If there really were no waste in the federal government, then please tell me how it is NO ONE got laid off last year?
Oh really? So that's why they 12000 people were fired last year? Yes, as the story says that is less than private sector but is much more than the "NO ONE" you claimed. Plus there are thousands more coming this year as well.
And that they all got raises when the private sector is getting pay cuts?
I wonder if the critics who (rightfully) slam D.C. Comics for killing all of its minority characters and replacing them with white people will also condemn Marvel for killing a white character on explicitly racist grounds to replace him with a black character.
Read Amazing Spider-man. Peter Parker is still alive and well and that series isn't going anywhere. Ignore the scary version with the gay minority in it if it bothers you so much.
If you don't like they way they are taking this alternate universe Spider-man story, then stick to Amazing Spider-man where Peter Parker is still the antagonist. That way you won't have to trouble yourself with a gay minority in your story.
If you don't like this, don't read the series. Spider-man is still white bread Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-man. This change is in an alternate universe doesn't affect that. If it bothers you that much that a made up character is gay and non-white then maybe you need to reevaluate your life.
This is just an alternate universe series. Spiderman is still Peter Parker in the main series. Daily Fail is creating a false controversy to stir the pot. OH NOES! Marvel creates a character that is a minority and gay!! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!!!
Yes, the Daily Fail routinely picks up on stories that are true but then purposefully leaves out necessary facts in their reporting in order to create a controversy that doesn't exist. In this story they leave out the fact that this is in an alternate universe comic series. In the main series, Spiderman is still white bread Peter Parker. From what Daily Fail would like you to believe, Marvel has removed Peter Parker entirely yet this is just not true.
So Slashdot is still posting stories from the Daily Fail despite the fact that it has routinely been shown to be making shit up or creating phony controversies to drive web clicks and sell papers?
Google should just convince the government (FTC) that Facebook has its users locked-in.
Good luck with that. No one is "locked-in" to Facebook. One freely choose to join and one can freely choose to leave. You can freely export your pictures, etc out of Facebook and if you can't you shouldn't have made Facebook your sole storage for that info. That's your own damn fault.
An analogy: society doesn't accept it when a telephone company prohibits or hinders its users from switching providers, so why not impose the same rules on social networks?
Really? Most people don't seem to care. Many people in droves will willingly hinder themselves from switching providers by buying phones that are locked to a single provider.
By the way, we also don't allow that telephone companies spy on their users (record conversations, etc.), but that's a different story.
You're joking, right? Are you ignorant of the fact that the telcos were spying on their users for years and even got a bill passed by Congress to exempt them from lawsuits from doing so?
I hardly think the average Chinese citizen thinks that they shouldn't be allowed to access a website just because their communist overlords decided they weren't allowed to.
Then you know very little about the culture of the Chinese.
Yes, if we ignore that your situation is not the same as what Zediva was doing, than yes, under your strawman you would be breaking the law. What you fail to point out is that you weren't selling a commercial service to rebroadcast licensed content to other people without a license to do so. You streaming a DVD to yourself on another TV is not the same thing.
Er, no. The First Sale Doctrine is a limitation on the rights of the content producer. The idea is that the content producer loses control over how and to whom a particular (legal/licensed) copy of its work is sold after the first sale. In other words, you have the right to sell or give your own copy of a copyrighted work to anyone you please so long as what you're selling or giving is a legitimate, non-infringing copy.
Yes, it is a limitation on their rights and as such makes legal certain activities, that could otherwise be called exceptions to copyright law, that otherwise would be violations of copyright. So basically you claim to disagree with me yet say the exact same thing I was just in different words.
Yes, because that is an actual covered exception under the first sale doctrine. Streaming the movie over the Internet to people is on the other hand not a covered exception.
A lot more people have computers than they have consoles.
Which, if elrous0's statement is correct, makes it even LESS attractive to port to PC. If PC sales make up only 1/7th what consoles do with a larger market then you're ROI is far less.
but by now a majority of the population understands how browsers work
You'd be surprised just how much you are overstating that. Most people really don't get what most of their computer does. They've just memorized a few keyboard commands and some clicks and that's about as deep as their understanding goes.
Because that's an extra step that serves no purpose other than to annoy most people? You can always continue to go to google.com to search all you want.
You're kidding, right? Right-click the toolbar. Choose "Customize." Drag your buttons where you want them. Problem solved.
That's great and all but most people don't want to have to change a bunch of shit like that to get something working right. Yes, in and of itself that is a minor annoyance but a bunch of those put together (and there are many that can be lobbed at Firefox) overall makes the software far more annoying to use than it should be. Now this does not mean that they should try to solve the problem by copying Chrome outright. This is why you come up with sane defaults that the vast majority of users will be comfortable and then you can let the customizers jack with their shit all they want to get it how the want.
Slashdot Mirror
If there really were no waste in the federal government, then please tell me how it is NO ONE got laid off last year?
Oh really? So that's why they 12000 people were fired last year? Yes, as the story says that is less than private sector but is much more than the "NO ONE" you claimed. Plus there are thousands more coming this year as well.
And that they all got raises when the private sector is getting pay cuts?
Actually they had a 2 year pay freeze put on them.
Did you even bother to research a single one of your claims since they were easily disproved in 1 minute of Googling?
I wonder if the critics who (rightfully) slam D.C. Comics for killing all of its minority characters and replacing them with white people will also condemn Marvel for killing a white character on explicitly racist grounds to replace him with a black character.
