The iTunes software is nicely designed, works well, has a lot of features, and came free with my iPod. Why would I start looking for a v0.1 FOSS replacement for it?
Ever try using iTunes to move songs from your iPod to a computer?
I was not making a comment on who's right or wrong here, I was simply stating what will happen. RIM will not let their business be shut down, it simply will not come to that. Right or wrong, they will pay the license fee before suffering an injunction.
It's also overhyped nonsense for another reason: all RIM has to do is pay the money the lower courts have already deemed they owe and the whole issue goes away. If push comes to shove, RIM will simply pay up rather than have their entire business shut down. Of course, "Corporation Pays Licensing Fee." isn't the sort of headline that sells newspapers or TV adspace. It's much more profitable to be a sensationalist fearmonger - "Your Blackberry is gonna die! There's Radon in your basement! Tune in at 11 or you're screwed!"
I wonder if the inclusion of graphical ads might not actually result in a loss of advertising revenue for Google. As it stands now, I don't block Google's ads, as they are unobtrusive and inoffensive. Sometimes I even click on them. But if text ads are replaced with seizure-inducing "whack the monkey" type ads, I will definitely be adding them to my adblocker's filter list. And I suspect I'm typical of a lot of Google's users. This might then result in fewer ad clicks for Google, and since they get paid per click that should translate into less money.
If Google alienates their customers, they will migrate elsewhere.
Maybe, maybe not. I use Google because it returns the best search results. The lack of graphical advertizing is nice, but it's not the reason I go there. Superior search results + graphical ads still beats inferior results + no ads in my book, so these ads aren't going to drive me away from Google. And that's even before including Adblock in the deliberations.
Unfortunately, most people have either one or two choices for broadband internet service - the cable company and if thy're lucky also the phone company. It's hard to vote with your wallet when there's only one candidate running for office.
the white house asked them not to publish...It would make ME slow down and do some research
The administration didn't ask the NYT to not publish because the info was false, but because they feared doing so would tip off the people they were (illegally) spying on.
And the Times obliged them. For a year. Even through a very close Presidential election. So all you right wingnuts that like to scream LIBERAL BIAS whenever you hear the name "New York Times": does sitting on a story that is hugely embarrasing for a Republican president running for reelection sound like something a liberally-biased organization would do?
Slashdot Mirror
Ever try using iTunes to move songs from your iPod to a computer?
I thought LASIK was pretty much a robotic procedure, no human involvement at all other than pushing the power button.
Funny, my ass. You should be modded +10 Insightful.
We Capitol Hill residents call 'em "Congress Critters".
Don't forget, 50% of Americans are below average intelligence.
I have no trouble doing what I love. It's finding someone to pay me for it that's the challenge.
I was not making a comment on who's right or wrong here, I was simply stating what will happen. RIM will not let their business be shut down, it simply will not come to that. Right or wrong, they will pay the license fee before suffering an injunction.
It's also overhyped nonsense for another reason: all RIM has to do is pay the money the lower courts have already deemed they owe and the whole issue goes away. If push comes to shove, RIM will simply pay up rather than have their entire business shut down. Of course, "Corporation Pays Licensing Fee." isn't the sort of headline that sells newspapers or TV adspace. It's much more profitable to be a sensationalist fearmonger - "Your Blackberry is gonna die! There's Radon in your basement! Tune in at 11 or you're screwed!"
In addition to Intel processors, not instead of them.
Unless they're including a time machine in the patch, I would call this release "late".
Here on the East coast, we call that a West Virginian.
And I bet their TV is a genuine Panaphonics! Or is it a Magnetbox?
I wonder if the inclusion of graphical ads might not actually result in a loss of advertising revenue for Google. As it stands now, I don't block Google's ads, as they are unobtrusive and inoffensive. Sometimes I even click on them. But if text ads are replaced with seizure-inducing "whack the monkey" type ads, I will definitely be adding them to my adblocker's filter list. And I suspect I'm typical of a lot of Google's users. This might then result in fewer ad clicks for Google, and since they get paid per click that should translate into less money.
Maybe, maybe not. I use Google because it returns the best search results. The lack of graphical advertizing is nice, but it's not the reason I go there. Superior search results + graphical ads still beats inferior results + no ads in my book, so these ads aren't going to drive me away from Google. And that's even before including Adblock in the deliberations.
Unfortunately, most people have either one or two choices for broadband internet service - the cable company and if thy're lucky also the phone company. It's hard to vote with your wallet when there's only one candidate running for office.
The administration didn't ask the NYT to not publish because the info was false, but because they feared doing so would tip off the people they were (illegally) spying on.
And the Times obliged them. For a year. Even through a very close Presidential election. So all you right wingnuts that like to scream LIBERAL BIAS whenever you hear the name "New York Times": does sitting on a story that is hugely embarrasing for a Republican president running for reelection sound like something a liberally-biased organization would do?
I want them to put the coca back!
oopsie
You could have bought 1 share for $.83, not 610,000 shares for $.0083.
610,000 shares would have cost $506,300 (plus commissions).
The guy might have had a point if he actually waited to see if the checks showed up before he came to his conclusions.
What, no link?
The world's 14 year olds can pay $2 for the latest 50 Cent "song", and I'll pay 50 cents for real music.
He (she?) missed the apostrophe in let's as well. Isn't pointing out other people's mistakes fun? :)
that these days Intel develops fewer and fewer actual products but more and more brands?
A fool and his money are soon parted.