A recurring payment is something that automatically happens based on a cycle of time. This is not a recurring payment because one may not always listen to 40 hours/month and as such they won't get billed anything.
So you'd rather them be unable to come back rather than having to chip in 99 cents because otherwise they won't be able to afford the licensing fees?
Compare cable bills from the 80s to today. $10 package back then is now around $80. We have more adverts, bigger channel logos, obnoxious animated or video overlays showing other programming over the top of whatever you're watching, and channels constantly being spun off into other sub-packages that cost more in monthly fees to get them back.
Waaaaaaaaaah. Poor baby.
Maybe when you grow up you'll have to start paying for services rather than stealing them, and then you'll discover pricing always vastly outstrips inflation increases.
I don't steal anything now or have in the past. I pay for everything I get. To complain about 99 cents for listening to over 40 hours of music from the service so they can cover their licensing fees is laughable. I love the condescension to when you're the one who is tossing out the "WAAAH I HAVE TO PAY FOR THINGS" argument not me.
Don't expect anyone to read your post before blasting about nanny states and all the bullshit without realizing that you can still buy all this stuff just not as an all-in-one pill.
NILFS2 and Btrfs are both TRIM file systems optimized for SSD media. Comparing them to other file systems on a SATA drive is borderline stupidity, because you would never use them on a SATA drive. Any more than comparing NILFS2 or Btrfs to eXT3 on a SSD would be.
This statement doesn't make any sense since SSDs can use both the original SATA and SATA II interfaces.
BTW, I don't consider the use of Trident by the OS to be "using IE" anymore than a use of Gecko is "using Firefox" or a use of WebKit is "using Safari".
I prefer the one that shows that Google is ranked 150 in the Global 500. What a small corporation they are to only rank a paltry 150 out of the countless millions of corporations that exist in the world.
So he's going to claim with a straight face that a company that pulls in $22 billion in revenue "isn't that big"? In what bizarro world do we live in were that isn't a "big" corporation?
And in what percentile of all corporations do they fall under with those stats? 99.999999999999999999th percentile? To claim that they "aren't that big" just because they are behind IBM or Microsoft is an asinine argument when they are probably bigger than more than 99.99+% of all US businesses.
What you mean because I installed Windows as my OS, I'm forced to use IE now? You mean I can't just surf to mozilla.com or opera.com and download an alternate browser because of some sort of blocking mechanism? Wow, I just never noticed that before. Guess I'll have to look closer.
Why would it take an exponential amount of resources? One of these qubits only amounts to around 1.66 Ã-- 10e-14 percent of a mole of aluminum. For every mole of aluminum they can create 6 quadrillion qubits. I'm not sure how many qubits would be needed for a quantum computer but I'm doubting it's much more than that.
No, not the EFF but there are still slashdotters who even in the linked thread are still parroting her idiotic defenses and acting as if she is innocent. It's people like that who continue to hurt any legitimate causes.
Oh I totally agree that the statutory limits are excessive, and have said so in a previous post in the linked thread from the GGP, but supporting someone as ridiculous as Jammie Thomas is going to make people completely shut out anyone attempting to make a legitimate point. Her case is doing nothing but feeding directly into the hands of the RIAA/MPAA and they are probably more then grateful that they got not just one judgment against her but two.
Slashdot Mirror
A recurring payment is something that automatically happens based on a cycle of time. This is not a recurring payment because one may not always listen to 40 hours/month and as such they won't get billed anything.
It's the start of the slippery slope.
So you'd rather them be unable to come back rather than having to chip in 99 cents because otherwise they won't be able to afford the licensing fees?
Compare cable bills from the 80s to today. $10 package back then is now around $80. We have more adverts, bigger channel logos, obnoxious animated or video overlays showing other programming over the top of whatever you're watching, and channels constantly being spun off into other sub-packages that cost more in monthly fees to get them back.
Waaaaaaaaaah. Poor baby.
Maybe when you grow up you'll have to start paying for services rather than stealing them, and then you'll discover pricing always vastly outstrips inflation increases.
