Twitter itself is becoming an advertising / corporate platform, perhaps not the social media magnate it once was. I'd argue that, if Glass is dead, so is twitter - or at least heading that way, and that perhaps while their assessment holds true, maybe they need to rethink their own business model.
It's not programmed for one generation - it degrades, though, with successive generations, ultimately meaning if you want to have reasonable yields, you need fresh seeds. The biggest problem is that to plant normal seeds after switching to GMO, farmers typically need to wait ~7yrs. For many farmers, that's financially impossible - so they're even more locked into buying new seeds annually.
Do some research before you make stupid statements that show you don't understand the issue.
If farmers do want to go back to normal seeds - *once their contract with Monsanto is up* - they typically have to wait an average of 7 years and use a lot of round-up on the soil before growing non-GMO. That's pretty much locked in, no?
For some reason they haven't spread into Africa - but are all over North America/Europe in a large way, someone needs to start providing higher quality seed options for the poorest farmers of the world rather than leave the door wide open for obvious pillagers like most of the shameless extortionists in the Big Ag industry. Once they convince people of the higher yields and lock them in, ah.. one of the saddest things in the world - and seeing it happen in the poorest nations just compounds that feeling. These people need food. Technology can help make that happen. The technology that will make that happen - must not be patented and created with self-degradation causing forced-repurchase as a 'feature'.
Many people will complain about this. I initially thought along the same lines as many of the above posters when reading the blurb about what's about to happen - and also think it's terrible. What will happen, though, is the extremity and sleaziness also strikes enough interest that people _will watch it_, even if they hate Discovery channel while doing so. They'll get the viewers. They'll get attention. It'll be passed around. They surely know already that they have a reputation dive akin to GT Advanced's stock dive, so when you're deemed a channel with momentum diving downward so quickly I suppose they thought along the lines of: Embrace It...there are enough people who eat this shit up that it'll likely be their best ratings in recent memory.
Mt. Everest.. Mt Blanc.. a large part of the 'club' is being someone who can afford - and otherwise thinks themselves above the likelihood, of cheating the statistics. There is a certain lackluster cheating death and being above the rest arrogance that goes with these types of adventures, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. There is also a lot of jealousy and resentment amongst the crowd who sits in their chairs at home criticising those who choose to try something different - without that kind of investment and spirit, humanity on whole would not be better off.
Welp, they got him! Don't we all feel so much safer. After all, the heinous crime of "assisting in making copyright content available" surely warrants the international manhunts. I can walk downstairs and buy a stack of any movies or games or, well, anything I wish in the open in China..good thing countries like the US use grand tools like embargos to press the Chinese government to do something about it!
It's easy to pick a famous name - or create symbols for these 'wars' and spend ridiculous amounts of money on the behalf of old-style big business with lobbyists and donations...but the solution to piracy is to change the business model employed by the companies or artists who are being hurt by piracy. Louis CK famously sold $1mil in a week worth of $5 specials on his own website, why? Because he put out a great product and said: You don't need to sign up with a bunch of information or provide me with a bunch of details, or opt into some kind of marketing scheme, you can give me $5 and get a product, and watch it anywhere on any device you want..or pirate it.. do whatever you like - but I'm trying to provide a quality product and hopefully you'll appreciate that.
The alternative is to fall into the game, music, and movie big industry problem of pushing out a massive amount of shit at high 'standardised' pricing to audiences who are tired of spending too much and getting too little, and as a result, driving people to simply pirate and try things before deciding what they really want to support. Personally I pirate most of my games, I also bought legitimate consoles and buy legitimate copies of games I *really* want, or buy authentic DVD/sets when there is something I really like out there - 100% of which I have already seen.
They'll get the hint, someday, or crumble eventually. For now, people like Gottfrid need to be admired for what they've contributed to making change happen.
So the tech giants are donating ALMOST as much as the clownface Ballmer receives in tax breaks from purchasing a sports team? Great job guys! Let us gather and praise the fractions of tax deductible gifts which pale in comparison to the profits earned by manufacturing in poverty stricken countries and shirking domestic tax responsibilities, because it is the only salvation to clean you're otherwise amoral-yet-wretched corporate souls.
