I hate to break this to you, but if FB charged everyone for their service they would still sell your information to anyone and everyone because more money is more money.
Not if "more money" ends up being "less money".
You don't see Apple selling customer data, even though they easily could, because no one would buy their products ever again.
Facebook really needs a better business model than advertising. There is potential to make a great product there, but it's currently being ruined by the requirements of selling advertising.
Right now no one trusts them because they're based on advertising.
They would have to change their business model, from advertising-based media to some sort of paid service for people that need it to gain user trust. Facebook Home is a start. They could also pull an Apple and actually be a hardware company, with revenues derived from hardware sales.
Facebook just can't compete in the media space. They have a billion viewers, but they ONLY make $4-5 billion a year. For comparison, Conde Nast makes $4-5 billion on far, far fewer viewers, because they can get people to pay much higher rates for their ads, which are seen as valuable. People actually buy magazines for ads.
Public Transportation: A great way to get from someplace you don't live to someplace you don't work. It fails for this very important reason, and liberals never want to talk about...
Whutchya talkin bout?
We liberals always talk about building trains, so that it forces people to live and work closer to public transportation.
The idea isn't to bring transportation to you, it is to force you to move to where transportation is. We liberals have no desire to pave a road to wherever you wish, your majesty.
We definitely need to subsidize a better transportation system. The electric car system isn't it though, as it is marginally better than gasoline cars.
Right now we've subsidizes trillions of dollars on the road system, when that taxpayer money could have gone into a far more efficient rail system.
You still have to publicize your kickstarter. Send your friends/colleagues, relevant media outlets/blogs, and interested third parties an email indicating the nature of the project. Blogs will pick it up and write about it, leading to multiplied audience for the project.
It's only obvious that an effeminate, pansy-ass programming language like Python would draw such losers.
You're only as good as the company you keep, and if anything this incident should tell everyone to stay the hell away from Python.
It would benefit these dorks to learn a real programming language like C/C++/ObjC, one that's actually hard to use, and doesn't cuddle you with english-grammar and other care-bear structure.
Code should look like code, matrices, and alien symbols, where you actually have to develop a tolerance for pain to use, which apparently these Python losers couldn't do.
Might as well go back to learning LOGO in nursery school.
Because DRM shall be cracked. Deal with it. So it will not stop the pirates.
DRM isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. It is designed to make certain paths difficult and other paths easy. I can get any song I want for free, but I still use iTunes, because it's that much easier.
What I do want, though, is to be able to view/play/listen to the art that I legally obtained
The best part of DRM is that it forces value on actual artwork, rather than the media itself.
For example, you never "owned" a song - the copyright holder always did. DRM makes that concept explicitly clear. We now get to the core value proposition to you of why an artist made that song, and why you feel he should continue to make songs.
So, what exactly is that worth to you? Is $10 for an album OK, where you can pass the album on to your kids or your friends or parents or coworkers? What if the band wants to charge $100,000 for that?
And you know it's perfectly fine to not listen to music and not watch movies if you feel the copyright holder is charging a ridiculous amount for it.
Here's something: Artists actually want to qualify their buyers. In fact, in the actual world of high-end art, a gallery owner might not sell you the actual physical work of art if you don't represent their desired audience, regardless of price you might want to pay, for various reasons.
Populist art like songs or movies are no different. Producers and musicians qualify their audience as well, and they don't mind if people they don't value don't see/hear their works without cost to them.
The same thing could be said for the whole internet. Why put "art" on a separate plane? Everything that you can access on the internet has value. Books, news articles, scientific papers, software applications. Yet the internet has been developed to be open, and it was a success.
Works are being put on separate planes (flash, silverlight, etc.). This is to allow that access to happen in a way that's accessible to more devices and browsers. It will cost the user a lot more if we have to write separate apps for each device.
And EME is the first step. The next step would be to figure out encryption standards (which may include hardware requirements as well).
The free-market will decide if it's worth it or not.
Which is a good thing because then it allows more VALUABLE art to produced. (and please, make sure you call it "art", and not "content")
It is why YouTube is filled with completely worthless junk and ads, and why you pay for movies/netflix/cable subscription instead.
Right now the web is filled with low value junk. That is because no one builds good art for free distribution online, since there is no way to distribute it in a standard way to people that only pay for it.
Don't worry the people that don't want to pay for higher art will still have their low-value YouTube & corporate ad-supported junk available, but the people that prefer to pay for exclusive non-corporate art will now have a standard way to get that.
The last thing we want is for people that don't pay to have access to high value art. That simply causes the high-value market to not exist, since artists hate giving away their work for free.
The Core i7's are consumer-grade processors and are slower than the Xeon's the Mac Pros use, they don't even use ECC cache memory. Good luck running a week-long simulation job with one random bit-error in your data. So yes, Core i7's are amateur junk, and using them in a pro workstation is a good way to get you fired from your job, because you do not know professional requirements. "Herpaderp why can't we just use my overclocked Core i7 herpaderp! It's good for gaming! It should be good enough for this nuclear simulation! herpaderp!"