Read Amazing Spider-man. Peter Parker is still alive and well and that series isn't going anywhere. Ignore the scary version with the gay minority in it if it bothers you so much.
If you don't like they way they are taking this alternate universe Spider-man story, then stick to Amazing Spider-man where Peter Parker is still the antagonist. That way you won't have to trouble yourself with a gay minority in your story.
And while that may have sounded good to the executives at MS, it's a terrible way to address any threat they felt from Java.
What threat from Java? C# and .NET was created to break away from Sun's stranglehold on Java's evolution.
If you don't like this, don't read the series. Spider-man is still white bread Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-man. This change is in an alternate universe doesn't affect that. If it bothers you that much that a made up character is gay and non-white then maybe you need to reevaluate your life.
Because the Daily Fail routinely stirs the racial and homophobic pot with these overly sensationalist stories.
This is just an alternate universe series. Spiderman is still Peter Parker in the main series. Daily Fail is creating a false controversy to stir the pot. OH NOES! Marvel creates a character that is a minority and gay!! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!!!
Yes, the Daily Fail routinely picks up on stories that are true but then purposefully leaves out necessary facts in their reporting in order to create a controversy that doesn't exist. In this story they leave out the fact that this is in an alternate universe comic series. In the main series, Spiderman is still white bread Peter Parker. From what Daily Fail would like you to believe, Marvel has removed Peter Parker entirely yet this is just not true.
Wait? The Daily Mail is overstating something in order to create a false controversy? SAY IT AINT SO!!!!!
So Slashdot is still posting stories from the Daily Fail despite the fact that it has routinely been shown to be making shit up or creating phony controversies to drive web clicks and sell papers?
Because one shouldn't need to install an extension for such a basic feature?
Chrome 13 goes a step farther, actually prerendering the page in the background if requested (including running Javascript).
Better hope that it's not a malware page or something trying to use an XSS exploit. Be exploited before you even clicked the link! Brilliant!
Is gmail out of beta yet?
Yeah. 2 years ago.
Who cares what browser someone uses?
A bunch of pretentious nerds (aka Slashdot)?
Google should just convince the government (FTC) that Facebook has its users locked-in.
Good luck with that. No one is "locked-in" to Facebook. One freely choose to join and one can freely choose to leave. You can freely export your pictures, etc out of Facebook and if you can't you shouldn't have made Facebook your sole storage for that info. That's your own damn fault.
An analogy: society doesn't accept it when a telephone company prohibits or hinders its users from switching providers, so why not impose the same rules on social networks?
Really? Most people don't seem to care. Many people in droves will willingly hinder themselves from switching providers by buying phones that are locked to a single provider.
By the way, we also don't allow that telephone companies spy on their users (record conversations, etc.), but that's a different story.
You're joking, right? Are you ignorant of the fact that the telcos were spying on their users for years and even got a bill passed by Congress to exempt them from lawsuits from doing so?
I hardly think the average Chinese citizen thinks that they shouldn't be allowed to access a website just because their communist overlords decided they weren't allowed to.
Then you know very little about the culture of the Chinese.
I guess I am breaking the law.
Yes, if we ignore that your situation is not the same as what Zediva was doing, than yes, under your strawman you would be breaking the law. What you fail to point out is that you weren't selling a commercial service to rebroadcast licensed content to other people without a license to do so. You streaming a DVD to yourself on another TV is not the same thing.
Er, no. The First Sale Doctrine is a limitation on the rights of the content producer. The idea is that the content producer loses control over how and to whom a particular (legal/licensed) copy of its work is sold after the first sale. In other words, you have the right to sell or give your own copy of a copyrighted work to anyone you please so long as what you're selling or giving is a legitimate, non-infringing copy.
Yes, it is a limitation on their rights and as such makes legal certain activities, that could otherwise be called exceptions to copyright law, that otherwise would be violations of copyright. So basically you claim to disagree with me yet say the exact same thing I was just in different words.
Yes, because that is an actual covered exception under the first sale doctrine. Streaming the movie over the Internet to people is on the other hand not a covered exception.
A lot more people have computers than they have consoles.
Which, if elrous0's statement is correct, makes it even LESS attractive to port to PC. If PC sales make up only 1/7th what consoles do with a larger market then you're ROI is far less.
Wrong. Enhancements to a previous patent are routinely issued.
but by now a majority of the population understands how browsers work
You'd be surprised just how much you are overstating that. Most people really don't get what most of their computer does. They've just memorized a few keyboard commands and some clicks and that's about as deep as their understanding goes.
Because that's an extra step that serves no purpose other than to annoy most people? You can always continue to go to google.com to search all you want.
You're kidding, right? Right-click the toolbar. Choose "Customize." Drag your buttons where you want them. Problem solved.
That's great and all but most people don't want to have to change a bunch of shit like that to get something working right. Yes, in and of itself that is a minor annoyance but a bunch of those put together (and there are many that can be lobbed at Firefox) overall makes the software far more annoying to use than it should be. Now this does not mean that they should try to solve the problem by copying Chrome outright. This is why you come up with sane defaults that the vast majority of users will be comfortable and then you can let the customizers jack with their shit all they want to get it how the want.
I don't believe lottery winnings are taxed
Please tell me you're trolling. You're not really this stupid, are you?