Am I hearing you right that you think it should be illegal for Americans to participate in American elections, including funding ads, if Russians are barred from doing so?
...to see the difference between DMA (or MA as it's now supposed to be) and UV, beyond the list of participants. They're both trying to do the same thing, and the UIs of both are pretty similar.
(Sidenote: A major reason for Third Wave Feminism is that second wave really did have strong negative rhetoric about sex work, which lead to many - including the people Feminists thought they were trying to help - rejecting the movement. So it's not always been true, although even second wave feminists felt the prostitution itself should be legal, though with nuisance provisions against kerb crawlers and other anti-social acts that customers of prostitutes brought.)
It's a problem but not necessarily pertinent to this story given "sex workers" covers a range of professions, many legal.
The actual problem here is that Facebook is doing nothing to protect the privacy of its users, and in fact, is actually deliberately, intentionally, destroying their privacy. Google, for all of the "They're selling your stuff to advertisers!" BS, actually doesn't go anywhere near as far as Facebook does trying to reveal your life to others.
Facebook has become too dangerous. I don't know how you end Facebook, but we need to figure out how.
This is a fairly standard business model: develop one product, but sell various versions of it that differ in cost to manufacture by pennies, but cost massively different prices to the end user. The idea is to maximize revenue by getting more money from those who are prepared to pay more, while still getting some from those who can't afford the high prices paid by the premium group.
In this case, the logic seems to be "You can pay more, as you're proving by buying a motherboard that can support four CPUs, and actually buying four CPUs, so we're going to ask for a little more money from you." Which... makes sense I suppose.
Microsoft has gone in the other direction too: for cheap netbooks and tablets, they offer Windows 10 without a per-license cost, because they recognize you're not going spend $100 on an OS for a $70 tablet, especially with Android being around. Instead they hope to claw some revenue back from you in advertising and sales of apps (their own and third party) and so on.
Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing.
You can't add words to something and then say it means the same thing,
Unless those words are implied. If there are no qualifications on the sentence, then the implication was, actually, that the prices were lowered for everyone (or at least every customer buying the products affected.)
What you're saying by saying "We're lowering prices for everyone" isn't the same as "We're lowering prices" is that "We're lowering prices" is the same as "We're lowering prices, but only for a small set of people."
If I understand the summary correctly, they're not saying there's no dark matter. What they're saying is that even accounting for dark matter, there should be twice as much non dark matter out there than had previously been observed. And this is what they've claiming to have found.
The aim is usually to motivate you not to vote for a President. That's why both sides throw as much mud as possible at each other. It's more effective - and easier - to suppress turnout of your opponent's voters than it is to put forward an inspiring agenda.
Well, that's already half the vertical resolution (and minus the overscan area which, in practice, generally had some viewable area despite "by definition" not.)
Broadcast standards I believe mandated 704x480/576 (NTSC/PAL) for digitally stored video. While TVs could be substantially worse than that, higher quality color TVs and almost all monochrome TVs would have approached that resolution.
That definition has a loophole so wide you could drive the Titanic through it.
"Sure, we're banning people from kneeling during the National Anthem, but that's not a restriction on free speech because it'll be illegal and thus not free speech once it's banned!"
I'd like to suggest instead that we go battle my 23 year old self (roughly half my age) who used to fetishize free speech in the same way most people do here. There's a world of difference between illegal, bad, and "Stuff you should feel obliged to republish." We can argue that legal bans and moderation within large communities are two different ways someone can restrict free speech, but that doesn't make the latter bad, merely something people should be wary of doing too broadly.
Google, Facebook, et al, should be thinking in terms of whether certain content actually harms society as a whole, and determining at what level to support that content. If, for example, someone is buying ads to harm a political candidate, the truth of those ads absolutely should be a factor before either decide to sell to the advertiser.
That's what they should be doing anyway. But I'd be extremely wary of any laws that force them to do so, beyond those that exist today that they allegedly have been ignoring or otherwise not enforcing properly.
While I agree with some of your points, Amazon didn't exist in 1974. If you were to look at their effect, you'd have to limit yourself to the 10-15 years they've been operating as a significant international player. But yes, it makes sense they're only effective in the markets they operate in, ordinary consumer goods, rather than cars, etc.
Cable bills? That's a tough one - you say "They're rising hence cord cutting is a thing", but Amazon is one of the companies that's involved in that cord cutting and making it possible. People are going from spending $50-100 on cable TV to $20-40 on Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu.