So if you want absolute speeds, ECC reliability, & cheap prices, you have to go with Apple Mac Pro workstations. Even Dell & HP can't even compete against Mac Pros. Have you actually spec'd out equivalent systems from Sun, IBM, Dell & HP? Go ahead, try it, and see how much you save. There's a reason smart people use Mac Pros. These are physicists, not noob morons like you dorks. Your best bet is to learn from them.
And don't make your boss laugh before he fires you when you tell him you actually want to build your own system...
Great, now the ads on the sites you visit are going to show you ads for motherboards and CPU upgrades that you want, instead of pink mascara that you don't want.
And your credit card companies have a full psychological profile of you anyways.
Really libertarians, your ads aren't going to come and take away your families at nights.
You have lost nothing of value. You gain no cost savings by avoiding tracking, and in fact, you increase prices to you if you avoid targeted pitches.
Who is more likely going to get a discount? The consumer that wants a new motherboard and is smart enough to shop around at various sites with cookies tracking them? Or the consumer that buys a motherboard from the first site he visits?
1g of Pu-238 produces.5 watts, which is really useful for long-lasting portable devices. There are some early pacemakers running from Pu-238 that are still operational.
For example, a few grams of Pu-238 could power an iPhone for a century without ever recharging...
Hunting down a few terrorists by starting a war against an entire country makes about as much sense as pounding a nail in to a piece of wood with a pile driver.
You are confusing the Iraq war protests with Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was obviously a justified war. There were absolutely no protests against it. It was a second strike, not a first strike. 9-11 was the first strike. You already knew that, but clearly forgot.
Those few 9-11 terrorists were supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan at the time, and weren't willing to hand them over to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to break this to you, but if FB charged everyone for their service they would still sell your information to anyone and everyone because more money is more money.
Not if "more money" ends up being "less money".
You don't see Apple selling customer data, even though they easily could, because no one would buy their products ever again.
Facebook really needs a better business model than advertising. There is potential to make a great product there, but it's currently being ruined by the requirements of selling advertising.
rather than a media company.
Right now no one trusts them because they're based on advertising.
They would have to change their business model, from advertising-based media to some sort of paid service for people that need it to gain user trust. Facebook Home is a start. They could also pull an Apple and actually be a hardware company, with revenues derived from hardware sales.
Facebook just can't compete in the media space. They have a billion viewers, but they ONLY make $4-5 billion a year. For comparison, Conde Nast makes $4-5 billion on far, far fewer viewers, because they can get people to pay much higher rates for their ads, which are seen as valuable. People actually buy magazines for ads.
rather than risk a speeding ticket every clock cycle.
Public Transportation: A great way to get from someplace you don't live to someplace you don't work. It fails for this very important reason, and liberals never want to talk about...
Whutchya talkin bout?
We liberals always talk about building trains, so that it forces people to live and work closer to public transportation.
The idea isn't to bring transportation to you, it is to force you to move to where transportation is. We liberals have no desire to pave a road to wherever you wish, your majesty.
We definitely need to subsidize a better transportation system. The electric car system isn't it though, as it is marginally better than gasoline cars.
Right now we've subsidizes trillions of dollars on the road system, when that taxpayer money could have gone into a far more efficient rail system.
the CPU vendors need to start stacking them onto their die.
In 5 years your systems will be sold with fixed memory sizes, and the only way to upgrade is to upgrade CPUs.
Stacked vias could also be used for other peripheral devices as well. (GPU?)
You still have to publicize your kickstarter. Send your friends/colleagues, relevant media outlets/blogs, and interested third parties an email indicating the nature of the project. Blogs will pick it up and write about it, leading to multiplied audience for the project.
It's only obvious that an effeminate, pansy-ass programming language like Python would draw such losers.
You're only as good as the company you keep, and if anything this incident should tell everyone to stay the hell away from Python.
It would benefit these dorks to learn a real programming language like C/C++/ObjC, one that's actually hard to use, and doesn't cuddle you with english-grammar and other care-bear structure.
Code should look like code, matrices, and alien symbols, where you actually have to develop a tolerance for pain to use, which apparently these Python losers couldn't do.
Might as well go back to learning LOGO in nursery school.
Because government can't prohibit people from assembling peacefully - tthey can only control commerce.
Bullshit. Your claim, your job to provide proof.
I thought this was well known?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers
Because DRM shall be cracked. Deal with it. So it will not stop the pirates.
DRM isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. It is designed to make certain paths difficult and other paths easy. I can get any song I want for free, but I still use iTunes, because it's that much easier.
What I do want, though, is to be able to view/play/listen to the art that I legally obtained
The best part of DRM is that it forces value on actual artwork, rather than the media itself.
For example, you never "owned" a song - the copyright holder always did. DRM makes that concept explicitly clear. We now get to the core value proposition to you of why an artist made that song, and why you feel he should continue to make songs.
