Yes, you should. What you should not, though, is be entitled to a whole avalanche of laws protecting you once you notice that your business model fails.
When you set rules to use your content and people reject them and instead decide to forgo your offer, you cannot turn around and claim that clearly they MUST be stealing because they're not buying, so open the flood gates to more insane laws to protect a business model nobody but you wants.
DRM may be about much, but "balancing" isn't quite what's in mind of its proponents. If you need to be using scale analogies, "tipping" is the word you're looking for.
put the "reopen the last closed tab" into the command bar.
Yes, I know there's a keyboard command. But just as certain is that the moment I accidentally close a tab, I won't remember it because I don't need it THAT often.
Not anymore. Yes, it still matters with high end, AAA titles. For everyone else, there's Unity. And Unreal Engine. And... something I forgot now. Game programming used to be one of the few areas where you really needed top programmers that can come up with creative ways to cut a few extra cycles. Just think of the infamous 1/sqrt(x) hack.
I wouldn't expect many who currently claim to be game programmers to understand it. Let alone come up with something close to it.
Even in games, efficient code isn't the be-all, end-all anymore. Being able to "cheat" with the graphics and making low poly shit look great with creative texturing is where the money is today, it seems.
You think? Actually, most people fall into the moderate spectrum. It's just the fringe loonies that are VERY vocal about their position. And with the internet, you get to hear from them a lot more than you used to.
If anything, you have people who move towards the extreme side of their political stance because they feel that they can only choose between that loonie and the one that is even more alien to their point of view. But I highly doubt that the average Christian feels represented by the Westboros, or that the average liberal feels comfortable to rally behind the "kill all white men" battle cry.
And I don't give a fuck whether you have a coat hanger party or whether you sing "every sperm is sacred", where do I stand now?
You see, the only agendas that are "controversial" in the US are the ones that have exactly zero impact on anything but can be blown out of proportion, hyped and emotionalized. From abortion to gun laws to drug use. None of them has ANY reasonable impact on the life of the average person, but judging from the time spent discussing them (sorry: ranting about them, nobody discusses anything in "discussions"), you'd think the US has no other problems.
There are usually a handful of "best" solutions, depending on your demands. There is a best solution when it comes to computing time. Another one for memory footprint. And so on.
So you cannot find a solution that is the best in all situations. But you can determine whether a solution is not the best in any situation.
And for nearly all applications, they don't give a shit. Computers are today faster than they need to be for nearly all applications the average office runs into.
I admit it's been a while since I was in the US (since the TSA idiocy started to spread like cancer, to be exact), but I sure hope you don't consider Bud or Miller "beer".
The part of me that's Bavarian would like a word with you if you do!
The question is, does Google ask the advertisers what they want to associate with, or does Google simply decide what's good for them?
The former, I'm absolutely with you. If it's the latter, though... let's say I don't really understand why I watch a video debunking Islamist bullshit and get to watch ads for Muslim dating sites as an entree.
Unfortunately it's still an issue. And it gets a bigger one every day.
Patents were supposed to spur innovation by giving inventors an incentive to show their inventions and how they work instead of guarding them as secrets, so that others could learn from it and use the information learned to create more while the original inventor can enjoy protection for his invention for some time. This has been perverted and warped to mean that non-inventions and trivialities are being patented to stifle competition and ensure that cornering markets becomes a reality.
This has many ramifications for both, customers and competitors. Yes, patents were supposed to grant you a monopoly for your invention for a certain time. What this has been turned into is that manufacturers use that lever to eliminate competition and keep people from actually owning what they buy. If you don't want to sell me something and only allow me to rent it, fine by me, but then call it RENT. With all the relevant obligations on your side that entails. But companies want their cake and eat it too, and that's simply not how our economy works.
If you deprive me of a right I have, I will take that right from you. By force if necessary. If I buy something from you, I own it. And rest assured, I will not only find out how to claim ownership over things I buy, I will do my best to inform anyone who wants to listen how they can wrest their property from your stranglehold.
Depends on the country you're in. Especially in consumer contract areas, laws in Europe very quickly void anything that could be considered an adhesion contract.
How it is handled in the United Corporations of America, though...
Not to mention that you cannot easily say "Screw JD, I'm gonna buy... erh... uh...", yes? What do you want to buy instead?
And what could you get the same conditions for? Farmer unions (or what they're called in the US) often have deals with certain equipment makers or dealers that pretty much mean you can only afford to use a certain piece of equipment.