This has been going on for maybe a month -- but glad someone has logged/traced/pointed it out.. at least for hotmail.com. It's not consistent - but it has happened to me maybe 10 or 15 times in the last month. Typically it's perfectly fine.
Yes, because pre-configured SD cards don't exist. It's *really* tough.
Everything has some level of configuration, if you've ever used an onion pi, the tutorials and walk-thrus are as granny friendly as the tutorials or walk-thrus to set up any router, really.
This is a common discussion when using other tangents - like government control vs. individual freedoms...and this is the crux of the discussion at hand.
On one hand, we have claims of "Forced sandboxing kills many applications" -- to which the comparison of the Android market vs. the App Store has metrics which show the benefits vs. risks (how many app store apps have propagated major malware?), on the other we have claims of preferring security and legitimacy over copies and extremely poorly written malware ridden apps? Personally, from a customer perspective, I'd like to think what I download onto my PC (or phone) has been vetted and behaves in a relatively secure way over simply rolling the dice, and I think the complaint in the topic above has a lot to do with being unable to write a program with true consumer value that meets coding standards. To that, I say, OP, cry more, cupcake..or come up with something original and learn to code.
So we'll have a bunch of idiots reading this type of article or seeing it somewhere in the news, and immediately start feeding their sick family members their own shit to save money. This spells disaster all over it. Rather than "Please Wash Your Hands" signs, people will expect "Please Poop On Your Hands" signs in their place -- for health reasons, of course.
"We roughly know who they are. If we can take them out of the equation then the rest will fall down,"
The same rhetoric is encouraged by the military industrial complex to start wars that benefit their bottom line. This is no different.. "give me the resources and I'll finish it up" -- yeah, just like the War on Drugs, too, right? Nonsense. You can't attack something without the centralisation and infrastructure of stable nations or organisations, which is why things like "Bomb Isis!" fail so miserably. This dude is just making monkey statements to get funding for his department, to which even if he succeeded in taking down "the hundred kingpins", nothing would ultimately change as others would rise in 'their' place.
"but is it so difficult to imagine that the Chinese would simply not care at all about whether or not Marco Polo visited them, and would care somewhat about not offending guests and traders?"
Yes, it is hard to imagine. As the Chinese grow in power and gain significant trade leverage, the begin to display hubris when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. China and Japan are enormous trading partners, for example, I think China is around Japan's #1 trading partner and Japan is somewhere in the 3rd/4th largest range for China, yet both grandstanding and politically divisive statements come out all the time. Do you *TRULY* think that anyone in Europe would care whatsoever beyond wanting to know the truth, whether Marco Polo came to China or not? If China had evidence to support or disprove the claim, surely either way, nobody would care at all - other than wanting the evidence to either support or disprove the claim.
Yes, because Europe would no longer want to do business with China if the Chinese had asserted that Marco Polo did not visit them as he had claimed..especially when Europe itself has many skeptics. Good call out, critical thinking at its finest!
What? "never pointed out major inventions like paper" - he pointed out specifically and meticulously the use of paper money and salt. http://www.history.com/news/ma...
"Historians before him have touched on these issues while defending Marco Polo’s honor, but Vogel also relies on another compelling body of evidence: the explorer’s meticulous descriptions of currency and salt production in the Yuan era. According to Vogel, Polo documents these aspects of Mongol Chinese civilization in greater detail than any of his Western, Arab or Persian contemporaries, a hint that the Venetian relied on his own powers of observation. Polo’s claims about the size of paper money and the value of salt, among other aspects, check out against archaeological evidence and Chinese documents maintained by Yuan officials, Vogel concluded."
One thing I find interesting - is that they teach Chinese students of Marco Polo in China. I would imagine that, if presented with "Hey, look, this dude from Europe visited you guys hundreds of years ago and did trade with the Mongols!" the first to refute and expose that would be the Chinese, as it would seem that their history would more likely be the source of truth (or closer to the source) rather than simply speculating on the contents of his verbal transcript.
