From a technical standpoint, moving money without your consent I can understand, but how the fuck do you not *KNOW* that you are getting charged an NSF fee?
And what kind of moron doesn't at least investigate into what transpired to cause an NSF charge in the first place?
Even if you had so much money that you wouldn't notice if some went missing due to incidental bank fees, if you're getting charged an NSF fee, then that means you DIDN'T have the money... so how the hell can someone not notice this?
One of the problems with this notion is that using wireless phones chews up the battery in your wireless device and using the adapter cuts off any ability to charge the device while using it. In addition to this being fucking annoying, to say the least, it even has accessibility implications.
Another issue here is that they are deciding replacing a truly ubiquitous connector that could connect seamlessly with virtually every piece of audio equipment made in the past several decades with an entirely proprietary one.... if they had opened up lightning to be a standard that anyone could freely (or cheaply) adopt and use, then while there'd be a transition phase during which it could be seen as an annoyance, in the long run this probably wouldn't be as bad either.
While it might seem like all it should mean for most people who dislike this is that they won't be getting an iPhone 7, the reason some people are upset is because they already have an iPhone and getting a different brand of phone when their current one wears out means that one is throwing away any financial investment they have made in applications they might use on the iPhone and they will have to purchase everything again for the new platform.
Fine... except that's not what you said initially. You're moving the goalposts here, and while of course you are entitled to your opinion, what you first said was thus:
Microsoft will have another Windows version out before this actually gets to market.
This statement whether it is an opinion or not is entirely independent of how usable you might find any particular version of Windows or how soon you personally may start to use it because those things do not influence when Microsoft will start to market.
Of course, if you believe that they do.... then I completely understand where you're coming from, and I probably don't have anything more to say.
Of course they need to fix shit, as you say, but needing to fix stuff that's currently wrong isn't a really a basis to speculate that they won't make changes to support newer hardware as it becomes available.
Between the holographic appearances of... was it Tupac?
That wasn't a hologram. It was a special effect called Pepper's Ghost.
Worse, the effect that was used for Tupac wasn't even three dimensional... if you were looking at it from an oblique angle, you'd see the image much as you would see a picture from a similar angle.. The smaller angular diameter you perceive of the surface would result in the visual features you could see from more directly in front being condensed into a tighter space, while with a hologram, the different view may actually expose features or detail you may not have otherwise perceived from straight on, albeit within a smaller angular diameter, much as looking through a window at a scene beyond would appear when seeing the window from a similar angle.
Considering when pretty much anyone does something that they might know is against the law, they expect they will get away with it, unless they actually *want* to get caught, I'm not sure that reasoning holds much water. I expect people who file false DMCA notices don't expect anything to happen to them either... and by the same reasoning that high fines do not discourage piracy, it would seem that high fines would not generally discourage false DMCA notices either.
No.... all of the nukes combined would not destroy the world.
Meteror impacts have resulted in many factors more explose energies being released upon the earth, and although they are extinction level events, to be sure... they did not wipe out all life on earth, let alone destroy the planet.
How do you "distinctly recall" something happening but fail to provide any useful details?
I was (apparently falsely) assuming that the person had enough noteriety that I did not need to. For reference, here's a video from just before last year's election that I was talking about.
I distinctly recall Justin Beiber being a douche-bag but that doesn't mean I think all Canadians are like that.
Fair enough, and perhaps Mr. Oliver doesn't represent a majority of Americans either... although I don't believe it was his intent to be a douchebag to Canadians (heck, I'm Canadian but I still found the segment to be funny as hell), but rather driven by the sheer audacity that such a law would have ever been made. Do you honestly think that he would be just as blase about the USA not wanting Russia to influence their election as he seemed to be that Canada has a law against residents of other countries trying to influence a Canadian election? I'm not so sure...
By the way, how would you even enforce a law like that?
Honestly, I have no idea.... but that's not the point of my question. My point is that it seems kind of strange to make fun of another country's dislike for something when the prevalent attitude is suddenly "it's none of their fucking business" when it happens to them.
