TV and I don't have a TV licence and it's legal. I don't watch TV through the TV (it's set up even so it can't pick up free channels) and iplayer doesn't require a licence even if I thought of watching something on there. It happens that I don't care for iplayer either but if I wanted to it doesn't require a licence. It's only lice streams that require a licence.
An old magazine that happens to have ads on the inside is different from something that acts like a picture frame showing ads as a screen saver.
I'm starting to seriously think the job attracts people who get off on feeling up kids, handicaps, etc. They certainly aren't doing it for our safety. After all some were just caught out for letting cocaine into the country. That sort of thing is probably more common than we think.
I'd agree and wouldn't wear anything Abercrombie myself but the idea of buying an expensive computer and then having ads popping up because I upgraded the OS just doesn't make sense. Sure I can understand Jobs was more concerned with keeping people up to date whether it be for their good or to stop having to support older operating systems but a Macbook isn't NetZero or something like that. It just wouldn't be right.
You don't have to pay for TV in other countries. In fact you can watch the BBC without a licence thanks to the internet and yes in some cases ads aren't *that* bad but where ever possible I rather pay for things and keep the advertising out of my life. I'd rather work on getting a better wage than having free crap.
Yeah because the idea of having a photo of Visa in your home is completely normal. I assume you think it's acceptable to spend all night arguing about why your favourite corporation is better than someone else's.
It's not that expensive in the first place so while I'm sure it's not the worst thing in the world it's something I prefer not to have. Perhaps one of the only bad things to come out of the internet and the freeness of everything is people are more accepting to have their lives invaded by corporations. I'd rather demand a decent wage than get free stuff.
Nothing cheapens a product like plastering it with ads even if you can get rid of them by paying.
I suspect it will because why run Windows as a games console OS and why would you port Steam / Source to Linux when no one else will likely support it? Of course if they console is running on linux they can probably guarantee more games.
Programming isn't a retail job. It's something that takes some years to learn properly. So the odds of becoming a programmer late in life (or anything of a higher technical ability) probably isn't going to happen.
The only people who care about age over qualifications are those who don't care about quality (like facebook) and just want a bunch of slaves to work long hours for low pay. A lot of these issues would be resolved as well if we held software to a higher standard and you couldn't get away with releasing something completely broken with no repercussions. We don't buy cars and just accept they just don't work. We shouldn't accept it from software either.
Some people probably do deserve to find it harder to get a job. If you don't care to learn new things and just expect to be doing cobol, that's fine but realise there are far fewer cobol jobs going around so of course it's going to be hard to find something.
Zuckerberg is the last person anyone should listen to. He got lucky and he continues to prove he's an idiot by doing things like paying a billion for Instagram.
Why shouldn't it be? Software seems to be the only product you're allowed to sell in a broken state. No profit-centric company is going to pay for someone who knows what they're doing.
PHP isn't the only open source language and it's perhaps the worst one.
Yes but it ruins your company or career if you fuck up a surgery or home. No one holds software to any sort of quality standard so you pick the guy who's too stupid to know he's being over worked and under paid.
Which is why I rather back it up on something more secure like rsync.net and not give it to someone who wants to scan all my data in order to help themselves target me better with advertising.