We're not talking about Mesa, we're talking about "most of Arizona". See the line I was responding to earlier:
"And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona."
There's no shortage of cold weather in Arizona. The southern desert does not take up the majority of the state.
You are so full of shit. There is no "understanding"; that's a fantasy in your and the website owner's mind. I never agreed to any such contract, and there is no such "understanding" in place in any law anywhere.
You want an analogy? How about Netflix? If I want to look through Netflix's movies, and watch a few online, I have to have an account, which of course I have to pay for. If I don't pay for an account, I can't get into the site, at least without hacking or stealing someone's credentials. The site prevents this: you need a username and password to get into the site.
Similarly, any site (like some news site) that are "paywalled" are the same way. You want to view the content, you pay for an account and get a login which you can use to view the content. To get around this requires either stealing someone else's login info, or hacking the site somehow, both of which are clearly far above and beyond what was intended, and akin to breaking or picking the lock of a door on a brick-and-mortar business.
Websites with ads don't have this. They let anyone look at the site just by pointing their browser there, or by clicking on a link. If they don't want people reading their content without paying for it somehow, they can erect a paywall just like NYTimes or other such places.
Just because some moron decides they want to pursue a particular business plan doesn't mean I have to play along with it.
it's simple. you like the content. you want it. but you aren't willing to compensate anyone for providing the content. the content on that site is someone's job. it's how they feed their family and pay their bills.
Boo fucking hoo. If they want to protect it, paywall it. Don't whine when not enough people sign up for it.
Bottom line: no one has a right to earn a living in any particular way.
If companies and advertisers went back to just serving small unobtrusive amounts of non-targetted, non-tracking advertisement, then I think more people would be OK with that.
The non-targeted ads are actually more annoying because they're so irrelevant. I actually like non-obtrusive but relevant ads, like what Google serves in searches (or at least used to, on the right-hand side, separate from the actual search results). Small, all-text ads that actually have something to do with what I'm looking for and don't screw up my viewing of the real content (because they're on the side) can be helpful. Ads for feminine products (I'm male) are not.
your choices are to buy my product, or not. your choices do not include stealing my product.
No one is "stealing" products by viewing web pages without ads. If you don't like it, don't put up a web page. Don't put up a web server that responds to HTTP requests and then bitch when people don't actually download and watch all the ads you've linked to. Don't like it? Don't put up a web page, or put up one with ads embedded (i.e., the ads are JPGs served from the same webserver) so it's virtually impossible to block them automatically. You're too lazy to do that because you want to use doubleclick? Too fucking bad.
This is as stupid as having a shop open to the public, putting up ads in the shop, and then bitching when someone walks in and refuses to look at your ads and doesn't buy anything either. Heck, it's just as bad as having a shop open to the public, and then bitching when people look at your stuff inside and walk out without purchasing anything. Part of having a shop open to the public is that people might not buy anything. Same with a website. There's nothing "immoral" about it, or about blocking ads, just like there's nothing immoral about me refusing to look at freeway billboards.
This has ZERO to do with "piracy" or copyright infringement.
I'm a big believer in collective guilt. If you're part of a shitty group which has earned itself a bad reputation, you shouldn't whine when you're lumped in with them. It sucks if you're born into that group and can't willfully leave, so we do need to be much more lenient with groups that people can't leave than with groups that are voluntary, but still, people make generalizations for a good reason: we don't have the time to actually meet every single person in a group and judge them for ourselves. Ethnicities are not voluntary (though it is possible to distance yourself from your ethnic background if you try; it's not that hard to pass yourself off as someone from a different ethnic background many times, by changing the way you talk or the language you speak. You won't get a darkish-skinned Mexican to pass as a Swede, but might pass as an Italian and maybe a middle-easterner), but religions certainly are so I have zero sympathy there.
Some intrusive ads have made me angry but so have people of ethnic and religious minorities.
The important thing to keep in mind with collective guilt is: what proportion of the group has earned the bad reputation? The danger with collective guilt is that it's very easy to grossly mis-estimate the actual proportion of people in the group who are either guilty, or apologists/enablers. We tend to see the worst people in the group and remember them the best, and not see or remember the others.
