What is the point in building code to support a library that puts you in a position wherein you immediately become dependant on something you cannot control. Resulting in a product that largely makes money for someone else.
Many developers have made millions by using these APIs. Smart companies make their APIs mutually beneficial and aren't planning on screwing developers for no reason.
If you don't want to use their APIs, then you can't use their services to help grow your business and user base.
Technology changes quickly and businesses need to adapt if they want to stay relevant.
Re:What about their children?
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 2
My Dad is a physician and he is the same way. Never thought it was necessary to go to doctor growing up.
Later I was diagnosed with leukemia, and he fought to get me the best treatment possible but I wouldn't consider any of the treatment I went through to be considered futile.
Re:What about their children?
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
The prognosis of kids are usually better than the elderly so the results will be different.
Re:What about their children?
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 2
IANAD, but I would hypothesize that doctors in general are smart people, and that smart people are more likely to be driven by reason and logic than make futile emotional efforts.
It is more likely that doctors just have more experience understanding the consequences of excessive treatment on patients.
You aren't the average consumer. I don't know anyone who expects to walk out a movie theater.
The Android market has a refund option, and the sales have been worst than Apple. The people who are your best customers don't expect refunds except an extreme circumstances.
If you watch a movie in a theater, there is no recourse if it is bad. There is no recourse for watching a bad concert or sports game either.
Not all items and stores have generous return policies either. You can get a free meal if the cooked messed up, but not if you didn't like the taste of the food.
Maybe you are just bad at deciding how to buy apps. Most can tell the usefulness of a paid app just by its ratings and reviews. It is no different than watching a movie, going to a new restaurant or a buying a $50 console video game.
There is always a risk of buying a bad app, but $1 is an insignificant amount of money compared to watching a bad movie in a theater or trying a lousy restaurant.
People are concerned more about fairness than the effect on their bank accounts.
If people are trained to think that high quality apps can be free or $0.99, then that is what they expect. If they buy something for $0.99 and it doesn't work as well as expected, they feel taken advantage of.
People will spend $4 for a latte because that is the price everyone pays, so it seems fair to them. If a competitor offers lattes at $0.99 and provides the same quality, then they will be more reluctant to pay the $4.
Those who will be affected most by SOPA are those who rely on American billing, search and advertising services.
It doesn't matter if you are running Linux, if you are hosting content that is flagged for violating copyright law, then you risks losing your advertising revenue.
The solution to the problem is to use services in other countries than the US. Whether you are running Linux or Windows is irrelevant.
Even if we accept the science of climate change, the problem is too hard to fix.
No politician is going to tell its people to stop driving cars. It is much easier to deny the problem than to deal with the reality. Even the pro science politicians are only proposing ideas that are mostly for show.
If someone comes up with a solution to fix climate change without requiring major sacrifices from its citizens, then all the politicians will be conveniently pro science again.
Instead of buying expensive memory to overclock my RAM, I realized that I get more performance by buying more of the cheap stuff.
Overclocking CPUs require buying expensive power supplies, coolers and cases which produces a negligible improvement in my day to day task. Modern CPUs are good enough for what I need the computer for. I am fine sacrificing the 1000 watt power supply and noisy fans to play games at medium quality settings.
Fast CPU's and RAM are overrated anyways. A SSD hard drive has a much greater impact on my performance than overclocking ever will.
Women don't just wear make up to pick up other men.
Looking good signals to your peers that you know that you are healthy, clean, organized and know how to keep yourself together. If I go to a wedding wearing jeans and a T-shirt and unkempt hair, people would judge me in a negative way.
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
It is completely rational to compete for social status.
Talking to someone hands free is just as dangerous as holding the cell phone. It is the conversation that is dangerous, not the phone.
Passengers instinctively talk less when traffic conditions require more attention and can tell the driver to look out. Drivers usually tune out the car radio when they need to focus more on the road too.
When you talk to someone over the phone, they aren't aware of the traffic conditions and it would be rude to tune them out of the conversation. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies across different countries. Driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than listening to the radio or talking to passengers.
I don't think they should ban cell phones other than texting, but there are more dangerous than people think.
Also cell phones are linked to more than one accident. There is plenty of evidence that cell phones are a major cause of driver inattentiveness and accidents.
The proposal against banning all cell phones could be excessive, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue.
Don't leave anything out that will be tempting and it will deter most thieves.
Backpacks are often full of valuables so while it is better than a laptop bag, it is still risky. It is best to hide everything you can from sight.
Putting it in the trunk is good, but don't let anyone see you do it. I knew someone who put his laptop in his trunk and someone watched him and later broke into the vehicle.
If the area you are in is very risky, carry your valuables with you. There is not much you can do once someone decides to break into your vehicle.
You can complain about the quality, but the fact is that the US has the most successful movie industry in the world by a wide margin. It brings in billions of dollars to the US economy, and they have an interest to keep it that way.
Unless your fiend is cosigning a loan, banks aren't going to care about them.
Banks only care about your ability to repay loans. They get the best data from your credit and employment history.
If banks are going to use social media, they will only look at your personal profile and it will be an insignificant factor in judging your credit worthiness. It is easy to fake a clean Facebook profile but hard to fake a credit score. Use some common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
It was just a website that took the test down. They probably thought it wasn't worth the effort to fight.
If they tried to take on author of the new test and demand compensation, there would have more incentive to defend it in court.
According to the article, the Sweet 16 test was killed by the THREAT of legal action.
It was taken down because the organization doesn't want to spend money and go to court to defend the test.
