Sure apps can make mistakes, but of all the times an error has happened when I've filled out a form on a web page it has been my mistake (heck I booked a flight on the wrong day once - I messed up the timezones).
Whereas the times it's been on the phone with a person I'm pretty sure they have screwed it up (for example, the kid was booked into two summer camps at once on one week - at the same YMCA).
Now it's perfectly feasible that I do mess things up on phone orders and then blame the other person involved - since I don't really have a way of verifying what my exact words. Even so it's less stressful to think that I screwed up then to get annoyed with someone else who I think screwed something up.
It's also feasible that I didn't mess up that flight booking and there was a bug in their code - that only affected me one time and seemingly never affected anyone else at all at any point in time. That doesn't seem very likely though.
And I'd rather deal with an automated service, rather than a minimum wage human who will manage to screw something up even when everything has had to be repeated three times.
And outsourcing isn't "logically less efficient". Economies of scale and specialization kicks in. For example, I outsource my electricity generation to a power company rather than building and running my own electricity generation system in my house. I outsource my food production rather than obtaining enough land (and all the other associated costs) to grow all the food I consume. At my work, we need a fair number of servers that sit in a data center we have outsourced the production of CPUs for those servers to Intel rather than trying to design and build our own chips in our own fabrication plants. Those all work out more efficient for me.
Of course there are a bunch of things for which outsourcing would be a terrible move - but that's not true for all things.
Only if you do not understand "product" and "customer" and "marketing". You do not, personally, pay Google any money. You only cost them money to produce. Advertisers are where Google gets its profits
RIght. And they will get more money from advertisers if they have more users. Just because you are paying them by viewing their ads (or whatever) instead of paying them money doesn't make you not a customer.
All the normal free market "rules" apply. If a competitor makes a better product and users move to them then so will the advertisers (the ones you think are the only customers). This all the normal incentives to keep users apply just as if the users were traditional customers who pay money for the service. There is of course the other side, if some feature isn't good for the users but will result in more income from advertisers then it'll likely be added - unless the exodus of users and associated exodus of advertisers outweigh the extra income of course.
So the wants of the users acts to direct the actions of the providers as they compete for those users.
Money isn't necessary. Nothing about barter (for example, I'll look at your ads in echange for you hosting my email) is incompatible with market forces.
Sure now you've crossed line, since your "joke" isn't about getting someone to say the something in vague English while they think they are just saying some names. The "joke" is that Asians talk funny and are lesser than (I assume) Westerners.
The difference is pretty obvious, I suspect you can manage to see it.
A third-party firmware supplier could also supply you something that included copyrighted code under some other license (doesn't have to be a free software/open source one) without meeting the requirements of the license. And you would distribute that infringing on the copyright.
Of course if the source code isn't supplied it's harder for the copyright holder to find out.
Which part of "a variant on the basic three-act structure that has dominated blockbuster filmmaking since the late 1970s" do you think is claiming that movies weren't all following a slightly different formulaic structure before?
You can't violate the GPL by using software, so distribution is necessary for the example. It's still the same - ignoring the wishes of the copyright holder because you think their terms are too expensive rather than just not using their material at all.
I don't really care so much if someone wants to torrent HBO shows because they don't want to pay for it - I suspect HBO doesn't care that much either, the pricing model the OP dislikes so much seems to indicate that they are making money from the cable providers anyway.
Really, it was a bitch to remove? It's just a web page. If you can't work out how not to look at a web page in firefox in win7 then I'm not sure why you would be trying to fix anything in the first place...
If the GPL wasn't so restrictive I'd be happy to follow it. But since it isn't I'll just keep using selling my non-GPLed software that's a derivative of gcc anway. I'd be happy with some lesser restrictions the FSF can let me know when they have it under those.
That's perfectly fine reasoning by you I take it? Rather than just not having a product you believe is overpriced it's OK to ignore the copyright of the creator and torrent it, so why not do the same with software licenses you find overly restrictive?