If it's 0.1% of Mexicans who are doing something shitty and the rest are OK, then it's completely unfair to blame all Mexicans for the actions of the few. Similarly, if it's 0.1% of Muslims murdering people and such, and the rest are extremely peaceful and tolerant, then it's unfair to blame them all.
However, if it's 10% of a group doing something awful, and another 80% cheering them on or covering for them, then as far as I'm concerned I'm going to hold the whole group responsible and treat them accordingly. I really don't give a shit that a puny 10% don't agree with the actions of the majority; if they really cared, they'd leave the group, or at least do whatever they can to distance themselves from it and form their own separate group.
Also important is how your actions affect peoples' lives. Treating people badly because of their ethnicity has serious societal effects. Treating them badly because of their religion also can have pretty big effects. But treating online advertisers poorly is not going to cause a big rift in society and all kinds of social ills, the way segregation or discrimination do. If online ad-men don't like the way people view them, they can go into a different line of work. No one goes to college for a degree in online advertising and gets locked into that as a career path; these people are really nothing more than con artists. If doing shitty advertising tactics online isn't paying the bills for them any more, then can go to work at McDonald's.
Only a fucking retard would on one hand point out (rightfully) that people are stupid enough to buy dousing rods and horoscope reading, but then try to claim that all computer users are smart enough to never (intentionally) click on a pop-up ad and then buy whatever crap they're selling.
It's the same reason spam exists. The costs are tiny (per customer-view), and it only takes a few morons to buy it to make it profitable. Yes, some of this is scammy ad-men inflating the effectiveness of ads to their customers, but it wouldn't have gone on this long if zero people actually bought anything; the customers would have gone out of business from not having any sales.
However, truth in labeling is something a lot of fairly hard-core libertarians would probably go along with. They wouldn't want the government banning the sale of any substance, but they would probably favor letting the buyer know what he is getting.
I think any libertarians that agree with this are probably more "soft-core". The hard-core ones want a government that does absolutely nothing besides provide police and military, and really want no regulation at all because that requires a government agency to enforce competently.
My politics tend towards liberal/progressive for most issues, but I don't have a lot nice to say about Obama either; I think he's sold out to the banksters for one thing.
But yeah, a lot of nutty people on the right say absolutely insane things about him, that he's a communist Muslim and wants to declare martial law and become a dictator, shit like that. It's absolutely insane. Do people really believe that a President can just declare himself dictator and the military will go along with that? People on the left do it too about people on the right though, going on and on about how evil everyone in the Republican party is. The polarization and utter detachment from reality is mind-boggling.
They make a profit because they don't spend billions of dollars on clinical trials; they just grow some plants, dry them out, crush them into powder, make pills out of them, put them in bottles and sell them. That's cheap to do. Then they make some claims with an asterisk that says "statements not evaluated by the FDA".
Pharmaceutical companies don't get involved in that kind of market.
Some herbs really do have medicinal uses. Many modern medicines are based on, or are more purified versions of, compounds found in herbs. But no one can sell an herb that is medically proven to work, because that takes expensive clinical trials, and no one is willing to pay the money for that for something that anyone can grow in their back yard and which cannot be patented.
It is entirely unreasonable to say that no one should be allowed to sell herbs for medicinal uses, and it is patently ridiculous to call that fraud.
That's a really good point about micropayments, and that one's firmly in the power of the government to fix, by properly regulating the financial sector and enabling micropayments (by eliminating the bogus per-charge fees of $0.30 for each transaction charged by Visa/MC).
And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona.
Wrong. You sound like someone who's never been to Arizona. Go look at a map. The desert part is only part of the state. It gets quite cold in the northern part around Flagstaff and the rims of the Grand Canyon (particularly the North Rim). There's even a ski resort there called Snowbowl.
Of course, Mesa is not in the cold part of the state, it's in the hottest part of the state (the Phoenix metro area is much hotter than the surrounding desert thanks to the heat-island effect). It's also a fucking ghetto. I predict this data center will be broken into by copper thieves and stripped, and the local scrap-metal "dealers" will be taking in a bunch of "scrap metal".