Anyone can claim copyright infringement. Having a judge enforce the copyright is a completely different matter.
What is the point in building code to support a library that puts you in a position wherein you immediately become dependant on something you cannot control. Resulting in a product that largely makes money for someone else.
Many developers have made millions by using these APIs. Smart companies make their APIs mutually beneficial and aren't planning on screwing developers for no reason.
If you don't want to use their APIs, then you can't use their services to help grow your business and user base.
Technology changes quickly and businesses need to adapt if they want to stay relevant.
My Dad is a physician and he is the same way. Never thought it was necessary to go to doctor growing up.
Later I was diagnosed with leukemia, and he fought to get me the best treatment possible but I wouldn't consider any of the treatment I went through to be considered futile.
The prognosis of kids are usually better than the elderly so the results will be different.
IANAD, but I would hypothesize that doctors in general are smart people, and that smart people are more likely to be driven by reason and logic than make futile emotional efforts.
It is more likely that doctors just have more experience understanding the consequences of excessive treatment on patients.
You aren't the average consumer. I don't know anyone who expects to walk out a movie theater.
The Android market has a refund option, and the sales have been worst than Apple. The people who are your best customers don't expect refunds except an extreme circumstances.
If you watch a movie in a theater, there is no recourse if it is bad. There is no recourse for watching a bad concert or sports game either.
Not all items and stores have generous return policies either. You can get a free meal if the cooked messed up, but not if you didn't like the taste of the food.
Maybe you are just bad at deciding how to buy apps. Most can tell the usefulness of a paid app just by its ratings and reviews. It is no different than watching a movie, going to a new restaurant or a buying a $50 console video game.
There is always a risk of buying a bad app, but $1 is an insignificant amount of money compared to watching a bad movie in a theater or trying a lousy restaurant.
But people expect even $1 apps to be high quality. Angry Birds is $1, and it provides hours and hours of entertainment.
People are concerned more about fairness than the effect on their bank accounts.
If people are trained to think that high quality apps can be free or $0.99, then that is what they expect. If they buy something for $0.99 and it doesn't work as well as expected, they feel taken advantage of.
People will spend $4 for a latte because that is the price everyone pays, so it seems fair to them. If a competitor offers lattes at $0.99 and provides the same quality, then they will be more reluctant to pay the $4.
Those who will be affected most by SOPA are those who rely on American billing, search and advertising services.
It doesn't matter if you are running Linux, if you are hosting content that is flagged for violating copyright law, then you risks losing your advertising revenue.
The solution to the problem is to use services in other countries than the US. Whether you are running Linux or Windows is irrelevant.
How are you going to get electricity?
Even if we accept the science of climate change, the problem is too hard to fix.
No politician is going to tell its people to stop driving cars. It is much easier to deny the problem than to deal with the reality. Even the pro science politicians are only proposing ideas that are mostly for show.
If someone comes up with a solution to fix climate change without requiring major sacrifices from its citizens, then all the politicians will be conveniently pro science again.
Instead of buying expensive memory to overclock my RAM, I realized that I get more performance by buying more of the cheap stuff.
Overclocking CPUs require buying expensive power supplies, coolers and cases which produces a negligible improvement in my day to day task. Modern CPUs are good enough for what I need the computer for. I am fine sacrificing the 1000 watt power supply and noisy fans to play games at medium quality settings.
Fast CPU's and RAM are overrated anyways. A SSD hard drive has a much greater impact on my performance than overclocking ever will.
Getting a ticket in the mail changed my behavior in intersections. I would be an idiot to run the red light at the same intersection again.
Women don't just wear make up to pick up other men.
Looking good signals to your peers that you know that you are healthy, clean, organized and know how to keep yourself together. If I go to a wedding wearing jeans and a T-shirt and unkempt hair, people would judge me in a negative way.
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
It is completely rational to compete for social status.
Talking to someone hands free is just as dangerous as holding the cell phone. It is the conversation that is dangerous, not the phone.
Passengers instinctively talk less when traffic conditions require more attention and can tell the driver to look out. Drivers usually tune out the car radio when they need to focus more on the road too.
When you talk to someone over the phone, they aren't aware of the traffic conditions and it would be rude to tune them out of the conversation. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies across different countries. Driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than listening to the radio or talking to passengers.
I don't think they should ban cell phones other than texting, but there are more dangerous than people think.
Following too closely will result in a ticket.
Also cell phones are linked to more than one accident. There is plenty of evidence that cell phones are a major cause of driver inattentiveness and accidents.
The proposal against banning all cell phones could be excessive, but there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the issue.
Don't leave anything out that will be tempting and it will deter most thieves.
Backpacks are often full of valuables so while it is better than a laptop bag, it is still risky. It is best to hide everything you can from sight.
Putting it in the trunk is good, but don't let anyone see you do it. I knew someone who put his laptop in his trunk and someone watched him and later broke into the vehicle.
If the area you are in is very risky, carry your valuables with you. There is not much you can do once someone decides to break into your vehicle.
You can complain about the quality, but the fact is that the US has the most successful movie industry in the world by a wide margin. It brings in billions of dollars to the US economy, and they have an interest to keep it that way.
Unless your fiend is cosigning a loan, banks aren't going to care about them.
Banks only care about your ability to repay loans. They get the best data from your credit and employment history.
If banks are going to use social media, they will only look at your personal profile and it will be an insignificant factor in judging your credit worthiness. It is easy to fake a clean Facebook profile but hard to fake a credit score. Use some common sense.