Significant parts of it came into existence only in the 60s and 70s
When exactly do you think the cold war ended? I'd always been told 1991 (with the dissolution of the USSR) was the end and started in 1947 (with the Truman Doctrine) which would seem to put the 60s and 70s smack in the middle of it. What dates do you assign to it?
So if they went on vacation in Texas they'd have all the rights of a married couple in Texas?
Each would qualify as a spouse of the other for social security benefits purposes? What about after they enjoyed their vacation in Texas so much that they moved their domicile there?
Obviously if they have a work to complain about, or a lack of vacation time to complain about, or a school to pay for then they aren't anything like what the article described, so no that isn't any evidence at all of it not being a cultural thing.
Using less than the grant is what "under budget" means.
They were given X dollars and told to do Y. Thus X is the "budget" for Y. In this case they did Y but spent less than X. That's what we call "under budget".
But yes, hopefully no one actually proposed what they did would cost $16 million. Or if they did, hopefully that person now has a job in which they do not do budget estimates.
I doubt it. Someone decided that spending money on generated "likes" which then allow them to server up ads cheaper to those people later was a better idea than spending the money to server up more ads now.
That was likely an error because: 1. Apparently facebook changed the rules making it not result in the cheaper ads after all. 2. It ends up targeting the wrong demographic.
But neither has anything to do with them actually wanting the "likes" just to feel more popular.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not their ancestors. Which should be pretty damn obvious to anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together.
Sure apps can make mistakes, but of all the times an error has happened when I've filled out a form on a web page it has been my mistake (heck I booked a flight on the wrong day once - I messed up the timezones).
Whereas the times it's been on the phone with a person I'm pretty sure they have screwed it up (for example, the kid was booked into two summer camps at once on one week - at the same YMCA).
Now it's perfectly feasible that I do mess things up on phone orders and then blame the other person involved - since I don't really have a way of verifying what my exact words. Even so it's less stressful to think that I screwed up then to get annoyed with someone else who I think screwed something up.
It's also feasible that I didn't mess up that flight booking and there was a bug in their code - that only affected me one time and seemingly never affected anyone else at all at any point in time. That doesn't seem very likely though.
And I'd rather deal with an automated service, rather than a minimum wage human who will manage to screw something up even when everything has had to be repeated three times.
And outsourcing isn't "logically less efficient". Economies of scale and specialization kicks in. For example, I outsource my electricity generation to a power company rather than building and running my own electricity generation system in my house. I outsource my food production rather than obtaining enough land (and all the other associated costs) to grow all the food I consume. At my work, we need a fair number of servers that sit in a data center we have outsourced the production of CPUs for those servers to Intel rather than trying to design and build our own chips in our own fabrication plants. Those all work out more efficient for me.
Of course there are a bunch of things for which outsourcing would be a terrible move - but that's not true for all things.
RIght. And they will get more money from advertisers if they have more users. Just because you are paying them by viewing their ads (or whatever) instead of paying them money doesn't make you not a customer.
All the normal free market "rules" apply. If a competitor makes a better product and users move to them then so will the advertisers (the ones you think are the only customers). This all the normal incentives to keep users apply just as if the users were traditional customers who pay money for the service. There is of course the other side, if some feature isn't good for the users but will result in more income from advertisers then it'll likely be added - unless the exodus of users and associated exodus of advertisers outweigh the extra income of course.
So the wants of the users acts to direct the actions of the providers as they compete for those users.
Money isn't necessary. Nothing about barter (for example, I'll look at your ads in echange for you hosting my email) is incompatible with market forces.
Sure now you've crossed line, since your "joke" isn't about getting someone to say the something in vague English while they think they are just saying some names. The "joke" is that Asians talk funny and are lesser than (I assume) Westerners.
The difference is pretty obvious, I suspect you can manage to see it.
It's not racist.
The airline was Asian and in English you can make phrases out of Asian sounding names.