There was some famous person from the US that was making fun of Canada for having a law against people residing in another country trying to influence Canadian elections by telling people who live in Canada how they should vote, or not vote..
Now suddenly that it's happening to the USA as their election draws near, why the change of heart?
You misunderstand my question.... I was asking why heavier penalties for false DMCA takedowns would make any difference when anytime high penalties for piracy are ever talked about around here, someone usually brings up the point that higher penalties for crimes is not an effective preventative.
And yet, whenever we hear a story about how someone got fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for pirating a couple of dozen works, the mantra on slashdot always seems to go along the lines that high penalties *don't* discourage people from breaking the law.
So what's the difference here, exactly? Serious question.
I thought it was established long ago that disproportionately large penalties don't actually discourage people from breaking the law. Isn't that the foundation of the argument against insanely high penalties for media piracy?
Robot time is not values, only human time is. As humans get removed from the cost of producing stuff, stuff will get cheaper
Uh... no. most people don't price products based on what it costs them to make, they price them according to what they believe people will pay. If they don't think they can make a profit on how much they think people will pay, then they won't make the product in the first place. People who altruistically try to always pass on their cost savings to the consumer without doing some hard research to substantiate that it will result in a greater net profit for themselves are people who run businesses that fail.
A majority of the population living in abject poverty will not economically destabilize the entire nation because a vast majority of the population does not collectively control most of the wealth of the country.
How will you pay for what you need to live without a job, exactly? Or do you think we'll be living in some idealistic world where everything, including housing, is free?
Does watermarking count as intrusive DRM when it doesn't create any technical limitations on your ability to read or use the work on whatever device you put the file on? Most of the PDF's that I've bought are watermarked, but all I've seen is that they have my name and a number that I assume is an invoice or purchase ID at the very bottom or top of each page... right near the page numbers. It doesn't interfere with the reading of the work, so it's not a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
From a technical standpoint, moving money without your consent I can understand, but how the fuck do you not *KNOW* that you are getting charged an NSF fee?
And what kind of moron doesn't at least investigate into what transpired to cause an NSF charge in the first place?
Even if you had so much money that you wouldn't notice if some went missing due to incidental bank fees, if you're getting charged an NSF fee, then that means you DIDN'T have the money... so how the hell can someone not notice this?
A different purchasing model of the same version of Windows is still the same version of Windows.
Free speech is not protected in the EU the same as it is in the USA.
So your assertion, then, is that MS is going to be obsoleting Windows 10 with a subscription model real soon now?
Wasn't that ApOgee software?
One of the problems with this notion is that using wireless phones chews up the battery in your wireless device and using the adapter cuts off any ability to charge the device while using it. In addition to this being fucking annoying, to say the least, it even has accessibility implications.
Another issue here is that they are deciding replacing a truly ubiquitous connector that could connect seamlessly with virtually every piece of audio equipment made in the past several decades with an entirely proprietary one.... if they had opened up lightning to be a standard that anyone could freely (or cheaply) adopt and use, then while there'd be a transition phase during which it could be seen as an annoyance, in the long run this probably wouldn't be as bad either.
While it might seem like all it should mean for most people who dislike this is that they won't be getting an iPhone 7, the reason some people are upset is because they already have an iPhone and getting a different brand of phone when their current one wears out means that one is throwing away any financial investment they have made in applications they might use on the iPhone and they will have to purchase everything again for the new platform.
That's possible... it depends on how soon they will have a new subscription model.
I'd be willing to bet money that support for the new CPUs will be in Windows by the end of next year.
Fine... except that's not what you said initially. You're moving the goalposts here, and while of course you are entitled to your opinion, what you first said was thus:
This statement whether it is an opinion or not is entirely independent of how usable you might find any particular version of Windows or how soon you personally may start to use it because those things do not influence when Microsoft will start to market.
Of course, if you believe that they do.... then I completely understand where you're coming from, and I probably don't have anything more to say.
Of course they need to fix shit, as you say, but needing to fix stuff that's currently wrong isn't a really a basis to speculate that they won't make changes to support newer hardware as it becomes available.