If there was *any* hope that this herb could treat that sickness where money could be made selling it, big pharma would have snapped it up and sold it under FDA rules as a drug, even over the counter.
Wrong. If it's naturally-occurring, they can't patent it, so they don't bother paying for all the clinical research that's necessary to make medical claims about its efficacy.
Over-the-counter stuff is cheap, sure, but the reason it's out there and being sold with specific claims about its efficacy is because all that clinical research was already done, years ago, back when it was covered by patents. Claritin is a good example of this: it used to be really expensive and only available from one company, and then the patent ran out so it became an OTC drug and the generics made their own versions of it for cheap.
The generic manufacturers aren't allowed to sell some herb along with any medical claims about what it can and can't do, like they can with a pharmaceutical compound which has undergone clinical trials. The pharma companies (even the generics) aren't going to pay for those trials, because they're expensive as hell, and they can't profit when anyone can package up that same natural herb and sell it in a bottle.
Homeopathic "crap" is actually highly purified water. So while it probably isn't going to help your ailment (though it might: the placebo effect is real!), it's not going to hurt you either.
These fraudelent supplements are made from all kinds of crap, some of it apparently even harmful. So taking it could cause you an allergic reaction or worse.
Wrong. The true libertarians will argue that this is excessive government regulation, and that the government should stay out of commercial affairs like this, and that the "invisible hand of the holy free market" will correct these problems. So if someone wants to sell baby formula with melamine in it, libertarians think that should be perfectly legal and that bad word-of-mouth will put such companies out of business (after some babies die from it--oh well), and that the government should just keep its nose out of it.
This is precisely why libertarianism, in its pure form, is lunacy.
With Republicans, it really depends on how much libertarian kool-aid they've been drinking. Not all Republicans are that extreme. (I don't normally have much good to say about today's Republicans, but I'm not going to be untruthful about them either. They do mostly suck, the Teabaggers really suck, but to say they're all against all regulation is patently false, they're just generally very big-business-friendly and not very helpful to poorer or middle-class Americans.)
It's two different issues. 1) Are you selling what you claim you're selling? 2) Does what you're selling do what you claim it does?
Homeopathic "remedies" are probably perfectly legitimate on #1: they're just water, with some ridiculously small amount of some item mixed in and diluted beyond the point of one molecule even being in a dose. They're completely honest about what's in the bottle. Their problem is #2: they actually expect you to believe that purified water will cure your ailments, and people do, because they're told it does and people are gullible fools.
These herbal supplement sellers were failing on #1, which is outright fraud. Ginseng root may or may not help you (it certainly does contain certain chemical compounds which will affect your body somehow, just like many other natural plants contain chemical compounds which can have profound affects on the human body: hemlock and oleander are good examples of this), but if they're selling something they claim has ginseng root and it's just powdered rice, that's nothing more than fraud.
and many modern medicines are based on chemicals first found in herbs.
Yep, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is the poster child for this. Native Americans used some kind of tree bark or something, which contained salicylic acid, long before aspirin was invented.
It's like hitchhiking. That used to be perfectly safe, but then some drivers ruined it for everyone. Who hitchhikes these days? No one unless they're really desperate and down-and-out.
After a group (or activity) gains a reputation, it's really hard to undo it. And these reputations are usually gained for good reason.
I don't care if they're not exactly the same companies. The ones which did pop-ups ruined it for everyone, and anyone who didn't participate in that needs to realize that and accept it. It's the same way with any group: you're responsible to an extent for other members of your group, like it or not, and you will suffer repercussions from the bad behavior of other members of your group because outsiders *will* lump you together.
That's an idiotic comment. If it weren't for them, most programming work wouldn't be getting done. And what "technical debt" are you talking about anyway?
Do you also think that the line cooks at the restaurants you eat at should all GTFO because they don't absolutely love their job and love working in a kitchen all day? If you eat at a restaurant, you're a hypocrite.