The US (and not just them, that cancer is spreading) has to relearn that politics is not a matter of black and white (and no, I don't mean it in any racial sense, dammit!). Politics is a lot of shades of grey and you can actually think that one idea from politician A is good while you disagree with his position on topic B and think that someone from a different political spectrum is right. That is actually possible!
Also, disagreeing with A doesn't mean that you agree with B. I think Hillary is a despicable bitch who is by no means in touch with anything that matters to the average Joe out there, but that doesn't mean that I think that Trump has all the answers. Or Sanders for that matter. I do think that skin color, heritage, upbringing or gender should not matter when it comes to your chance to accomplish anything, but that does neither mean that I think we should wallow in collective white guilt and bend over backwards to hand out freebies to "underprivileged" people who think they're entitled to handouts because they are $minority, nor does it mean that I think that everything is absolutely peachy and we have total equality already anyway just 'cause our law books say we should.
I also think that I have no right to say that you have to be the gender your dangly (or not so dangly) bits convey, but I refuse to be yelled at for "assuming a gender". I do know a few transgender people, and I know what bullshit they have to go through, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is going out of their way to make absolutely CERTAIN you KNOW what gender they identify as. They are essentially the living stereotype of their gender, just to make sure that people, at least those that do care, address them correctly. Funny enough, none of them ever got into a hissy fit over being "mis-gendered", the most you'd get is a "please, I'd prefer he/I'd prefer she". And guess what, it works.
But I digress.
What we see in politics, and people, is what I'd identify as overcompensation. You don't want people to think you could maybe take position A, so you go WAY overboard and take position B to grotesque lengths and, and this is more the problem, accept that people do that. And that's in my opinion the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you should. What you should not, though, is be entitled to a whole avalanche of laws protecting you once you notice that your business model fails.
When you set rules to use your content and people reject them and instead decide to forgo your offer, you cannot turn around and claim that clearly they MUST be stealing because they're not buying, so open the flood gates to more insane laws to protect a business model nobody but you wants.
DRM may be about much, but "balancing" isn't quite what's in mind of its proponents. If you need to be using scale analogies, "tipping" is the word you're looking for.
And it would be the first nobody on the internet gives half a shit about.
Indeed I didn't. That's the whole point.
"Shunning" means nothing if the person doesn't notice it.
Budweiser is.
But I doubt that's what you meant.
put the "reopen the last closed tab" into the command bar.
Yes, I know there's a keyboard command. But just as certain is that the moment I accidentally close a tab, I won't remember it because I don't need it THAT often.
Yes, ... umm... no.
Not anymore. Yes, it still matters with high end, AAA titles. For everyone else, there's Unity. And Unreal Engine. And ... something I forgot now. Game programming used to be one of the few areas where you really needed top programmers that can come up with creative ways to cut a few extra cycles. Just think of the infamous 1/sqrt(x) hack.
I wouldn't expect many who currently claim to be game programmers to understand it. Let alone come up with something close to it.
Even in games, efficient code isn't the be-all, end-all anymore. Being able to "cheat" with the graphics and making low poly shit look great with creative texturing is where the money is today, it seems.
Yes, because your opinion isn't "pure" enough. It's only acceptable if you fully support us, because only then we can trust you.
Why do I feel more and more like the US politics is turning into something like a cult?
You think? Actually, most people fall into the moderate spectrum. It's just the fringe loonies that are VERY vocal about their position. And with the internet, you get to hear from them a lot more than you used to.
If anything, you have people who move towards the extreme side of their political stance because they feel that they can only choose between that loonie and the one that is even more alien to their point of view. But I highly doubt that the average Christian feels represented by the Westboros, or that the average liberal feels comfortable to rally behind the "kill all white men" battle cry.
And I don't give a fuck whether you have a coat hanger party or whether you sing "every sperm is sacred", where do I stand now?
You see, the only agendas that are "controversial" in the US are the ones that have exactly zero impact on anything but can be blown out of proportion, hyped and emotionalized. From abortion to gun laws to drug use. None of them has ANY reasonable impact on the life of the average person, but judging from the time spent discussing them (sorry: ranting about them, nobody discusses anything in "discussions"), you'd think the US has no other problems.
It would take as long as it is cheaper to run the inefficient query than recoding it.
There are usually a handful of "best" solutions, depending on your demands. There is a best solution when it comes to computing time. Another one for memory footprint. And so on.
So you cannot find a solution that is the best in all situations. But you can determine whether a solution is not the best in any situation.
