I like how we've gone from "well sure, proprietary products have an advantage in market share because there's so much money behind them" to "well sure, open products have an advantage because they're portable."
Oh, those poor widdle proprietary products. Is the big nasty-wasty Slashdot editor being mean to you again, making unfair comparisons?
Nah, that's selling access to it. It's sort of like "If you pay me $50/hour, I'll let you enter this room at my super-sleazy motel. Also, while in this room, feel free to take advantage of the complimentary prostitute."
To be honest, when I read that part of the article, it sounds more like CyberLynk is trying to cover up more problematic employees.
But let's not kid ourselves. We need to backup the backups! Backup the providers' backups! Backup the providers' backups' providers! Let the madness never end!
To be honest, I somewhat doubt they had the money to carry it that far, though.
I think you're being a little judgmental there. We don't know what kind of contract terms they had with the ISP; from TFA it sounds like CyberLynk was providing a full data-hosting solution, and that's why there weren't good local copies: they expected the ISP to provide that. This was a collaboration server, remember, so no one group necessarily ever had a full copy of all the source materials. I agree that, given the size of the materials, it should have been trivial for each group to keep a full copy, but perhaps they were avoiding this practice to try and keep everything synchronized (i.e. one master copy) or were in the middle of a major resynch. We simply don't know whether or not they deserve (much) blame. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to subcontract data protection.
On top of that, the employee responsible for the data loss was on a post-firing rampage. Those tend to be pretty good at overcoming mechanisms meant to protect against natural disasters.
No, the syntactical meaning of "." was claimed by Prolog, along with the file extension ".pl". The question mark I'd have to do some research aboutmulti(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)/users/samantha
Window is fucking expensive stand alone. Many multiples what the OEMs pay.
I'm completely just nit-picking, but—a standalone copy of Windows is probably going to be significantly cheaper than a laptop with specs equivalent to the MacBook. Probably shoulda left that part out.
The standard disclaimer here is that you're getting what you pay for, with those: people usually point to some non-standard store that they've included, and the quality of the hardware itself frequently leaves a lot to be desired. Find a review on a tablet site.
I'm sure Google has thought about that a great deal; Apple's ability to bench-press their suppliers is nothing short of epic in the world of monopolistic manipulation, perhaps comparable to that of Walmart.
That being said, what will happen will probably resemble Walmart's case: Google's presence on the market isn't going to significantly diminish the number of people already bound to Apple music players, which can only work properly through iTunes. Even though there are other grocery stores, Walmart still forces their suppliers to drop their prices simply because they're so vast. (Except, in that case, the retailer is the bigger evil.)
Most likely, Google will have to prove (through business success) that it can go toe-to-toe with Apple in terms of being taken seriously as a retailer, and then they'll get to name rates independently of Apple. Only once we have a defacto duopoly will we see the four labels try to use the other as leverage—a future that I expect they're planning on, as a means to raise prices threateningly.
At the very least, though, expect to say goodbye to disappearing YouTube videos, since Google will have a massive licensing deal underneath, and be benefiting from them by collecting metrics.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how we've gone from "well sure, proprietary products have an advantage in market share because there's so much money behind them" to "well sure, open products have an advantage because they're portable."
Oh, those poor widdle proprietary products. Is the big nasty-wasty Slashdot editor being mean to you again, making unfair comparisons?
But it involves Facebook, a famous Internet website company! IT COULD HAVE CHILLING EFFECTS FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE.
complimentary
Nah, that's selling access to it. It's sort of like "If you pay me $50/hour, I'll let you enter this room at my super-sleazy motel. Also, while in this room, feel free to take advantage of the complimentary prostitute."
Ooh. "Not for use for any particular purpose." That's pretty damning.
To be honest, when I read that part of the article, it sounds more like CyberLynk is trying to cover up more problematic employees.
But let's not kid ourselves. We need to backup the backups! Backup the providers' backups! Backup the providers' backups' providers! Let the madness never end!
To be honest, I somewhat doubt they had the money to carry it that far, though.
I think you're being a little judgmental there. We don't know what kind of contract terms they had with the ISP; from TFA it sounds like CyberLynk was providing a full data-hosting solution, and that's why there weren't good local copies: they expected the ISP to provide that. This was a collaboration server, remember, so no one group necessarily ever had a full copy of all the source materials. I agree that, given the size of the materials, it should have been trivial for each group to keep a full copy, but perhaps they were avoiding this practice to try and keep everything synchronized (i.e. one master copy) or were in the middle of a major resynch. We simply don't know whether or not they deserve (much) blame. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to subcontract data protection.
On top of that, the employee responsible for the data loss was on a post-firing rampage. Those tend to be pretty good at overcoming mechanisms meant to protect against natural disasters.
TFA is very clear about this: the ISP was responsible for making backups, and failed to do so.
We're talking about a flight from France to Brazil. Part (a) is not that improbable.
No, the syntactical meaning of "." was claimed by Prolog, along with the file extension ".pl". The question mark I'd have to do some research aboutmulti(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)/users/samantha
I just lost all of my un-backed-up data yesterday, you insensitive clods!
The article does not refer to any concerns. I think that was a generic "helpful frist psot" trying to garner karma instead of scorn.
It's not a service. It's an Internet website . RTFS!
Sure. The trouble is that it can only fire propaganda, and no one will ever take it seriously.
I believe the words you're looking for are "LOL I TROL YOU".
Window is fucking expensive stand alone. Many multiples what the OEMs pay.
I'm completely just nit-picking, but—a standalone copy of Windows is probably going to be significantly cheaper than a laptop with specs equivalent to the MacBook. Probably shoulda left that part out.
Hilariously expensive. (The Toronto Skydome is one example.)
The standard disclaimer here is that you're getting what you pay for, with those: people usually point to some non-standard store that they've included, and the quality of the hardware itself frequently leaves a lot to be desired. Find a review on a tablet site.
Voltaire. Pretty much no longer part of the club of modern thought.
Alright, time for some standards: "Why do you feel that Python is so bad? What do you find wrong with it?"
I'm sure Google has thought about that a great deal; Apple's ability to bench-press their suppliers is nothing short of epic in the world of monopolistic manipulation, perhaps comparable to that of Walmart.
That being said, what will happen will probably resemble Walmart's case: Google's presence on the market isn't going to significantly diminish the number of people already bound to Apple music players, which can only work properly through iTunes. Even though there are other grocery stores, Walmart still forces their suppliers to drop their prices simply because they're so vast. (Except, in that case, the retailer is the bigger evil.)
Most likely, Google will have to prove (through business success) that it can go toe-to-toe with Apple in terms of being taken seriously as a retailer, and then they'll get to name rates independently of Apple. Only once we have a defacto duopoly will we see the four labels try to use the other as leverage—a future that I expect they're planning on, as a means to raise prices threateningly.
At the very least, though, expect to say goodbye to disappearing YouTube videos, since Google will have a massive licensing deal underneath, and be benefiting from them by collecting metrics.
Man. That is so awesome. I had no idea that running Florn directly would improve my yields. Nature Gwibbomethods, here I come!
That's an interesting phrase.
Yes.
Fortunately, unlike Apple, the FOSS movement is large enough to route around the decisions of one determined founding ideologue.
That being said, code can be free without needing rights, per se. Freedom of speech obviously works similarly; as does freedom of beer.
"I completely understand everything you just said, but please explain it to this man, for he is a Mongoloid."
"It's true! I don't even have a cow!"