And Comcast has actually noticed that. They're now offering their channels as streaming TV instead. So sure, "Cable TV" is more expensive than ever, but "Having stuff I can watch on TV" is going in the reverse direction price wise.
Because the article is about "global" deflation, and while Walmart has bought a few chains outside of the US, it hasn't turned them into Walmarts. Its reach, for the most part, is North America, not the entire globe.
Amazon? They're not everywhere, but they're in the vast majority of significant economies.
Amazon hasn't been the cheapest for a long time now. What's making people stick with Amazon is that they offer a better service overall. I know that if I start looking there, I can almost certainly find what I want, the price will be reasonable - Walmart and eBay will usually offer slightly better prices for generic goods, but not significantly - and I'll get the product in two days delivered to my door.
They're no longer competing on price, they're competing on the entire experience.
Walmart has the business model you're referring to, but they've had limited success with it, largely because the whole experience involves shoddy goods, frequently abusive customer service, long lines, and dirty stores. You have to do more than compete on price.
I appreciate the attempt, but no, that's not an answer to the question, nor is it rephrasing the question. The question is literally "Is X preferable to Y". It's of the "Would you prefer Superman or Batman to deal with crime in your city" or "Do you prefer Coke to Pepsi" variety.
The idiot who responded to me was claiming that by asking the question, I was implying that people would be forced to take one path or the other.
Legitimate answers are "Ads", "Bitcoin miners", or perhaps "Hard to tell, they're both pretty shitty". Illegitimate answers would be "Never heard of them", your attempt at a rephrase (because it's off topic. It's "Oh, so Aquaman isn't an option? Well you suck", or "RC COLA PLZ!"), and "OMG HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THE ONLY SOLUTIONS TO A PROBLEM YOU NEVER DEFINED IN THE FIRST PLACE ARE THOSE TWO. I shall look up in my dictionary of fallacies something that has some of the same words in the description and CLAIM YOU'RE DOING IT."
The latter is an accurate rephrase of the GP's comment. And by using the name of a fallacy he was able to sucker in some stupid moderators who modded his comment up despite it being literally either the product of poor literacy, or high jackassery.
This return to economic profitability was achieved through a combination of falling fuel prices; significant industry consolidation, especially in the United States; and the growth of ancillary revenues, such as checked-baggage fees.
So... the key to this is hidden fees? That's what they're saying? They do know that mobile phone companies PIONEERED hidden fees, right?
The mobile operators are actually moving away from that bullshit. Slowly, sure, but they are moving away from it.
Unfortunately that's not true - well, it's sort of true but not in a meaningful way. Audio has to be transmitted over BT compressed because there's not enough bandwidth for a solid, reliable, uncompressed 44kHz 16 bit stereo signal at the power levels BT devices are expected to support. (Technically Bluetooth can transmit/receive up to 50Mbps, but power and interference issues means nothing actually makes use of those kinds of speeds for sustained use.)
So a typical music player will decompress the music, and then the Bluetooth stack in the phone will recompress it using one of a variety of formats BT headsets recognize. SBC is supported by all BT music headsets but is generally considered awful. AptX is a proprietary format owned by Qualcomm that's fairly common. MPEG Audio Layer 2 and MP3 are also officially supported but are optional. Apple's devices support AAC.
Apparently some people believe the iPhone doesn't decompress AAC music, but just sends the raw bitstream over Bluetooth, skipping the decompress/recompress step. That's possible, but I suspect it's complete bollocks.
And Uber wants iPhone users to be its customers. I'd assume Uber has a mobile website by now, so if they can make that pinnable and assuming iPhone webapps allow notifications (I don't have an iPhone, so can't comment), there's no good reason for Uber to need a native app for iPhones.
I don't think banning Uber from the App Store would have a significant impact on Apple. It would be more serious for Uber, effectively another highly publicized attack on its honesty, and a reduction in exposure.
That part where it's not an answer to the question I asked.
Here's a better idea: if you don't want to answer the question, just don't reply to it. Don't post some bullshit putting words into my mouth claiming I've made a "False dichotomy" when all I've done is ask which of two options is better.
I didn't provide a "false dilemma" or anything remotely similar. I asked of two things, which was preferred. For it to be a false dilemma (or false dichotomy) I would have had to suggest that the two were in some way the only solutions to some other problem that has multiple solutions.