And for nearly all applications, they don't give a shit. Computers are today faster than they need to be for nearly all applications the average office runs into.
They'd be wary to say that you're renting. Renting entails that certain maintenance work has to be paid for by the owner.
I admit it's been a while since I was in the US (since the TSA idiocy started to spread like cancer, to be exact), but I sure hope you don't consider Bud or Miller "beer".
The part of me that's Bavarian would like a word with you if you do!
So "you have better food and a nicer house than most others. Why do you want to own anything? STFU and consume more!"
Did I get it right now?
the likelihood of our reality being "Programmed" goes up many thousands of percent
As a statistician I'm curious to learn what comes after "100% likelihood", or as we colloquially like to call it, "certainty".
So, essentially, "You have food, you have shelter, what are you complaining about? STFU!".
The question is, does Google ask the advertisers what they want to associate with, or does Google simply decide what's good for them?
The former, I'm absolutely with you. If it's the latter, though... let's say I don't really understand why I watch a video debunking Islamist bullshit and get to watch ads for Muslim dating sites as an entree.
Unfortunately it's still an issue. And it gets a bigger one every day.
Patents were supposed to spur innovation by giving inventors an incentive to show their inventions and how they work instead of guarding them as secrets, so that others could learn from it and use the information learned to create more while the original inventor can enjoy protection for his invention for some time. This has been perverted and warped to mean that non-inventions and trivialities are being patented to stifle competition and ensure that cornering markets becomes a reality.
This has many ramifications for both, customers and competitors. Yes, patents were supposed to grant you a monopoly for your invention for a certain time. What this has been turned into is that manufacturers use that lever to eliminate competition and keep people from actually owning what they buy. If you don't want to sell me something and only allow me to rent it, fine by me, but then call it RENT. With all the relevant obligations on your side that entails. But companies want their cake and eat it too, and that's simply not how our economy works.
If you deprive me of a right I have, I will take that right from you. By force if necessary. If I buy something from you, I own it. And rest assured, I will not only find out how to claim ownership over things I buy, I will do my best to inform anyone who wants to listen how they can wrest their property from your stranglehold.
Depends on the country you're in. Especially in consumer contract areas, laws in Europe very quickly void anything that could be considered an adhesion contract.
How it is handled in the United Corporations of America, though...
Not to mention that you cannot easily say "Screw JD, I'm gonna buy ... erh ... uh ...", yes? What do you want to buy instead?
And what could you get the same conditions for? Farmer unions (or what they're called in the US) often have deals with certain equipment makers or dealers that pretty much mean you can only afford to use a certain piece of equipment.
Hand over the specs, then.
The US (and not just them, that cancer is spreading) has to relearn that politics is not a matter of black and white (and no, I don't mean it in any racial sense, dammit!). Politics is a lot of shades of grey and you can actually think that one idea from politician A is good while you disagree with his position on topic B and think that someone from a different political spectrum is right. That is actually possible!
Also, disagreeing with A doesn't mean that you agree with B. I think Hillary is a despicable bitch who is by no means in touch with anything that matters to the average Joe out there, but that doesn't mean that I think that Trump has all the answers. Or Sanders for that matter. I do think that skin color, heritage, upbringing or gender should not matter when it comes to your chance to accomplish anything, but that does neither mean that I think we should wallow in collective white guilt and bend over backwards to hand out freebies to "underprivileged" people who think they're entitled to handouts because they are $minority, nor does it mean that I think that everything is absolutely peachy and we have total equality already anyway just 'cause our law books say we should.
I also think that I have no right to say that you have to be the gender your dangly (or not so dangly) bits convey, but I refuse to be yelled at for "assuming a gender". I do know a few transgender people, and I know what bullshit they have to go through, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is going out of their way to make absolutely CERTAIN you KNOW what gender they identify as. They are essentially the living stereotype of their gender, just to make sure that people, at least those that do care, address them correctly. Funny enough, none of them ever got into a hissy fit over being "mis-gendered", the most you'd get is a "please, I'd prefer he/I'd prefer she". And guess what, it works.
But I digress.
What we see in politics, and people, is what I'd identify as overcompensation. You don't want people to think you could maybe take position A, so you go WAY overboard and take position B to grotesque lengths and, and this is more the problem, accept that people do that. And that's in my opinion the problem.
Where I'm from, you'd hand him a crate of beer, but you Americans and your fear of anyone under the age of like 80 drinking alcohol...
Like your beer qualifies as alcohol! Or as beer, for that matter!