So, what exactly is that worth to you? Is $10 for an album OK, where you can pass the album on to your kids or your friends or parents or coworkers? What if the band wants to charge $100,000 for that?
And you know it's perfectly fine to not listen to music and not watch movies if you feel the copyright holder is charging a ridiculous amount for it.
Here's something: Artists actually want to qualify their buyers. In fact, in the actual world of high-end art, a gallery owner might not sell you the actual physical work of art if you don't represent their desired audience, regardless of price you might want to pay, for various reasons.
Populist art like songs or movies are no different. Producers and musicians qualify their audience as well, and they don't mind if people they don't value don't see/hear their works without cost to them.
The same thing could be said for the whole internet. Why put "art" on a separate plane? Everything that you can access on the internet has value. Books, news articles, scientific papers, software applications. Yet the internet has been developed to be open, and it was a success.
Works are being put on separate planes (flash, silverlight, etc.). This is to allow that access to happen in a way that's accessible to more devices and browsers. It will cost the user a lot more if we have to write separate apps for each device.
And EME is the first step. The next step would be to figure out encryption standards (which may include hardware requirements as well).
The free-market will decide if it's worth it or not.
A standardised DRM means everyone will use it.
Which is a good thing because then it allows more VALUABLE art to produced. (and please, make sure you call it "art", and not "content")
It is why YouTube is filled with completely worthless junk and ads, and why you pay for movies/netflix/cable subscription instead.
Right now the web is filled with low value junk. That is because no one builds good art for free distribution online, since there is no way to distribute it in a standard way to people that only pay for it.
Don't worry the people that don't want to pay for higher art will still have their low-value YouTube & corporate ad-supported junk available, but the people that prefer to pay for exclusive non-corporate art will now have a standard way to get that.
The last thing we want is for people that don't pay to have access to high value art. That simply causes the high-value market to not exist, since artists hate giving away their work for free.
The Core i7's are consumer-grade processors and are slower than the Xeon's the Mac Pros use, they don't even use ECC cache memory. Good luck running a week-long simulation job with one random bit-error in your data. So yes, Core i7's are amateur junk, and using them in a pro workstation is a good way to get you fired from your job, because you do not know professional requirements. "Herpaderp why can't we just use my overclocked Core i7 herpaderp! It's good for gaming! It should be good enough for this nuclear simulation! herpaderp!"
So if you want absolute speeds, ECC reliability, & cheap prices, you have to go with Apple Mac Pro workstations. Even Dell & HP can't even compete against Mac Pros. Have you actually spec'd out equivalent systems from Sun, IBM, Dell & HP? Go ahead, try it, and see how much you save. There's a reason smart people use Mac Pros. These are physicists, not noob morons like you dorks. Your best bet is to learn from them.
And don't make your boss laugh before he fires you when you tell him you actually want to build your own system...
The Mac Pros use Xeon chips, which are usually updated about 1 year after the mainstream Core processors are out.
Great, now the ads on the sites you visit are going to show you ads for motherboards and CPU upgrades that you want, instead of pink mascara that you don't want.
And your credit card companies have a full psychological profile of you anyways.
Really libertarians, your ads aren't going to come and take away your families at nights.
You have lost nothing of value. You gain no cost savings by avoiding tracking, and in fact, you increase prices to you if you avoid targeted pitches.
Who is more likely going to get a discount? The consumer that wants a new motherboard and is smart enough to shop around at various sites with cookies tracking them? Or the consumer that buys a motherboard from the first site he visits?
This is Samsung & Android.
If you want innovative, you'll have to go with Apple. /ohsnap
1g of Pu-238 produces .5 watts, which is really useful for long-lasting portable devices. There are some early pacemakers running from Pu-238 that are still operational.
For example, a few grams of Pu-238 could power an iPhone for a century without ever recharging...
(but would cost tens of thousands of dollars..)
and i'm pretty sure your credit card companies already knows these things just from your purchase habits.
You can tell that just by talking to people.
then why are they considered stars?
That people are more concerned with government potentially using drones in America to kill people instead of worrying about government killing random people in America directly from helicopters.
People really only concern themselves with their beliefs, instead of the actual problems.
Not sure why Rand Paul didn't filibuster helicopter shootings.. I guess libertarians don't believe in freedom and due process?
Hunting down a few terrorists by starting a war against an entire country makes about as much sense as pounding a nail in to a piece of wood with a pile driver.
You are confusing the Iraq war protests with Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was obviously a justified war. There were absolutely no protests against it. It was a second strike, not a first strike. 9-11 was the first strike. You already knew that, but clearly forgot.
Those few 9-11 terrorists were supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan at the time, and weren't willing to hand them over to the US.
Sucks for them, since might determines right.
Did you warn her that buying things inside of apps on that platform automatically means it's ~28% more expensive anywhere else?
Is that why iPad apps are cheaper than any other app?
For Mozilla to continue developing their own engine?
I see them dropping and switching to WebKit, and maybe even Microsoft dropping their engine eventually.