I agree that it's not out of the range of possibility, it's just that I don't care. All I really want on my phone is text - pure content. All that stuff really doesn't do anything for my experience on a 320 x 480 2.6" display.
I love Opera Mini! I use it all the time, but if the site has too much junk, it still takes forever to load, even in Opera. I'm actually pretty impressed with the second rev of their version 5 beta. The first version really stunk, but the new one is quite slick, and I especially like the addition of copy and paste.
To tell you the truth, I have no idea how people tolerate the stock Bold browser - that thing is awful.
I don't care that a "mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience." My BlackBerry Bold is physically too large, in my opinion, yet the screen is far to small for me to give two winks about nice graphics or watching videos. I have the largest battery that fits into a stock battery cover, so I don't want to deal with further battery limitations to process all that crap. When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions, but only because the only thing I want is the content. I can even do without pictures and graphics altogether.
Obviously RIAA and MPAA will commission a study of their own that will find that the reason people pirate is that they are evil and want to steal the property of their poor, starving artists. But of course the bias of the study is in favor of the rights holders because they foot the bill for the study.
OTOH, this study suggests that people just want to own what they purchase and use whatever means available to make the ownership permanent. But of course the bias of the study is
As an avid Kindle reader, I wish Amazon would take more stands like this to lower the prices of their ebooks. I already don't buy over-priced titles because the publishers just don't get it: I don't have to read their stinking books. There are millions of other books for me to read. I'll die wishing I'd read a few more.
What these publishers don't seem to understand is that my walking into a Barnes & Noble with nothing but a credit card and they supply me with the reader (paper) is vastly different from my going out and spending hundreds of dollars on a reader and then purchasing the content at practically zero distribution cost to them and the retailer. When I see that a paperback is $5.99 at the store and $5.99 on my Kindle, I hesitate to buy it because I know that there is some cost in paper, printing, binding, storing, shipping, retailing, and selling that paper. But the cost of digital distribution is practically zero, so that $5.99 is nearly pure profit. If they just reduced the price to reflect the reduced costs to distribute the content and make the same profit as previously, I'd be quite happy.
The main reason I purchased the Kindle is because I do a lot of traveling, so I can carry much of my library with me and read whatever I'm in the mood to read without carrying a bag full of books and being in the mood to read the one I left at home on that trip, plus I can buy one that I would never have found in the airport bookstore. This is why something like the iPad will never work for me. I also don't like reading while staring at light bulbs, even dim ones called LCD's. So if the publishers think that Apple is going to be their savior, they're high on crack. What I've said all along is that most people who actually read books will not be interested in bulky, low battery life dim light bulbs. But that doesn't mean the iPad won't sell well, which in turn does not mean the iPad will sell a lot of books.
If Apple thinks the winning strategy to selling books is to offer them at a higher price on a higher priced device, I think they're high on crack. So far I honestly haven't explored P2P options for getting ebooks, but if the publishers think that if I really want this book that I'm not going to pursue the P2P option when their book is not available for my reader, then they're high on crack, too.
But there are some serious flaws. Please carefully read the code.
They want to tax federal expenditures, which is ludicrous.
The tax should only be passed after the 16th is repealed. To do it before is sheer stupidity.
The constitution does not grant the Government the power to levy a consumption tax, which is further justification for amending the Constitution before passing the act (if you're one of those "we should follow the Constitution" types).
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Imagine if at the end of every year the DMV required your to file a form stating that you did not violate any traffic laws in your state for the entire year, and any laws you did break you must claim and pay fines for, and if the DMV discovers that you did not claim something, then you would be fined even heavier. This would never make it through the criminal court system because it would not accept the state's requirement since it violates the 5th amendment. Yet somehow when it comes to taxes this is thrown out the window.
Additionally, the requirements for a valid contract are typically thrown out the minute someone is required to sign a contract. Even in the Navy we could not be ordered to sign something because that was not considered a lawful order.
But who cares about that? When the Federal Government first started offering 'free' electronic filing for 1040EZ, I took advantage of it, only to discover that I was forced to use 3rd-party software, all of it online. I tried two different vendors; one was Intuit and the other I forget. I could not do anything close to just quickly filling in the information because they wanted to treat me as a 1040A filer or something and force me to answer a million questions about everything. Then, after answering all the questions, they claimed I was not an EZ filer and thus had to pay money. This was false because there was no way I had enough deductions to waive the standard deduction, especially based on the information they asked for. I tried for 4 hours to navigate their byzantine system and was never able to get my 'free' return.
I ended up going to the IRS website and in less than 5 minutes I found, downloaded, filled out, printed, signed and had the sealed envelope in the mailbox. I've been paper filing ever since and I won't change until I have to fill out something besides an EZ.