I did not.
What you're doing is the equivalent of hearing someone ask "Hey, do you prefer Whoppers or Quarterpounders" and then smugly butting in, and saying "ACKSHURELY NEITHER, YOU'RE MAKIING A FALSE DIKOTOMEE WHAT IF I DON'T WONT A BURGGER".
If you don't have an answer, fine. Maybe the answer in your case is "I'm too fucking stupid to know what ads or bitcoin miners are", and that's fine, what you do in that case is shut the fuck up.
But don't waste my time arguing with me.
Are you the sort of bullsit artist who complains I respond "But I don't" when you ask "when did you stop beating your wife?"
No, you are. You're the bullshit artist who, even now, having had it clarified for you, still thinks I was claiming there are only two ways to fund websites and that you're obliged to pick one of them. YOU, not me, are the moron putting words in my mouth.
You are wasting my time. You are wasting everyone's time. Go away.
That part where it's not an answer to the question I asked.
Here's a better idea: if you don't want to answer the question, just don't reply to it. Don't post some bullshit putting words into my mouth claiming I've made a "False dichotomy" when all I've done is ask which of two options is better.
I didn't offer any dichotomy. I asked you which you prefer. I'm well aware there are reasons to dislike both, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on which is better, or, if you'd prefer, which is worse.
I don't have the power to limit your choices to two ways to fund websites, and I'm not sure why you think I would have that power, or why you'd think I was demonstrating that.
Genuinely interested (no strong opinion of my own - I have a gut feeling this software slows down your machine) - would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?
Yup. Netflix is loss making, so the idea they might still need to raise prices while they offer a slightly worse service is not contradictory. The question is whether people are willing to pay more.
My guess is yes. But I suspect Netflix would be more successful if they added as much content as possible and doubled their prices, rather than doing what they're doing. It's better to get people the product they want to pay for, and charge them what it costs, than to offer something half assed.
Can't speak for the poster, but I generally have two - a cheaper set for work, a better set at home. And I also like using my phone to listen to music in the car, and no, Bluetooth, which has a large number of problems, is not the answer there.
Also good: being able to charge and listen to music at the same time. But, hey, I'm totally sure Google has finally produced a phone that has a battery that lasts longer than a day after moderate use. They have, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Am I hearing you right that you think it should be illegal for Americans to participate in American elections, including funding ads, if Russians are barred from doing so?
...to see the difference between DMA (or MA as it's now supposed to be) and UV, beyond the list of participants. They're both trying to do the same thing, and the UIs of both are pretty similar.
Facebook needs to have an options panel that users can use to turn off tracking. She shouldn't have to jump through hoops to have Facebook ignore her.
But both sides!!! BOTH SIDES!!!
(Sidenote: A major reason for Third Wave Feminism is that second wave really did have strong negative rhetoric about sex work, which lead to many - including the people Feminists thought they were trying to help - rejecting the movement. So it's not always been true, although even second wave feminists felt the prostitution itself should be legal, though with nuisance provisions against kerb crawlers and other anti-social acts that customers of prostitutes brought.)
It's a problem but not necessarily pertinent to this story given "sex workers" covers a range of professions, many legal.
The actual problem here is that Facebook is doing nothing to protect the privacy of its users, and in fact, is actually deliberately, intentionally, destroying their privacy. Google, for all of the "They're selling your stuff to advertisers!" BS, actually doesn't go anywhere near as far as Facebook does trying to reveal your life to others.
Facebook has become too dangerous. I don't know how you end Facebook, but we need to figure out how.
This is a fairly standard business model: develop one product, but sell various versions of it that differ in cost to manufacture by pennies, but cost massively different prices to the end user. The idea is to maximize revenue by getting more money from those who are prepared to pay more, while still getting some from those who can't afford the high prices paid by the premium group.
In this case, the logic seems to be "You can pay more, as you're proving by buying a motherboard that can support four CPUs, and actually buying four CPUs, so we're going to ask for a little more money from you." Which... makes sense I suppose.
Microsoft has gone in the other direction too: for cheap netbooks and tablets, they offer Windows 10 without a per-license cost, because they recognize you're not going spend $100 on an OS for a $70 tablet, especially with Android being around. Instead they hope to claw some revenue back from you in advertising and sales of apps (their own and third party) and so on.
Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing.
Unless those words are implied. If there are no qualifications on the sentence, then the implication was, actually, that the prices were lowered for everyone (or at least every customer buying the products affected.)