Do you also consider jokes about "Oliver Klozoff" and "Yuri Nater" and "Ivana Tinkle" racist too?
Once you add "asian drivers" to the mix sure, but just the names is merely playing with the sounds of words.
A third-party firmware supplier could also supply you something that included copyrighted code under some other license (doesn't have to be a free software/open source one) without meeting the requirements of the license. And you would distribute that infringing on the copyright.
Of course if the source code isn't supplied it's harder for the copyright holder to find out.
Which part of "a variant on the basic three-act structure that has dominated blockbuster filmmaking since the late 1970s" do you think is claiming that movies weren't all following a slightly different formulaic structure before?
Wearing chainmail is fine when you are scuba diving, it wouldn't be so practical when trying to surf though.
Always mix uppers and downers. What could possibly go wrong!
You can't violate the GPL by using software, so distribution is necessary for the example. It's still the same - ignoring the wishes of the copyright holder because you think their terms are too expensive rather than just not using their material at all.
I don't really care so much if someone wants to torrent HBO shows because they don't want to pay for it - I suspect HBO doesn't care that much either, the pricing model the OP dislikes so much seems to indicate that they are making money from the cable providers anyway.
The justification just irks me.
Really, it was a bitch to remove? It's just a web page. If you can't work out how not to look at a web page in firefox in win7 then I'm not sure why you would be trying to fix anything in the first place...
If the GPL wasn't so restrictive I'd be happy to follow it. But since it isn't I'll just keep using selling my non-GPLed software that's a derivative of gcc anway. I'd be happy with some lesser restrictions the FSF can let me know when they have it under those.
That's perfectly fine reasoning by you I take it? Rather than just not having a product you believe is overpriced it's OK to ignore the copyright of the creator and torrent it, so why not do the same with software licenses you find overly restrictive?
Try Kissenger. Or maybe Chamberlain.
I'm pretty sure Ponzi schemes are real. And they work pretty much as described.
You can even make money on them if you are on the correct end...
When exactly do you think the cold war ended? I'd always been told 1991 (with the dissolution of the USSR) was the end and started in 1947 (with the Truman Doctrine) which would seem to put the 60s and 70s smack in the middle of it. What dates do you assign to it?
So if they went on vacation in Texas they'd have all the rights of a married couple in Texas?
Each would qualify as a spouse of the other for social security benefits purposes? What about after they enjoyed their vacation in Texas so much that they moved their domicile there?
Obviously if they have a work to complain about, or a lack of vacation time to complain about, or a school to pay for then they aren't anything like what the article described, so no that isn't any evidence at all of it not being a cultural thing.
Using less than the grant is what "under budget" means.
They were given X dollars and told to do Y. Thus X is the "budget" for Y. In this case they did Y but spent less than X. That's what we call "under budget".
But yes, hopefully no one actually proposed what they did would cost $16 million. Or if they did, hopefully that person now has a job in which they do not do budget estimates.
It's amazing how bad human memory is. Unless you had a time machine, that never happened.
" $15.9 million under budget"
Sure that'd be be a nice change for some billion dollar government project - to run a little under instead of doubling the budget,
But this was a budget of $16 million...
I used it as a verb, fucktard. And yes I made the same typo twice, must have had something else on my mind at the time I guess.
I doubt it. Someone decided that spending money on generated "likes" which then allow them to server up ads cheaper to those people later was a better idea than spending the money to server up more ads now.
That was likely an error because:
1. Apparently facebook changed the rules making it not result in the cheaper ads after all.
2. It ends up targeting the wrong demographic.
But neither has anything to do with them actually wanting the "likes" just to feel more popular.
There's about 300 million Americans. I'll take a double share since I'll have the kid's one as well.
There's actually not much I can do with 0.4 cents actually.
Because your head and brain doesn't age, right? It's only the body portion that ages and breaks down.
I also take it you have the same objection to heart transplants?