Do you also think that the maids at hotels should GTFO because they don't absolutely love cleaning messy hotel rooms all day? If you stay at hotels, you're a hypocrite.
0.17% is the click thru for pop up ads. And it is not much different than the click thru for normal banner (a bit less than 0.1%)... Are you telling is this is a success ?
Yes, it is. Pop-up ads don't cost nearly as much money to "air" as video ads; the cost-per-viewing is ridiculously low. It only takes a few morons clicking on them to make them profitable.
Ask yourself: why did advertisers use them for so long (until the browsers finally made blocking standard)? Companies generally only do things if they're profitable. No one is going to continue to pour money into something for years on end that's costing them money and not making a return on the investment.
Anyone have any direct experience with both Mint KDE and Fedora/KDE who can comment on how they compare? This might be worth checking out.
As for codecs, I thought Ubuntu *did* ship with that support since it's a South African distro, not US-based (and that this was one reason why people liked it--it came with everything out-of-the-box).
To boot, with systemd's ability to listen on the network, it has a good chance of becoming a massive remote root exploit in the waiting.
Inetd has been doing that for years. It has since moved to a different project. Big deal?
The thing I worry about is that, since Red Hat (which controls systemd) is a USA company, it is quite likely in bed with the NSA, which has been *proven* to be spying on everyone worldwide as much as it can. So it is possible that there's exploits built into systemd to allow NSA spying.
I would feel much safer if it were a project made by a company in some other country, like Finland, not an American company. American companies cannot be trusted to protect our privacy, or really trusted in any way at all.
Ok, so is there a distro out there that's a derivative of Fedora and has 1) KDE as a first-class option (not an afterthought as it is on Fedora), and 2) patented codecs installed out of the box? That's the big reason to avoid Fedora, is that it's a PITA with regard to codecs, and can't play any media.
Right now, I'm pretty happy with Linux Mint KDE 17. But it also doesn't use systemd yet, it's still on upstart (since the Ubuntu it's based on is also running on upstart, with a few systemd bits I think).
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about Mesa, we're talking about "most of Arizona". See the line I was responding to earlier:
"And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona."
There's no shortage of cold weather in Arizona. The southern desert does not take up the majority of the state.
You are so full of shit. There is no "understanding"; that's a fantasy in your and the website owner's mind. I never agreed to any such contract, and there is no such "understanding" in place in any law anywhere.
You want an analogy? How about Netflix? If I want to look through Netflix's movies, and watch a few online, I have to have an account, which of course I have to pay for. If I don't pay for an account, I can't get into the site, at least without hacking or stealing someone's credentials. The site prevents this: you need a username and password to get into the site.
Similarly, any site (like some news site) that are "paywalled" are the same way. You want to view the content, you pay for an account and get a login which you can use to view the content. To get around this requires either stealing someone else's login info, or hacking the site somehow, both of which are clearly far above and beyond what was intended, and akin to breaking or picking the lock of a door on a brick-and-mortar business.
Websites with ads don't have this. They let anyone look at the site just by pointing their browser there, or by clicking on a link. If they don't want people reading their content without paying for it somehow, they can erect a paywall just like NYTimes or other such places.
Just because some moron decides they want to pursue a particular business plan doesn't mean I have to play along with it.
it's simple. you like the content. you want it. but you aren't willing to compensate anyone for providing the content. the content on that site is someone's job. it's how they feed their family and pay their bills.
Boo fucking hoo. If they want to protect it, paywall it. Don't whine when not enough people sign up for it.
Bottom line: no one has a right to earn a living in any particular way.
If companies and advertisers went back to just serving small unobtrusive amounts of non-targetted, non-tracking advertisement, then I think more people would be OK with that.
The non-targeted ads are actually more annoying because they're so irrelevant. I actually like non-obtrusive but relevant ads, like what Google serves in searches (or at least used to, on the right-hand side, separate from the actual search results). Small, all-text ads that actually have something to do with what I'm looking for and don't screw up my viewing of the real content (because they're on the side) can be helpful. Ads for feminine products (I'm male) are not.
your choices are to buy my product, or not. your choices do not include stealing my product.