What you're saying by saying "We're lowering prices for everyone" isn't the same as "We're lowering prices" is that "We're lowering prices" is the same as "We're lowering prices, but only for a small set of people."
If I understand the summary correctly, they're not saying there's no dark matter. What they're saying is that even accounting for dark matter, there should be twice as much non dark matter out there than had previously been observed. And this is what they've claiming to have found.
The aim is usually to motivate you not to vote for a President. That's why both sides throw as much mud as possible at each other. It's more effective - and easier - to suppress turnout of your opponent's voters than it is to put forward an inspiring agenda.
Well, that's already half the vertical resolution (and minus the overscan area which, in practice, generally had some viewable area despite "by definition" not.)
Broadcast standards I believe mandated 704x480/576 (NTSC/PAL) for digitally stored video. While TVs could be substantially worse than that, higher quality color TVs and almost all monochrome TVs would have approached that resolution.
That definition has a loophole so wide you could drive the Titanic through it.
"Sure, we're banning people from kneeling during the National Anthem, but that's not a restriction on free speech because it'll be illegal and thus not free speech once it's banned!"
I'd like to suggest instead that we go battle my 23 year old self (roughly half my age) who used to fetishize free speech in the same way most people do here. There's a world of difference between illegal, bad, and "Stuff you should feel obliged to republish." We can argue that legal bans and moderation within large communities are two different ways someone can restrict free speech, but that doesn't make the latter bad, merely something people should be wary of doing too broadly.
Google, Facebook, et al, should be thinking in terms of whether certain content actually harms society as a whole, and determining at what level to support that content. If, for example, someone is buying ads to harm a political candidate, the truth of those ads absolutely should be a factor before either decide to sell to the advertiser.
That's what they should be doing anyway. But I'd be extremely wary of any laws that force them to do so, beyond those that exist today that they allegedly have been ignoring or otherwise not enforcing properly.
While I agree with some of your points, Amazon didn't exist in 1974. If you were to look at their effect, you'd have to limit yourself to the 10-15 years they've been operating as a significant international player. But yes, it makes sense they're only effective in the markets they operate in, ordinary consumer goods, rather than cars, etc.
Cable bills? That's a tough one - you say "They're rising hence cord cutting is a thing", but Amazon is one of the companies that's involved in that cord cutting and making it possible. People are going from spending $50-100 on cable TV to $20-40 on Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu.
And Comcast has actually noticed that. They're now offering their channels as streaming TV instead. So sure, "Cable TV" is more expensive than ever, but "Having stuff I can watch on TV" is going in the reverse direction price wise.
Because the article is about "global" deflation, and while Walmart has bought a few chains outside of the US, it hasn't turned them into Walmarts. Its reach, for the most part, is North America, not the entire globe.
Amazon? They're not everywhere, but they're in the vast majority of significant economies.
Amazon hasn't been the cheapest for a long time now. What's making people stick with Amazon is that they offer a better service overall. I know that if I start looking there, I can almost certainly find what I want, the price will be reasonable - Walmart and eBay will usually offer slightly better prices for generic goods, but not significantly - and I'll get the product in two days delivered to my door.
They're no longer competing on price, they're competing on the entire experience.
Walmart has the business model you're referring to, but they've had limited success with it, largely because the whole experience involves shoddy goods, frequently abusive customer service, long lines, and dirty stores. You have to do more than compete on price.
I appreciate the attempt, but no, that's not an answer to the question, nor is it rephrasing the question. The question is literally "Is X preferable to Y". It's of the "Would you prefer Superman or Batman to deal with crime in your city" or "Do you prefer Coke to Pepsi" variety.
The idiot who responded to me was claiming that by asking the question, I was implying that people would be forced to take one path or the other.
Legitimate answers are "Ads", "Bitcoin miners", or perhaps "Hard to tell, they're both pretty shitty". Illegitimate answers would be "Never heard of them", your attempt at a rephrase (because it's off topic. It's "Oh, so Aquaman isn't an option? Well you suck", or "RC COLA PLZ!"), and "OMG HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THE ONLY SOLUTIONS TO A PROBLEM YOU NEVER DEFINED IN THE FIRST PLACE ARE THOSE TWO. I shall look up in my dictionary of fallacies something that has some of the same words in the description and CLAIM YOU'RE DOING IT."