Butthurt that a subsidy you acquired didn't get a piece of the action. Don't dare let successful companies who have won contracts keep those contracts without getting something out of it.
I love the reasoning, since it neglects the fact that they're the ones who should cover the *opportunity cost* of the supposed resident who may down the road want their service. Since when could companies charge people for the potential opportunity cost of other people? That's a wonderful precedent.
In order to justify expenses and hopefully get them covered by your employer - you need to present a business case. This means identifying what you plan to gain (realistically) and how that will benefit the employer, ultimately relating that to an efficiency or performance increase in some measurable way, which ultimately impacts the bottom line - the business decision your boss needs to make is: "Is this going to be profitable for us down the road..." and thinking that through deeply comes down to many factors, including the replacement/time cost should you go elsewhere as a result of the decision. If you can't put together a good business case as to why you should be there, then likely you should expect to pay for it on your own -- unless previous discussions included that sort of thing as a 'perk' of your employment.
It all comes down to business sense. Surely your boss would love to send you - however, for him to justify it to anyone who asks, it needs to also be a sound *business* decision..and that's where you need to put on your non-techy hat and instead, think about cost-benefit.
The OP is just a whiny anecdotal bitch. First, when you complain about performance, you provide relevant hardware information. Then, you provide statistics. Ultimately, you can say "look!" -- but without either of the first and second item, you just appear to be a random whiner.
The bottom line isn't about what is cheaper and what can be put in - it's the users.
When I ordered my wife's new phone, I asked how much memory she wanted. She didn't know - said her current one is 64, so at least 64. I said hold on, wait:
Went home, checked her phone, said, "You realize with all the apps, photos, videos, etc..you've only breached 5gigs on your phone, right?"
Many users simply *do not need the capacity*. Just because many of us are geeks, install a ton of stuff, and store a lot of media, doesn't mean most people do. Many people use their phones _as phones_ and enjoy the simple features of photo/videos on demand on occasion, reasonable security, being able to video chat, etc...and have a good UI to work with. They don't *need* huge storage. A reason why 16 gig models are often the best selling isn't because everyone utilizes cloud storage - but because they simply DO NOT NEED that much storage, and just want the built in features.
Think: Customer centric. It'd do many of the previous posters some good -- calling yourself an IT genius does nothing if your technology doesn't serve real people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, petty thievery demands execution. Spot on, mate! Spot on!
What do you say we do with the swarthy cads who cross the road without even having the decency to use a crosswalk, guv'nuh?
Twitter itself is becoming an advertising / corporate platform, perhaps not the social media magnate it once was. I'd argue that, if Glass is dead, so is twitter - or at least heading that way, and that perhaps while their assessment holds true, maybe they need to rethink their own business model.
It's not programmed for one generation - it degrades, though, with successive generations, ultimately meaning if you want to have reasonable yields, you need fresh seeds. The biggest problem is that to plant normal seeds after switching to GMO, farmers typically need to wait ~7yrs. For many farmers, that's financially impossible - so they're even more locked into buying new seeds annually.
Do some research before you make stupid statements that show you don't understand the issue.
If farmers do want to go back to normal seeds - *once their contract with Monsanto is up* - they typically have to wait an average of 7 years and use a lot of round-up on the soil before growing non-GMO. That's pretty much locked in, no?
"any time they choose" -- not in this reality.
A few years ago, this was started: http://www.opensourceseediniti...
For some reason they haven't spread into Africa - but are all over North America/Europe in a large way, someone needs to start providing higher quality seed options for the poorest farmers of the world rather than leave the door wide open for obvious pillagers like most of the shameless extortionists in the Big Ag industry. Once they convince people of the higher yields and lock them in, ah.. one of the saddest things in the world - and seeing it happen in the poorest nations just compounds that feeling. These people need food. Technology can help make that happen. The technology that will make that happen - must not be patented and created with self-degradation causing forced-repurchase as a 'feature'.
