Why not? It is customer feedback after all. It is basically saying: I like your company, but I dislike that other company. Please do not do business with them.:(
You presume that the parents are those buying the product. But I believe any 15 years old with the bucks to spare can go into a shop and get out with an iOS enabled device and expose himself with safari without his parents having a chance to monitor anything at all.
So because the iOS device itself isn't considered 17+ the parental controls available in the OS aren't an excuse for Safari avoiding this "warning".
Totally agree. At first I didn't like Stargate SG-1's cancellation. The problem wasn't with the cast but with the amount of "filler episodes". Then Dr McKay made StarGate Atlantis actually be a nice series and it got cancelled too... I mean c'mon. I like stargate's universe. Why cancel all of them?
If I am allowed to sell structures I built out of legos, why wouldn't I be allowed to re-sell phones I have modified? This is absurd. If the profit I try to make on the original phone is too high, then I won't sell any. Besides, for each phone I sell, apple still gets their sale too.
Let's say you draw a circle inside a square. I look at your drawing, and then I draw a circle inside a square as well. You pretend I've taken your idea and it wasn't mine in the first place. I reply that you've taken my freedom to come up with this idea in the first place and this freedom wasn't yours. You called me a pirate, I call you a pirate too. You say that act was theft? I am saying you've thieved first.
... that if their proposed legislation attacks free speech as a consequence of trying to fight piracy, then they haven't engineered said legislation properly. He is right that the first amendment isn't a shield for those who steal and any sane legislation wouldn't change that fact.
I disagree with your statement. As I've answered to "arose" just before you, your payment to your ISP covers your ISP's part of the network and indirectly the backbone that your ISP uses. But it doesn't cover the whole network (meaning every other part of the network owned by other ISPs). So we pay more than one time per byte, but less than two actually.
Not exactly. As of now my ISP only bills me and I'd be surprised google shares the same ISP. This proposal would allow every ISP to try (cause providers could choose to be low priority and not pay) to charge twice for every byte going through.
As of now, I'm paying my ISP for their network (my ISP pays a backbone for their network) while the service provider pays another ISP for that other part of the network (and that ISP pays a backbone for their network). So the only double payment occurs if I share the same ISP as the content provider or if both ISPs share the same backbone. In every other case, part of my payment goes for a section of the network which has received payment only once. And the section of the network from which the data was served never sees any part of my payment.
Just like a conversation of one minute between two cell phones gets billed for 2 minutes, they'd like every byte going through their network to be billed as 2 bytes.
Slashdot Mirror
This gem was posted on reddit recently :
Operator <- : http://www.atnnn.com/p/operato...
Reddit thread : https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/c...
Install the Lazarus plugin and you'll never have this kind of problem again, whether it is a job application form or any other form for that matter.
Meh, I already see more inaccuracy in what I just said.
Here's one more try:
The potential for increasing profits is higher by eliminating used game sales as opposed to eliminating piracy according to a Fable III Dev.
You are right.
Maybe we could rephrase it that way then?
The amount of used game sales has become larger than the amount of pirated copies.
The conclusion seems misleading.
Misleading conclusion:
Buying a used game doesn't hurt more than pirating the game.
More accurate conclusion:
Companies lose more money to used game sales than to piracy.
Especially when being wiretapped.
Why not? It is customer feedback after all. It is basically saying: I like your company, but I dislike that other company. Please do not do business with them. :(
You presume that the parents are those buying the product. But I believe any 15 years old with the bucks to spare can go into a shop and get out with an iOS enabled device and expose himself with safari without his parents having a chance to monitor anything at all.
So because the iOS device itself isn't considered 17+ the parental controls available in the OS aren't an excuse for Safari avoiding this "warning".
Why then don't I need to be 17 to get myself an iPod and use Safari which presents the same exact risks?
This keyboard is so great that I am now even more likely to forget my sessions open on computers that aren't equipped with it compared with before.
They forgot to mention the software needs to be highly scalable on the amount of personas it can manage.
Can't be more simply put. It is so true. Wish I had mod points.
Totally agree. At first I didn't like Stargate SG-1's cancellation. The problem wasn't with the cast but with the amount of "filler episodes". Then Dr McKay made StarGate Atlantis actually be a nice series and it got cancelled too... I mean c'mon. I like stargate's universe. Why cancel all of them?
Atlantis wasn't bad thanks to Dr McKay!
Your quoting makes it look like he is threatening his own self. Which could be true unless he is not a senator or congressman.
If I am allowed to sell structures I built out of legos, why wouldn't I be allowed to re-sell phones I have modified? This is absurd. If the profit I try to make on the original phone is too high, then I won't sell any. Besides, for each phone I sell, apple still gets their sale too.
I agree with you. Was about to read the article, but this is so stupid I stopped at page 1.
Anyone has been able to make a program which translates the speech back to text in order to compile this kernel?
Let's say you draw a circle inside a square. I look at your drawing, and then I draw a circle inside a square as well. You pretend I've taken your idea and it wasn't mine in the first place. I reply that you've taken my freedom to come up with this idea in the first place and this freedom wasn't yours. You called me a pirate, I call you a pirate too. You say that act was theft? I am saying you've thieved first.
... that if their proposed legislation attacks free speech as a consequence of trying to fight piracy, then they haven't engineered said legislation properly. He is right that the first amendment isn't a shield for those who steal and any sane legislation wouldn't change that fact.
I disagree with your statement. As I've answered to "arose" just before you, your payment to your ISP covers your ISP's part of the network and indirectly the backbone that your ISP uses. But it doesn't cover the whole network (meaning every other part of the network owned by other ISPs). So we pay more than one time per byte, but less than two actually.
Not exactly. As of now my ISP only bills me and I'd be surprised google shares the same ISP. This proposal would allow every ISP to try (cause providers could choose to be low priority and not pay) to charge twice for every byte going through.
As of now, I'm paying my ISP for their network (my ISP pays a backbone for their network) while the service provider pays another ISP for that other part of the network (and that ISP pays a backbone for their network). So the only double payment occurs if I share the same ISP as the content provider or if both ISPs share the same backbone. In every other case, part of my payment goes for a section of the network which has received payment only once. And the section of the network from which the data was served never sees any part of my payment.
Hang on to that as long as you can!
Just like a conversation of one minute between two cell phones gets billed for 2 minutes, they'd like every byte going through their network to be billed as 2 bytes.
Like adblock?