The latter is an accurate rephrase of the GP's comment. And by using the name of a fallacy he was able to sucker in some stupid moderators who modded his comment up despite it being literally either the product of poor literacy, or high jackassery.
So... the key to this is hidden fees? That's what they're saying? They do know that mobile phone companies PIONEERED hidden fees, right?
The mobile operators are actually moving away from that bullshit. Slowly, sure, but they are moving away from it.
Unfortunately that's not true - well, it's sort of true but not in a meaningful way. Audio has to be transmitted over BT compressed because there's not enough bandwidth for a solid, reliable, uncompressed 44kHz 16 bit stereo signal at the power levels BT devices are expected to support. (Technically Bluetooth can transmit/receive up to 50Mbps, but power and interference issues means nothing actually makes use of those kinds of speeds for sustained use.)
So a typical music player will decompress the music, and then the Bluetooth stack in the phone will recompress it using one of a variety of formats BT headsets recognize. SBC is supported by all BT music headsets but is generally considered awful. AptX is a proprietary format owned by Qualcomm that's fairly common. MPEG Audio Layer 2 and MP3 are also officially supported but are optional. Apple's devices support AAC.
Apparently some people believe the iPhone doesn't decompress AAC music, but just sends the raw bitstream over Bluetooth, skipping the decompress/recompress step. That's possible, but I suspect it's complete bollocks.
And Uber wants iPhone users to be its customers. I'd assume Uber has a mobile website by now, so if they can make that pinnable and assuming iPhone webapps allow notifications (I don't have an iPhone, so can't comment), there's no good reason for Uber to need a native app for iPhones.
I don't think banning Uber from the App Store would have a significant impact on Apple. It would be more serious for Uber, effectively another highly publicized attack on its honesty, and a reduction in exposure.
That part where it's not an answer to the question I asked.
Here's a better idea: if you don't want to answer the question, just don't reply to it. Don't post some bullshit putting words into my mouth claiming I've made a "False dichotomy" when all I've done is ask which of two options is better.
(Original missing for some reason)
I didn't provide a "false dilemma" or anything remotely similar. I asked of two things, which was preferred. For it to be a false dilemma (or false dichotomy) I would have had to suggest that the two were in some way the only solutions to some other problem that has multiple solutions.
I did not.
What you're doing is the equivalent of hearing someone ask "Hey, do you prefer Whoppers or Quarterpounders" and then smugly butting in, and saying "ACKSHURELY NEITHER, YOU'RE MAKIING A FALSE DIKOTOMEE WHAT IF I DON'T WONT A BURGGER".
If you don't have an answer, fine. Maybe the answer in your case is "I'm too fucking stupid to know what ads or bitcoin miners are", and that's fine, what you do in that case is shut the fuck up.
But don't waste my time arguing with me.
No, you are. You're the bullshit artist who, even now, having had it clarified for you, still thinks I was claiming there are only two ways to fund websites and that you're obliged to pick one of them. YOU, not me, are the moron putting words in my mouth.
You are wasting my time. You are wasting everyone's time. Go away.
That part where it's not an answer to the question I asked.
Here's a better idea: if you don't want to answer the question, just don't reply to it. Don't post some bullshit putting words into my mouth claiming I've made a "False dichotomy" when all I've done is ask which of two options is better.
I didn't offer any dichotomy. I asked you which you prefer. I'm well aware there are reasons to dislike both, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on which is better, or, if you'd prefer, which is worse.
I don't have the power to limit your choices to two ways to fund websites, and I'm not sure why you think I would have that power, or why you'd think I was demonstrating that.
So... do you have an answer to the question?
Genuinely interested (no strong opinion of my own - I have a gut feeling this software slows down your machine) - would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?
Yup. Netflix is loss making, so the idea they might still need to raise prices while they offer a slightly worse service is not contradictory. The question is whether people are willing to pay more.
My guess is yes. But I suspect Netflix would be more successful if they added as much content as possible and doubled their prices, rather than doing what they're doing. It's better to get people the product they want to pay for, and charge them what it costs, than to offer something half assed.
Can't speak for the poster, but I generally have two - a cheaper set for work, a better set at home. And I also like using my phone to listen to music in the car, and no, Bluetooth, which has a large number of problems, is not the answer there.
Also good: being able to charge and listen to music at the same time. But, hey, I'm totally sure Google has finally produced a phone that has a battery that lasts longer than a day after moderate use. They have, right?