I think the editors here probably won't ever sink to the depths that was OMG Ponies! ever again, as that lasted 24 hours longer than was funny (and probably had a noticeable impact on traffic).
Re:Rogue Wireless Carrier SysAdmin
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
My cell phone cost $30. I don't have a contract. It is prepaid (some people resent this for some reason), so I can't use it if I don't pay for some minutes. Minutes can be added by paying cash for a card at a store (and no personal info is required to activate the phone/minutes).
From what I can tell, the phones and minutes are only getting cheaper (if only by way of inflation).
So I don't think it is ever going to be difficult to go buy a phone. I guess if you want a high rent smart phone and want to finance it there might be some troubles.
Let me know when this starts to gain traction so that I can activate my spam friendly ISP and certify their messages. Don't worry, I can just shut down and start back up under a new name. Again and again.
There has to be some reasonable way of managing who gets to run a certification server or the entire scheme is completely hopeless.
Still, you are operating with a strange definition of practical. We can wait 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, however many months you want and Lobjan is not going to be the most used language for programming.
English may or may not turn out to be a local minimum (I have no desire to form an opinion on whether it is more or less expressive than Lojban, I would assume that the language that replaces English will be roughly equally expressive...), but at the moment, the entire point being discussed here is that given the amount of English material that already exists, and the number of English speakers that there are, English is the most practical language for something like programming.
"How does Google make money off of the aggregation? By making news articles searchable."
So I was trying to point out that they make money by improving the availability of the articles, as opposed to making money off of the actual display to the user (and as you say, they probably derive some benefit to their brand from that activity).
So Google is profiting from the aggregation activity, in a direct way, but it is by providing a service that benefits both viewers and creators of the content; if the content creator doesn't like it, there is plenty of room for them to contact Google and talk about it, rather than crying for a new law that makes their business easier to operate (which you seem to agree with, but it clarifies my earlier comment).
News sources are free to not provide their pages (unrestricted) to the internet. If the Guardian were asking Google not to display their headlines anymore, I would expect Google to comply with that request (whether by technical means or whatever); the Guardian is also free to try to negotiate a deal with Google. Instead, they chose to start screaming that Google better pay them money or something (base on this, I would guess that they have concerns about losing the stream of viewers coming from Google, but boy, they like money).
I don't think Google is my benevolent friend (you shouldn't say straw man and pull shit like that...), but I don't think that what they are doing in this instance is bad for anybody. The idea behind copyright does serve a legitimate purpose, but I'm not going to concede that we are currently operating with sensible copyright laws, so pointing to current practice isn't terribly likely to convince me of much.
Again, if Google was refusing to respect the wishes of the Guardian (which may mean simply not displaying their content), I would think that was bullshit; as far as I can tell, the Guardian hasn't expressed their wishes to Google (instead, to the U.K. government), so there isn't much to discuss.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. I have fans but not "The Maker".
It's in the faq: "The Contradictor -- !tag a story"
Yes, but Fox has Glenn Beck.
I would be very surprised if Scientific American posted something like this as a (poor attempt at a) joke.
Men can't have babies, thus forcing women to do it. Life isn't fair.
Once you go past 90,000 members, it just isn't a club anymore.
"The Maker" could be that you submitted a story.
As long as you pay for it, no problem. The rest of us will just have to muddle through until you are done.
Colbert has done it before, with a bridge in Hungary. They also ignored that he won the internet vote.
It isn't just Slashdot, it is Internet Jackass Day (with apologies to Andy Baio: http://waxy.org/2004/04/internet_jackas/ ).
I think the editors here probably won't ever sink to the depths that was OMG Ponies! ever again, as that lasted 24 hours longer than was funny (and probably had a noticeable impact on traffic).
Blacklisted by a de-facto central authority?
My cell phone cost $30. I don't have a contract. It is prepaid (some people resent this for some reason), so I can't use it if I don't pay for some minutes. Minutes can be added by paying cash for a card at a store (and no personal info is required to activate the phone/minutes).
From what I can tell, the phones and minutes are only getting cheaper (if only by way of inflation).
So I don't think it is ever going to be difficult to go buy a phone. I guess if you want a high rent smart phone and want to finance it there might be some troubles.
Is it wireless?
Context is oh so much fun.
It isn't entirely clear to me that stupidity is restricted to half of the global population; I sort of expect it in every country.
Do that many people respond? More and more, I think the suckers are the ones buying the spam runs and spam mailing lists.
Let me know when this starts to gain traction so that I can activate my spam friendly ISP and certify their messages. Don't worry, I can just shut down and start back up under a new name. Again and again.
There has to be some reasonable way of managing who gets to run a certification server or the entire scheme is completely hopeless.
abuse@yahoo.com and abuse@google.com seem to work some of the time (they want full text forwards though).
Still, you are operating with a strange definition of practical. We can wait 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, however many months you want and Lobjan is not going to be the most used language for programming.
For what definition of practical?
English may or may not turn out to be a local minimum (I have no desire to form an opinion on whether it is more or less expressive than Lojban, I would assume that the language that replaces English will be roughly equally expressive...), but at the moment, the entire point being discussed here is that given the amount of English material that already exists, and the number of English speakers that there are, English is the most practical language for something like programming.
Wow. That is hard. I mean it. This is not a joke. Even if it seems like one.
I'm sure that your counterparties are happy to have you using a French contract management system.
They should call that pick and plug, not do it yourself.
Sure. They are free to ask Google to stop using that resource. They didn't do that yet (as far as I know).
If they ask and Google refuses, that changes things.
I phrased my comment poorly. I meant:
"How does Google make money off of the aggregation? By making news articles searchable."
So I was trying to point out that they make money by improving the availability of the articles, as opposed to making money off of the actual display to the user (and as you say, they probably derive some benefit to their brand from that activity).
So Google is profiting from the aggregation activity, in a direct way, but it is by providing a service that benefits both viewers and creators of the content; if the content creator doesn't like it, there is plenty of room for them to contact Google and talk about it, rather than crying for a new law that makes their business easier to operate (which you seem to agree with, but it clarifies my earlier comment).
News sources are free to not provide their pages (unrestricted) to the internet. If the Guardian were asking Google not to display their headlines anymore, I would expect Google to comply with that request (whether by technical means or whatever); the Guardian is also free to try to negotiate a deal with Google. Instead, they chose to start screaming that Google better pay them money or something (base on this, I would guess that they have concerns about losing the stream of viewers coming from Google, but boy, they like money).
I don't think Google is my benevolent friend (you shouldn't say straw man and pull shit like that...), but I don't think that what they are doing in this instance is bad for anybody. The idea behind copyright does serve a legitimate purpose, but I'm not going to concede that we are currently operating with sensible copyright laws, so pointing to current practice isn't terribly likely to convince me of much.
Again, if Google was refusing to respect the wishes of the Guardian (which may mean simply not displaying their content), I would think that was bullshit; as far as I can tell, the Guardian hasn't expressed their wishes to Google (instead, to the U.K. government), so there isn't much to discuss.