I don't steal anything now or have in the past. I pay for everything I get. To complain about 99 cents for listening to over 40 hours of music from the service so they can cover their licensing fees is laughable. I love the condescension to when you're the one who is tossing out the "WAAAH I HAVE TO PAY FOR THINGS" argument not me.
Oh noes you have to pay all of 99 cents if you listen to over 40 hours in one month! Those dirty fiends!
And by "OK" you mean there are not a single released netbooks that is running Android but one or two announcements of ones to come?
Do not welcome our nannystate overlords.
Seriously why do we have to keep legislating everything.
When did the FDA become a legislative body? Did I miss that?
Soon after Government run healthcare they are going to tell you want you can and can't eat.
And yet in countries with publicly funded health care the government doesn't do that. It's almost as if your comment is just plain bullshit.
All this ban is saying is that you can't buy the drugs as an all-in-one formulation. You can still buy them just the same as separate pills.
Before everyone screams bloody murder,
Don't expect anyone to read your post before blasting about nanny states and all the bullshit without realizing that you can still buy all this stuff just not as an all-in-one pill.
And that article is 17 months old. That issue has long since been fixed.
Microsoft actually did something right
You mean like the mode Safari had 4 years ago?
NILFS2 and Btrfs are both TRIM file systems optimized for SSD media. Comparing them to other file systems on a SATA drive is borderline stupidity, because you would never use them on a SATA drive. Any more than comparing NILFS2 or Btrfs to eXT3 on a SSD would be.
This statement doesn't make any sense since SSDs can use both the original SATA and SATA II interfaces.
See post above you. Already answered that. Using the Trident rendering engine isn't the same as using IE.
BTW, I don't consider the use of Trident by the OS to be "using IE" anymore than a use of Gecko is "using Firefox" or a use of WebKit is "using Safari".
I prefer the one that shows that Google is ranked 150 in the Global 500. What a small corporation they are to only rank a paltry 150 out of the countless millions of corporations that exist in the world.
So until that day, yes, you are forced to use IE.
Funny cause other than initially downloading Firefox I've never used IE on any of my computers since Firefox 1.0.
So he's going to claim with a straight face that a company that pulls in $22 billion in revenue "isn't that big"? In what bizarro world do we live in were that isn't a "big" corporation?
They are big but not that big.
So you aren't that big when you are probably bigger than more than 99.99% of all businesses in the world? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.
Not in the pants you aren't!
And in what percentile of all corporations do they fall under with those stats? 99.999999999999999999th percentile? To claim that they "aren't that big" just because they are behind IBM or Microsoft is an asinine argument when they are probably bigger than more than 99.99+% of all US businesses.
What you mean because I installed Windows as my OS, I'm forced to use IE now? You mean I can't just surf to mozilla.com or opera.com and download an alternate browser because of some sort of blocking mechanism? Wow, I just never noticed that before. Guess I'll have to look closer.
That should be "1.66x10e-14 percent".
Why would it take an exponential amount of resources? One of these qubits only amounts to around 1.66 Ã-- 10e-14 percent of a mole of aluminum. For every mole of aluminum they can create 6 quadrillion qubits. I'm not sure how many qubits would be needed for a quantum computer but I'm doubting it's much more than that.
Seriously, do people even RTFA any more?
People have ever RTFA? Have you been reading a bizarro Slashdot all these years?
read the damn article.
Hahaha. You must be new here.
No, not the EFF but there are still slashdotters who even in the linked thread are still parroting her idiotic defenses and acting as if she is innocent. It's people like that who continue to hurt any legitimate causes.
Oh I totally agree that the statutory limits are excessive, and have said so in a previous post in the linked thread from the GGP, but supporting someone as ridiculous as Jammie Thomas is going to make people completely shut out anyone attempting to make a legitimate point. Her case is doing nothing but feeding directly into the hands of the RIAA/MPAA and they are probably more then grateful that they got not just one judgment against her but two.