I just opted in with IE and on my P4-M 2.6 GHz XP laptop HTML5 on a non-HD, non-HQ video was significantly worse than in FF with flash. The playback was 'stuttery' and the sound was not in sync.
I'm on XP using FF 3.5.7 and I don't see tynt in the NoScript menu. Seems odd. I even tried allowing globally just for the Wired page and still didn't see any scripts from tynt.com
Second on that one. I first became aware that I don't like staring at a dim light-bulb for hours when James Maddox mentioned on TBPITU, I think in his FAQ. I do wish more sites would give a reverse option. I especially find the reversed out dslreports.com to be easy on the eyes. It seems like sometime back I saw it on YouTube for like a week and then it disappeared.
That is completely false and was not interpreted that way until the 1960's when the Supreme Court decided to change the meaning of the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to give freedmen the rights to enter contracts, sue, and own property. This was done to override the Dred Scott decision.
Senator Blaine introduced what came to be known as the Blaine Amendment to remove the states' rights to control religion. Prior to being a senator Blaine was a representative and would have voted on the fourteenth amendment, so his understanding of the amendment would have been crystal clear, so the very fact that he submitted an additional amendment is very strong evidence against the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was suppose to change the First.
There were discussions during the creation of the constitution about how a Supreme Court could virtually take over the country by changing the very meaning of the constitution, and that is what has happened on so many issues, particularly pertaining to any power held by the states. I think they got away with the 1960's decisions largely because the states no longer controlled the Senate.
A book I recommend everyone read is The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods. Very factual, no crackpot stuff and lots of references.
It isn't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm, it's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security. This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost. These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD, and they're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S. They'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they'll lose tons of business if they don't because their competition won't be making the same mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it's not out of the range of possibility, it's just that I don't care. All I really want on my phone is text - pure content. All that stuff really doesn't do anything for my experience on a 320 x 480 2.6" display.
nothing says success like shiny.
I wonder if they ever compare their 'success' with sites like Wikipedia, craigslist and Google?
I love Opera Mini! I use it all the time, but if the site has too much junk, it still takes forever to load, even in Opera. I'm actually pretty impressed with the second rev of their version 5 beta. The first version really stunk, but the new one is quite slick, and I especially like the addition of copy and paste.
To tell you the truth, I have no idea how people tolerate the stock Bold browser - that thing is awful.
I don't care that a "mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience." My BlackBerry Bold is physically too large, in my opinion, yet the screen is far to small for me to give two winks about nice graphics or watching videos. I have the largest battery that fits into a stock battery cover, so I don't want to deal with further battery limitations to process all that crap. When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions, but only because the only thing I want is the content. I can even do without pictures and graphics altogether.
But what's more amazing is that Amazon loses money on the transaction for many new releases.
people who are practically illiterate (read: iPad owners)
John Scalzi (and others, I'm sure) discusses it in his blog, Whatever
Obviously RIAA and MPAA will commission a study of their own that will find that the reason people pirate is that they are evil and want to steal the property of their poor, starving artists. But of course the bias of the study is in favor of the rights holders because they foot the bill for the study.
OTOH, this study suggests that people just want to own what they purchase and use whatever means available to make the ownership permanent. But of course the bias of the study is
As an avid Kindle reader, I wish Amazon would take more stands like this to lower the prices of their ebooks. I already don't buy over-priced titles because the publishers just don't get it: I don't have to read their stinking books. There are millions of other books for me to read. I'll die wishing I'd read a few more.
What these publishers don't seem to understand is that my walking into a Barnes & Noble with nothing but a credit card and they supply me with the reader (paper) is vastly different from my going out and spending hundreds of dollars on a reader and then purchasing the content at practically zero distribution cost to them and the retailer. When I see that a paperback is $5.99 at the store and $5.99 on my Kindle, I hesitate to buy it because I know that there is some cost in paper, printing, binding, storing, shipping, retailing, and selling that paper. But the cost of digital distribution is practically zero, so that $5.99 is nearly pure profit. If they just reduced the price to reflect the reduced costs to distribute the content and make the same profit as previously, I'd be quite happy.
The main reason I purchased the Kindle is because I do a lot of traveling, so I can carry much of my library with me and read whatever I'm in the mood to read without carrying a bag full of books and being in the mood to read the one I left at home on that trip, plus I can buy one that I would never have found in the airport bookstore. This is why something like the iPad will never work for me. I also don't like reading while staring at light bulbs, even dim ones called LCD's. So if the publishers think that Apple is going to be their savior, they're high on crack. What I've said all along is that most people who actually read books will not be interested in bulky, low battery life dim light bulbs. But that doesn't mean the iPad won't sell well, which in turn does not mean the iPad will sell a lot of books.