No one is "stealing" products by viewing web pages without ads. If you don't like it, don't put up a web page. Don't put up a web server that responds to HTTP requests and then bitch when people don't actually download and watch all the ads you've linked to. Don't like it? Don't put up a web page, or put up one with ads embedded (i.e., the ads are JPGs served from the same webserver) so it's virtually impossible to block them automatically. You're too lazy to do that because you want to use doubleclick? Too fucking bad.
This is as stupid as having a shop open to the public, putting up ads in the shop, and then bitching when someone walks in and refuses to look at your ads and doesn't buy anything either. Heck, it's just as bad as having a shop open to the public, and then bitching when people look at your stuff inside and walk out without purchasing anything. Part of having a shop open to the public is that people might not buy anything. Same with a website. There's nothing "immoral" about it, or about blocking ads, just like there's nothing immoral about me refusing to look at freeway billboards.
This has ZERO to do with "piracy" or copyright infringement.
I never said anything about water distribution, I was talking about temperature. Do you seriously not believe that Arizona has cold weather?
I'm a big believer in collective guilt. If you're part of a shitty group which has earned itself a bad reputation, you shouldn't whine when you're lumped in with them. It sucks if you're born into that group and can't willfully leave, so we do need to be much more lenient with groups that people can't leave than with groups that are voluntary, but still, people make generalizations for a good reason: we don't have the time to actually meet every single person in a group and judge them for ourselves. Ethnicities are not voluntary (though it is possible to distance yourself from your ethnic background if you try; it's not that hard to pass yourself off as someone from a different ethnic background many times, by changing the way you talk or the language you speak. You won't get a darkish-skinned Mexican to pass as a Swede, but might pass as an Italian and maybe a middle-easterner), but religions certainly are so I have zero sympathy there.
Some intrusive ads have made me angry but so have people of ethnic and religious minorities.
The important thing to keep in mind with collective guilt is: what proportion of the group has earned the bad reputation? The danger with collective guilt is that it's very easy to grossly mis-estimate the actual proportion of people in the group who are either guilty, or apologists/enablers. We tend to see the worst people in the group and remember them the best, and not see or remember the others.
If it's 0.1% of Mexicans who are doing something shitty and the rest are OK, then it's completely unfair to blame all Mexicans for the actions of the few. Similarly, if it's 0.1% of Muslims murdering people and such, and the rest are extremely peaceful and tolerant, then it's unfair to blame them all.
However, if it's 10% of a group doing something awful, and another 80% cheering them on or covering for them, then as far as I'm concerned I'm going to hold the whole group responsible and treat them accordingly. I really don't give a shit that a puny 10% don't agree with the actions of the majority; if they really cared, they'd leave the group, or at least do whatever they can to distance themselves from it and form their own separate group.
Also important is how your actions affect peoples' lives. Treating people badly because of their ethnicity has serious societal effects. Treating them badly because of their religion also can have pretty big effects. But treating online advertisers poorly is not going to cause a big rift in society and all kinds of social ills, the way segregation or discrimination do. If online ad-men don't like the way people view them, they can go into a different line of work. No one goes to college for a degree in online advertising and gets locked into that as a career path; these people are really nothing more than con artists. If doing shitty advertising tactics online isn't paying the bills for them any more, then can go to work at McDonald's.
Only a fucking retard would on one hand point out (rightfully) that people are stupid enough to buy dousing rods and horoscope reading, but then try to claim that all computer users are smart enough to never (intentionally) click on a pop-up ad and then buy whatever crap they're selling.
It's the same reason spam exists. The costs are tiny (per customer-view), and it only takes a few morons to buy it to make it profitable. Yes, some of this is scammy ad-men inflating the effectiveness of ads to their customers, but it wouldn't have gone on this long if zero people actually bought anything; the customers would have gone out of business from not having any sales.
However, truth in labeling is something a lot of fairly hard-core libertarians would probably go along with. They wouldn't want the government banning the sale of any substance, but they would probably favor letting the buyer know what he is getting.