Many people will complain about this. I initially thought along the same lines as many of the above posters when reading the blurb about what's about to happen - and also think it's terrible. What will happen, though, is the extremity and sleaziness also strikes enough interest that people _will watch it_, even if they hate Discovery channel while doing so. They'll get the viewers. They'll get attention. It'll be passed around. They surely know already that they have a reputation dive akin to GT Advanced's stock dive, so when you're deemed a channel with momentum diving downward so quickly I suppose they thought along the lines of: Embrace It...there are enough people who eat this shit up that it'll likely be their best ratings in recent memory.
Mt. Everest.. Mt Blanc.. a large part of the 'club' is being someone who can afford - and otherwise thinks themselves above the likelihood, of cheating the statistics. There is a certain lackluster cheating death and being above the rest arrogance that goes with these types of adventures, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. There is also a lot of jealousy and resentment amongst the crowd who sits in their chairs at home criticising those who choose to try something different - without that kind of investment and spirit, humanity on whole would not be better off.
Welp, they got him! Don't we all feel so much safer. After all, the heinous crime of "assisting in making copyright content available" surely warrants the international manhunts. I can walk downstairs and buy a stack of any movies or games or, well, anything I wish in the open in China..good thing countries like the US use grand tools like embargos to press the Chinese government to do something about it!
It's easy to pick a famous name - or create symbols for these 'wars' and spend ridiculous amounts of money on the behalf of old-style big business with lobbyists and donations...but the solution to piracy is to change the business model employed by the companies or artists who are being hurt by piracy. Louis CK famously sold $1mil in a week worth of $5 specials on his own website, why? Because he put out a great product and said: You don't need to sign up with a bunch of information or provide me with a bunch of details, or opt into some kind of marketing scheme, you can give me $5 and get a product, and watch it anywhere on any device you want..or pirate it.. do whatever you like - but I'm trying to provide a quality product and hopefully you'll appreciate that.
The alternative is to fall into the game, music, and movie big industry problem of pushing out a massive amount of shit at high 'standardised' pricing to audiences who are tired of spending too much and getting too little, and as a result, driving people to simply pirate and try things before deciding what they really want to support. Personally I pirate most of my games, I also bought legitimate consoles and buy legitimate copies of games I *really* want, or buy authentic DVD/sets when there is something I really like out there - 100% of which I have already seen.
They'll get the hint, someday, or crumble eventually. For now, people like Gottfrid need to be admired for what they've contributed to making change happen.
The problem is any launch in China that fails will smoke some people on the ground. There are people on the ground _everywhere_. :D
So the tech giants are donating ALMOST as much as the clownface Ballmer receives in tax breaks from purchasing a sports team? Great job guys! Let us gather and praise the fractions of tax deductible gifts which pale in comparison to the profits earned by manufacturing in poverty stricken countries and shirking domestic tax responsibilities, because it is the only salvation to clean you're otherwise amoral-yet-wretched corporate souls.
This has been going on for maybe a month -- but glad someone has logged/traced/pointed it out.. at least for hotmail.com. It's not consistent - but it has happened to me maybe 10 or 15 times in the last month. Typically it's perfectly fine.
Yes, because pre-configured SD cards don't exist. It's *really* tough.
Everything has some level of configuration, if you've ever used an onion pi, the tutorials and walk-thrus are as granny friendly as the tutorials or walk-thrus to set up any router, really.
I don't see what problem this solves that the Onion Pi doesn't solve?
This is a common discussion when using other tangents - like government control vs. individual freedoms...and this is the crux of the discussion at hand.
On one hand, we have claims of "Forced sandboxing kills many applications" -- to which the comparison of the Android market vs. the App Store has metrics which show the benefits vs. risks (how many app store apps have propagated major malware?), on the other we have claims of preferring security and legitimacy over copies and extremely poorly written malware ridden apps? Personally, from a customer perspective, I'd like to think what I download onto my PC (or phone) has been vetted and behaves in a relatively secure way over simply rolling the dice, and I think the complaint in the topic above has a lot to do with being unable to write a program with true consumer value that meets coding standards. To that, I say, OP, cry more, cupcake..or come up with something original and learn to code.
