We have a shitty choice because ISPs lobbied to get municipalities to give them exclusive monopolies and ISPs choose amongst themselves to not compete with each other in certain areas. The best part is then the ISPs come back around and act like the very things they lobbied for were against what they wanted.
The last sentence is also extraordinarily patronizing and seems to think we're dumb enough to fall for it. "It's okay that we installed this crapware that you didn't want because we document how to uninstall it!" I would like to think Timmeh doesn't actually believe such crap. It's one thing to parrot the company line it's another to actually believe it when it's so obviously absurd.
All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.
Except that you and the Sourceforge people know damn well that next to no one actually wants that crapware. 99% of cases it will be installef by someone merely clicking through not expecting crapware in the installer.
Which is why it won't be done. Dice.com cares about ad revenue not the users. They've gotta make their money back somehow on these purchases. Squeezing blood from a stone seems to be their tactic.
Seems to me that the government ought to be in the API business, making all their tools open to developers that can then take the information and the forms, fill them out get details, etc. Make life easy for developers and then let the public create the interfaces.
They do make the data open hence why this site can even exist.
No, that quote is saying that their website was easier to implement and has less issues because it does only a small fraction of what HealthCare.gov does. They don't have to query all those sources, they don't have to handle magnitudes higher load volume, etc. So of course something that is far more simplistic than HealthCare.gov is likely to have far less issues, but that isn't really saying much.
The physics test is quite telling and shows just how limited the low speed, dual core
The physics test seems to have little relevance to actual gaming performance since even against the Note III in offscreen tests the iPhone 5S was pretty much neck and neck on rendering rate.
In that review the iPhone 5S won 4 of the 7 CPU tests that it was in. It won 3 of the 6 GPU tests measuring FPS rendering speed. In 2 of the tests that it lost it only lost by 1 fps, in the other offscreen test that it lost at it was 57 fps vs. 69 fps. Which means the 5S was only 5% slower than native refresh rate.
dual core? really? that is fucking ancient) CPU in the iPhone is.
And yet it beat the quad-core in both of the CPU tests. Can't even beat an "ancient" CPU? Pathetic...
To add even in the offscreen test done by Anandtech here against the Note III it only lost by 1 fps in 2 of the tests as in another it was 12 fps behind. But, in the test it was 12 fps lower it was 57 fps to 69 fps which means that basically it was only 5% lower than screen refresh rate.
So the screen resolution is why it was faster in Sunspider and Browsermark? Also in the off-screen GPU test (of which screen resolution makes no difference) it was only 10% slower which makes sense since the GPU cores on the Snapdragon 800 are clocked faster.
The person they sent the letter to is a US citizen. So it being "US-centric" is absolutely appropriate. Maybe you should have bothered to read that part?
No, but he is running a site using the Ubuntu name:
So what? That does not constitute infringement in and of itself. There are countless examples of trademarks used in 3rd party website URLs such as Fuck Best Buy.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the fee is simply profit on top of their other profit taking.
We have a shitty choice because ISPs lobbied to get municipalities to give them exclusive monopolies and ISPs choose amongst themselves to not compete with each other in certain areas. The best part is then the ISPs come back around and act like the very things they lobbied for were against what they wanted.
The last sentence is also extraordinarily patronizing and seems to think we're dumb enough to fall for it. "It's okay that we installed this crapware that you didn't want because we document how to uninstall it!" I would like to think Timmeh doesn't actually believe such crap. It's one thing to parrot the company line it's another to actually believe it when it's so obviously absurd.
All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.
Except that you and the Sourceforge people know damn well that next to no one actually wants that crapware. 99% of cases it will be installef by someone merely clicking through not expecting crapware in the installer.
Which is why it won't be done. Dice.com cares about ad revenue not the users. They've gotta make their money back somehow on these purchases. Squeezing blood from a stone seems to be their tactic.
Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com emoyees to speak against this adware?
No it's not because they specifically gave you permission to do so for non-commercial use.
Git yer commie bullshit out of here, pinko!
*cocks shotgun*
Seems to me that the government ought to be in the API business, making all their tools open to developers that can then take the information and the forms, fill them out get details, etc. Make life easy for developers and then let the public create the interfaces.
They do make the data open hence why this site can even exist.
No, that quote is saying that their website was easier to implement and has less issues because it does only a small fraction of what HealthCare.gov does. They don't have to query all those sources, they don't have to handle magnitudes higher load volume, etc. So of course something that is far more simplistic than HealthCare.gov is likely to have far less issues, but that isn't really saying much.
*Its* finest, of course.
Qt is far more than a widget library. Have you ever even used it?
Only if you use the static methods on QFileDialog. If you don't it's the non-native file dialog.
And Qt is not really C++ as it relies on MOC.
A non-sequitur at it's finest. Using MOC does not make Qt any less a C++ framework since the only way Qt can be compiled is with a C++ compiler.
No, you simply missed that the "editor" had said it had been seven years. Your post qualifies for the standard "Whoosh?" response.
Most people in the US buy an iPhone on contract at the $99 or $199 subsidized price.
The physics test is quite telling and shows just how limited the low speed, dual core
The physics test seems to have little relevance to actual gaming performance since even against the Note III in offscreen tests the iPhone 5S was pretty much neck and neck on rendering rate.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/4
In that review the iPhone 5S won 4 of the 7 CPU tests that it was in. It won 3 of the 6 GPU tests measuring FPS rendering speed. In 2 of the tests that it lost it only lost by 1 fps, in the other offscreen test that it lost at it was 57 fps vs. 69 fps. Which means the 5S was only 5% slower than native refresh rate.
dual core? really? that is fucking ancient) CPU in the iPhone is.
And yet it beat the quad-core in both of the CPU tests. Can't even beat an "ancient" CPU? Pathetic...
Because we all know that the only people buying iPhones are original iPhone owners, right? Lame excuses are lame.
To add even in the offscreen test done by Anandtech here against the Note III it only lost by 1 fps in 2 of the tests as in another it was 12 fps behind. But, in the test it was 12 fps lower it was 57 fps to 69 fps which means that basically it was only 5% lower than screen refresh rate.
So the screen resolution is why it was faster in Sunspider and Browsermark? Also in the off-screen GPU test (of which screen resolution makes no difference) it was only 10% slower which makes sense since the GPU cores on the Snapdragon 800 are clocked faster.
And the Nexus 5 has a SoC with 2 more cores, 80% higher max clock rate and double the RAM. That it can only keep up is pretty amusing.
Well thats one way to keep pumping up the Google+ numbers with more inactive accounts.
The person they sent the letter to is a US citizen. So it being "US-centric" is absolutely appropriate. Maybe you should have bothered to read that part?
No, but he is running a site using the Ubuntu name:
So what? That does not constitute infringement in and of itself. There are countless examples of trademarks used in 3rd party website URLs such as Fuck Best Buy.
Or Canonical could have simply not been asshats and read up on trademark fair use and the case law surrounding it?