As I said above, freedom was always balanced with personal responsibility, and today because of the internet people are abandoning personal responsibility and abusing their freedom. So you end up with furry pr0n and disgusting things that are a blight on society. Surely you agree that to preserve freedom for most you need to curtail the freedoms of these savages.
Then maybe out freedoms should be curtailed to live in a decent society. It used to be that government freedoms were moderated with individual responsibility and social pressure. Now the latter two are gone and we have revenge porn and up skirts. Disgusting.
Depends on the revenue model. If they're using cloud to drive subscriptions a la office365, then users are the customers. If they're using the cloud and social to sell advertising, then users are the product.
I agree, they make an intuitive platform for customers to use. Adwords and Adsense, eg. Or were you referring to the users of these sites? Users are the product, the commodity to be sold.
MS is walking a fine line as it tries to transition from a company that sees users as the target to be exploited and a company that sees users as the customers. Remember all the crapware like Norton installed on every new PC. MS was cool with this because it enabled the OEMs to them more $$. If they were user focused they would have never allowed it.
Now they're trying to move to an apple model where the user is first. blocking adware is part of this. but turning a big ship takes time, and there are a lot of long-time corporate relationships that need to change, so they are phasing in this new policy to block adware by default.
Now that MS has gotten the "customer is king" memo, there are only two companies that see users as a resource to be exploited for gain, and customers as partners to assist in this exploitation: goog and fb.
laughing so hard... I thought you were exaggerating but i checked the link and in fact google only returns one hit for "okham's racer", which directs back to this page. That's a first for me, I should get like an internet trophy or something.
the only explanation that makes sense to me is okham's racer: plane was flying to beijing, a fire broke out or depressurization in the cabin or hold. pilot turned around to go back to the nearest airport, but they ran out of oxygen and it became a ghost ship on autopilot until it ran out of fuel in the indian ocean. the altitude changes is consistent with a fire because apparently one way to fight a fire on an airplane is to go really high where there is less oxygen.
actually to be fair, I had a devil of a time finding dimmer sockets on the market. maybe now that everybody is using CFLs there's no demand for dimmers? Best I found was Amazon had one for $13.00. A cheap-looking one at that. There's an amazon affiliate called 1000Bulbs that has a wide variety of really nice looking dimmers, but they all have $10 shipping fee each!
doubleplus one. today we spend a bunch of money on new stuff that duplicates the functionality of old stuff. recently I spent $15 on an LED bulb and $15 on a dimmer lamp socket so I could have a dimmable lamp, something we had with the first electric lamps 100 years ago, and something we've had with oil lamps for 300 years.
he's not trying to "save" anybody from their own nature. he's just saying that by the rules he follows these would be the consequences, fyi. now, go about your day.
yeah that's why my wife and I got married instead of just cohabitating, when I was in the ER and she was blocked from finding out about my condition. that's not the only reason why we got married, but it definitely showed us the importance of tying the knot/noose.
Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life.
supreme court says that donating money is a form of speech. so yes, he was disagreeing with the other side and stating his opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it a brick? Does it still surf the web and do email and all that other stuff it did straight out of the box?
As I said above, freedom was always balanced with personal responsibility, and today because of the internet people are abandoning personal responsibility and abusing their freedom. So you end up with furry pr0n and disgusting things that are a blight on society. Surely you agree that to preserve freedom for most you need to curtail the freedoms of these savages.
-1 unsupported statements. Why is censorship always intolerable? I think horrible things should be censored.
Then maybe out freedoms should be curtailed to live in a decent society. It used to be that government freedoms were moderated with individual responsibility and social pressure. Now the latter two are gone and we have revenge porn and up skirts. Disgusting.
Depends on the revenue model. If they're using cloud to drive subscriptions a la office365, then users are the customers. If they're using the cloud and social to sell advertising, then users are the product.
I agree, they make an intuitive platform for customers to use. Adwords and Adsense, eg. Or were you referring to the users of these sites? Users are the product, the commodity to be sold.
MS is walking a fine line as it tries to transition from a company that sees users as the target to be exploited and a company that sees users as the customers. Remember all the crapware like Norton installed on every new PC. MS was cool with this because it enabled the OEMs to them more $$. If they were user focused they would have never allowed it.
Now they're trying to move to an apple model where the user is first. blocking adware is part of this. but turning a big ship takes time, and there are a lot of long-time corporate relationships that need to change, so they are phasing in this new policy to block adware by default.
Now that MS has gotten the "customer is king" memo, there are only two companies that see users as a resource to be exploited for gain, and customers as partners to assist in this exploitation: goog and fb.
i don't have time to consult the manual. i have a girlfriend.
there must be a way that is consistent with our constitutional values to outlaw something that is vile and disgusting.
laughing so hard... I thought you were exaggerating but i checked the link and in fact google only returns one hit for "okham's racer", which directs back to this page. That's a first for me, I should get like an internet trophy or something.
the only explanation that makes sense to me is okham's racer: plane was flying to beijing, a fire broke out or depressurization in the cabin or hold. pilot turned around to go back to the nearest airport, but they ran out of oxygen and it became a ghost ship on autopilot until it ran out of fuel in the indian ocean. the altitude changes is consistent with a fire because apparently one way to fight a fire on an airplane is to go really high where there is less oxygen.
or, I already have lamps that I like and do not feel like buying new ones.
actually to be fair, I had a devil of a time finding dimmer sockets on the market. maybe now that everybody is using CFLs there's no demand for dimmers? Best I found was Amazon had one for $13.00. A cheap-looking one at that. There's an amazon affiliate called 1000Bulbs that has a wide variety of really nice looking dimmers, but they all have $10 shipping fee each!
doubleplus one. today we spend a bunch of money on new stuff that duplicates the functionality of old stuff. recently I spent $15 on an LED bulb and $15 on a dimmer lamp socket so I could have a dimmable lamp, something we had with the first electric lamps 100 years ago, and something we've had with oil lamps for 300 years.
this reminds me of those micro 4/3 cameras with the interchangeable lenses, except surveys find that many of the consumers never switch lenses...
yes, you are the only one.
roku has a new streaming stick that's $50. it plugs right into the back of the tv, but it needs a power cable.
i go outside to Skate or Die.
bite the bullet... that was the problem that started this mess!
also, goog will run ads against it.
that would be awesome, organ donor bounty hunters.
you can if you are able to, but I was in the ER and not able to give instructions on who should be able to access information about me...
he's not trying to "save" anybody from their own nature. he's just saying that by the rules he follows these would be the consequences, fyi. now, go about your day.
yeah that's why my wife and I got married instead of just cohabitating, when I was in the ER and she was blocked from finding out about my condition. that's not the only reason why we got married, but it definitely showed us the importance of tying the knot/noose.
Donating money to a group that me I'm not allowed to marry who I want isn't politely disagreeing with someone: it's taking an active measure that will have a negative impact on my life.
supreme court says that donating money is a form of speech. so yes, he was disagreeing with the other side and stating his opinion.