You assume that Microsoft is necessarily going to address all of the current issues with windows 10 before supporting new hardware.
That wasn't a hologram. It was a special effect called Pepper's Ghost.
Worse, the effect that was used for Tupac wasn't even three dimensional... if you were looking at it from an oblique angle, you'd see the image much as you would see a picture from a similar angle.. The smaller angular diameter you perceive of the surface would result in the visual features you could see from more directly in front being condensed into a tighter space, while with a hologram, the different view may actually expose features or detail you may not have otherwise perceived from straight on, albeit within a smaller angular diameter, much as looking through a window at a scene beyond would appear when seeing the window from a similar angle.
What have you heard? Has there been delays for both? Last I heard about Zen was Q1 2017 and Kaby lake was Q4 2016.
Considering when pretty much anyone does something that they might know is against the law, they expect they will get away with it, unless they actually *want* to get caught, I'm not sure that reasoning holds much water. I expect people who file false DMCA notices don't expect anything to happen to them either... and by the same reasoning that high fines do not discourage piracy, it would seem that high fines would not generally discourage false DMCA notices either.
No.... all of the nukes combined would not destroy the world.
Meteror impacts have resulted in many factors more explose energies being released upon the earth, and although they are extinction level events, to be sure... they did not wipe out all life on earth, let alone destroy the planet.
Okay, for some reason, I copied the url to the wrong video... here is the right one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That make sense. Thank you.
I was (apparently falsely) assuming that the person had enough noteriety that I did not need to. For reference, here's a video from just before last year's election that I was talking about.
Fair enough, and perhaps Mr. Oliver doesn't represent a majority of Americans either... although I don't believe it was his intent to be a douchebag to Canadians (heck, I'm Canadian but I still found the segment to be funny as hell), but rather driven by the sheer audacity that such a law would have ever been made. Do you honestly think that he would be just as blase about the USA not wanting Russia to influence their election as he seemed to be that Canada has a law against residents of other countries trying to influence a Canadian election? I'm not so sure...
Honestly, I have no idea.... but that's not the point of my question. My point is that it seems kind of strange to make fun of another country's dislike for something when the prevalent attitude is suddenly "it's none of their fucking business" when it happens to them.
There was some famous person from the US that was making fun of Canada for having a law against people residing in another country trying to influence Canadian elections by telling people who live in Canada how they should vote, or not vote..
Now suddenly that it's happening to the USA as their election draws near, why the change of heart?
You misunderstand my question.... I was asking why heavier penalties for false DMCA takedowns would make any difference when anytime high penalties for piracy are ever talked about around here, someone usually brings up the point that higher penalties for crimes is not an effective preventative.
And yet, whenever we hear a story about how someone got fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for pirating a couple of dozen works, the mantra on slashdot always seems to go along the lines that high penalties *don't* discourage people from breaking the law.
So what's the difference here, exactly? Serious question.
I thought it was established long ago that disproportionately large penalties don't actually discourage people from breaking the law. Isn't that the foundation of the argument against insanely high penalties for media piracy?
Uh... no. most people don't price products based on what it costs them to make, they price them according to what they believe people will pay. If they don't think they can make a profit on how much they think people will pay, then they won't make the product in the first place. People who altruistically try to always pass on their cost savings to the consumer without doing some hard research to substantiate that it will result in a greater net profit for themselves are people who run businesses that fail.
A majority of the population living in abject poverty will not economically destabilize the entire nation because a vast majority of the population does not collectively control most of the wealth of the country.
How will you pay for what you need to live without a job, exactly? Or do you think we'll be living in some idealistic world where everything, including housing, is free?
Does watermarking count as intrusive DRM when it doesn't create any technical limitations on your ability to read or use the work on whatever device you put the file on? Most of the PDF's that I've bought are watermarked, but all I've seen is that they have my name and a number that I assume is an invoice or purchase ID at the very bottom or top of each page... right near the page numbers. It doesn't interfere with the reading of the work, so it's not a problem.