I think any libertarians that agree with this are probably more "soft-core". The hard-core ones want a government that does absolutely nothing besides provide police and military, and really want no regulation at all because that requires a government agency to enforce competently.
My politics tend towards liberal/progressive for most issues, but I don't have a lot nice to say about Obama either; I think he's sold out to the banksters for one thing.
But yeah, a lot of nutty people on the right say absolutely insane things about him, that he's a communist Muslim and wants to declare martial law and become a dictator, shit like that. It's absolutely insane. Do people really believe that a President can just declare himself dictator and the military will go along with that? People on the left do it too about people on the right though, going on and on about how evil everyone in the Republican party is. The polarization and utter detachment from reality is mind-boggling.
They make a profit because they don't spend billions of dollars on clinical trials; they just grow some plants, dry them out, crush them into powder, make pills out of them, put them in bottles and sell them. That's cheap to do. Then they make some claims with an asterisk that says "statements not evaluated by the FDA".
Pharmaceutical companies don't get involved in that kind of market.
Bullshit.
Some herbs really do have medicinal uses. Many modern medicines are based on, or are more purified versions of, compounds found in herbs. But no one can sell an herb that is medically proven to work, because that takes expensive clinical trials, and no one is willing to pay the money for that for something that anyone can grow in their back yard and which cannot be patented.
It is entirely unreasonable to say that no one should be allowed to sell herbs for medicinal uses, and it is patently ridiculous to call that fraud.
That's a really good point about micropayments, and that one's firmly in the power of the government to fix, by properly regulating the financial sector and enabling micropayments (by eliminating the bogus per-charge fees of $0.30 for each transaction charged by Visa/MC).
And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona.
Wrong. You sound like someone who's never been to Arizona. Go look at a map. The desert part is only part of the state. It gets quite cold in the northern part around Flagstaff and the rims of the Grand Canyon (particularly the North Rim). There's even a ski resort there called Snowbowl.
Of course, Mesa is not in the cold part of the state, it's in the hottest part of the state (the Phoenix metro area is much hotter than the surrounding desert thanks to the heat-island effect). It's also a fucking ghetto. I predict this data center will be broken into by copper thieves and stripped, and the local scrap-metal "dealers" will be taking in a bunch of "scrap metal".
If there was *any* hope that this herb could treat that sickness where money could be made selling it, big pharma would have snapped it up and sold it under FDA rules as a drug, even over the counter.
Wrong. If it's naturally-occurring, they can't patent it, so they don't bother paying for all the clinical research that's necessary to make medical claims about its efficacy.
Over-the-counter stuff is cheap, sure, but the reason it's out there and being sold with specific claims about its efficacy is because all that clinical research was already done, years ago, back when it was covered by patents. Claritin is a good example of this: it used to be really expensive and only available from one company, and then the patent ran out so it became an OTC drug and the generics made their own versions of it for cheap.
The generic manufacturers aren't allowed to sell some herb along with any medical claims about what it can and can't do, like they can with a pharmaceutical compound which has undergone clinical trials. The pharma companies (even the generics) aren't going to pay for those trials, because they're expensive as hell, and they can't profit when anyone can package up that same natural herb and sell it in a bottle.
There's a giant difference.
Homeopathic "crap" is actually highly purified water. So while it probably isn't going to help your ailment (though it might: the placebo effect is real!), it's not going to hurt you either.
These fraudelent supplements are made from all kinds of crap, some of it apparently even harmful. So taking it could cause you an allergic reaction or worse.
Wrong. The true libertarians will argue that this is excessive government regulation, and that the government should stay out of commercial affairs like this, and that the "invisible hand of the holy free market" will correct these problems. So if someone wants to sell baby formula with melamine in it, libertarians think that should be perfectly legal and that bad word-of-mouth will put such companies out of business (after some babies die from it--oh well), and that the government should just keep its nose out of it.
This is precisely why libertarianism, in its pure form, is lunacy.
With Republicans, it really depends on how much libertarian kool-aid they've been drinking. Not all Republicans are that extreme. (I don't normally have much good to say about today's Republicans, but I'm not going to be untruthful about them either. They do mostly suck, the Teabaggers really suck, but to say they're all against all regulation is patently false, they're just generally very big-business-friendly and not very helpful to poorer or middle-class Americans.)