If Apple thinks the winning strategy to selling books is to offer them at a higher price on a higher priced device, I think they're high on crack. So far I honestly haven't explored P2P options for getting ebooks, but if the publishers think that if I really want this book that I'm not going to pursue the P2P option when their book is not available for my reader, then they're high on crack, too.
I guess they'll mod up anyone these days.
This add-on is for older versions of Firefox
I've been wanting a Hollywood Windows Theme forever! Does this guy make one??
But there are some serious flaws. Please carefully read the code.
They want to tax federal expenditures, which is ludicrous.
The tax should only be passed after the 16th is repealed. To do it before is sheer stupidity.
The constitution does not grant the Government the power to levy a consumption tax, which is further justification for amending the Constitution before passing the act (if you're one of those "we should follow the Constitution" types).
How about just the 5th amendment? Let's review:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Imagine if at the end of every year the DMV required your to file a form stating that you did not violate any traffic laws in your state for the entire year, and any laws you did break you must claim and pay fines for, and if the DMV discovers that you did not claim something, then you would be fined even heavier. This would never make it through the criminal court system because it would not accept the state's requirement since it violates the 5th amendment. Yet somehow when it comes to taxes this is thrown out the window.
Additionally, the requirements for a valid contract are typically thrown out the minute someone is required to sign a contract. Even in the Navy we could not be ordered to sign something because that was not considered a lawful order.
...not to provide services for free which are already provided by commercial ventures...
Such as health care?
But who cares about that? When the Federal Government first started offering 'free' electronic filing for 1040EZ, I took advantage of it, only to discover that I was forced to use 3rd-party software, all of it online. I tried two different vendors; one was Intuit and the other I forget. I could not do anything close to just quickly filling in the information because they wanted to treat me as a 1040A filer or something and force me to answer a million questions about everything. Then, after answering all the questions, they claimed I was not an EZ filer and thus had to pay money. This was false because there was no way I had enough deductions to waive the standard deduction, especially based on the information they asked for. I tried for 4 hours to navigate their byzantine system and was never able to get my 'free' return.
I ended up going to the IRS website and in less than 5 minutes I found, downloaded, filled out, printed, signed and had the sealed envelope in the mailbox. I've been paper filing ever since and I won't change until I have to fill out something besides an EZ.
/.'d
I just opted in with IE and on my P4-M 2.6 GHz XP laptop HTML5 on a non-HD, non-HQ video was significantly worse than in FF with flash. The playback was 'stuttery' and the sound was not in sync.
I tether my AT&T BlackBerry without an additional charge.
mercurynews.com is pretty bad, too.
I'm on XP using FF 3.5.7 and I don't see tynt in the NoScript menu. Seems odd. I even tried allowing globally just for the Wired page and still didn't see any scripts from tynt.com
Even with ABP disabled for wired.com NoScript doesn't report a tynt.com script.
Second on that one. I first became aware that I don't like staring at a dim light-bulb for hours when James Maddox mentioned on TBPITU, I think in his FAQ. I do wish more sites would give a reverse option. I especially find the reversed out dslreports.com to be easy on the eyes. It seems like sometime back I saw it on YouTube for like a week and then it disappeared.
That is completely false and was not interpreted that way until the 1960's when the Supreme Court decided to change the meaning of the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to give freedmen the rights to enter contracts, sue, and own property. This was done to override the Dred Scott decision.
Senator Blaine introduced what came to be known as the Blaine Amendment to remove the states' rights to control religion. Prior to being a senator Blaine was a representative and would have voted on the fourteenth amendment, so his understanding of the amendment would have been crystal clear, so the very fact that he submitted an additional amendment is very strong evidence against the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was suppose to change the First.
There were discussions during the creation of the constitution about how a Supreme Court could virtually take over the country by changing the very meaning of the constitution, and that is what has happened on so many issues, particularly pertaining to any power held by the states. I think they got away with the 1960's decisions largely because the states no longer controlled the Senate.
A book I recommend everyone read is The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods. Very factual, no crackpot stuff and lots of references.
Shanghai Metals Market
It isn't that we allow any random person to walk onboard with a firearm, it's that we allow the airlines to manage their own security. This would likely result in the total elimination of terrorist events on planes at a substantially reduced cost. These companies are multi-billion dollar firms that are threatened every time some poor indigent person who happen to be born in a country suppressed by the U.S. wants to put a final end to his PTSD, and they're not going to be run by congressman trying to send pork projects to some random place in the U.S. They'll take real actions to provide real results since they know that they'll lose tons of business if they don't because their competition won't be making the same mistake.