It's two different issues.
1) Are you selling what you claim you're selling?
2) Does what you're selling do what you claim it does?
Homeopathic "remedies" are probably perfectly legitimate on #1: they're just water, with some ridiculously small amount of some item mixed in and diluted beyond the point of one molecule even being in a dose. They're completely honest about what's in the bottle. Their problem is #2: they actually expect you to believe that purified water will cure your ailments, and people do, because they're told it does and people are gullible fools.
These herbal supplement sellers were failing on #1, which is outright fraud. Ginseng root may or may not help you (it certainly does contain certain chemical compounds which will affect your body somehow, just like many other natural plants contain chemical compounds which can have profound affects on the human body: hemlock and oleander are good examples of this), but if they're selling something they claim has ginseng root and it's just powdered rice, that's nothing more than fraud.
and many modern medicines are based on chemicals first found in herbs.
Yep, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is the poster child for this. Native Americans used some kind of tree bark or something, which contained salicylic acid, long before aspirin was invented.
Yeah, at least that long.
It's like hitchhiking. That used to be perfectly safe, but then some drivers ruined it for everyone. Who hitchhikes these days? No one unless they're really desperate and down-and-out.
After a group (or activity) gains a reputation, it's really hard to undo it. And these reputations are usually gained for good reason.
I don't care if they're not exactly the same companies. The ones which did pop-ups ruined it for everyone, and anyone who didn't participate in that needs to realize that and accept it. It's the same way with any group: you're responsible to an extent for other members of your group, like it or not, and you will suffer repercussions from the bad behavior of other members of your group because outsiders *will* lump you together.
That's an idiotic comment. If it weren't for them, most programming work wouldn't be getting done. And what "technical debt" are you talking about anyway?
Do you also think that the line cooks at the restaurants you eat at should all GTFO because they don't absolutely love their job and love working in a kitchen all day? If you eat at a restaurant, you're a hypocrite.
Do you also think that the maids at hotels should GTFO because they don't absolutely love cleaning messy hotel rooms all day? If you stay at hotels, you're a hypocrite.
0.17% is the click thru for pop up ads. And it is not much different than the click thru for normal banner (a bit less than 0.1%)... Are you telling is this is a success ?
Yes, it is. Pop-up ads don't cost nearly as much money to "air" as video ads; the cost-per-viewing is ridiculously low. It only takes a few morons clicking on them to make them profitable.
Ask yourself: why did advertisers use them for so long (until the browsers finally made blocking standard)? Companies generally only do things if they're profitable. No one is going to continue to pour money into something for years on end that's costing them money and not making a return on the investment.
Thanks for the info.
Anyone have any direct experience with both Mint KDE and Fedora/KDE who can comment on how they compare? This might be worth checking out.
As for codecs, I thought Ubuntu *did* ship with that support since it's a South African distro, not US-based (and that this was one reason why people liked it--it came with everything out-of-the-box).
To boot, with systemd's ability to listen on the network, it has a good chance of becoming a massive remote root exploit in the waiting.
Inetd has been doing that for years. It has since moved to a different project. Big deal?
The thing I worry about is that, since Red Hat (which controls systemd) is a USA company, it is quite likely in bed with the NSA, which has been *proven* to be spying on everyone worldwide as much as it can. So it is possible that there's exploits built into systemd to allow NSA spying.
I would feel much safer if it were a project made by a company in some other country, like Finland, not an American company. American companies cannot be trusted to protect our privacy, or really trusted in any way at all.
Ok, so is there a distro out there that's a derivative of Fedora and has 1) KDE as a first-class option (not an afterthought as it is on Fedora), and 2) patented codecs installed out of the box? That's the big reason to avoid Fedora, is that it's a PITA with regard to codecs, and can't play any media.
Right now, I'm pretty happy with Linux Mint KDE 17. But it also doesn't use systemd yet, it's still on upstart (since the Ubuntu it's based on is also running on upstart, with a few systemd bits I think).