So we'll have a bunch of idiots reading this type of article or seeing it somewhere in the news, and immediately start feeding their sick family members their own shit to save money. This spells disaster all over it. Rather than "Please Wash Your Hands" signs, people will expect "Please Poop On Your Hands" signs in their place -- for health reasons, of course.
"We roughly know who they are. If we can take them out of the equation then the rest will fall down,"
The same rhetoric is encouraged by the military industrial complex to start wars that benefit their bottom line. This is no different.. "give me the resources and I'll finish it up" -- yeah, just like the War on Drugs, too, right? Nonsense. You can't attack something without the centralisation and infrastructure of stable nations or organisations, which is why things like "Bomb Isis!" fail so miserably. This dude is just making monkey statements to get funding for his department, to which even if he succeeded in taking down "the hundred kingpins", nothing would ultimately change as others would rise in 'their' place.
"but is it so difficult to imagine that the Chinese would simply not care at all about whether or not Marco Polo visited them, and would care somewhat about not offending guests and traders?"
Yes, it is hard to imagine. As the Chinese grow in power and gain significant trade leverage, the begin to display hubris when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. China and Japan are enormous trading partners, for example, I think China is around Japan's #1 trading partner and Japan is somewhere in the 3rd/4th largest range for China, yet both grandstanding and politically divisive statements come out all the time. Do you *TRULY* think that anyone in Europe would care whatsoever beyond wanting to know the truth, whether Marco Polo came to China or not? If China had evidence to support or disprove the claim, surely either way, nobody would care at all - other than wanting the evidence to either support or disprove the claim.
Yes, because Europe would no longer want to do business with China if the Chinese had asserted that Marco Polo did not visit them as he had claimed..especially when Europe itself has many skeptics. Good call out, critical thinking at its finest!
What? "never pointed out major inventions like paper" - he pointed out specifically and meticulously the use of paper money and salt. http://www.history.com/news/ma...
"Historians before him have touched on these issues while defending Marco Polo’s honor, but Vogel also relies on another compelling body of evidence: the explorer’s meticulous descriptions of currency and salt production in the Yuan era. According to Vogel, Polo documents these aspects of Mongol Chinese civilization in greater detail than any of his Western, Arab or Persian contemporaries, a hint that the Venetian relied on his own powers of observation. Polo’s claims about the size of paper money and the value of salt, among other aspects, check out against archaeological evidence and Chinese documents maintained by Yuan officials, Vogel concluded."
One thing I find interesting - is that they teach Chinese students of Marco Polo in China. I would imagine that, if presented with "Hey, look, this dude from Europe visited you guys hundreds of years ago and did trade with the Mongols!" the first to refute and expose that would be the Chinese, as it would seem that their history would more likely be the source of truth (or closer to the source) rather than simply speculating on the contents of his verbal transcript.
**s/subsidy/subsidiary
Butthurt that a subsidy you acquired didn't get a piece of the action. Don't dare let successful companies who have won contracts keep those contracts without getting something out of it.
I love the reasoning, since it neglects the fact that they're the ones who should cover the *opportunity cost* of the supposed resident who may down the road want their service. Since when could companies charge people for the potential opportunity cost of other people? That's a wonderful precedent.
In order to justify expenses and hopefully get them covered by your employer - you need to present a business case. This means identifying what you plan to gain (realistically) and how that will benefit the employer, ultimately relating that to an efficiency or performance increase in some measurable way, which ultimately impacts the bottom line - the business decision your boss needs to make is: "Is this going to be profitable for us down the road..." and thinking that through deeply comes down to many factors, including the replacement/time cost should you go elsewhere as a result of the decision. If you can't put together a good business case as to why you should be there, then likely you should expect to pay for it on your own -- unless previous discussions included that sort of thing as a 'perk' of your employment.
It all comes down to business sense. Surely your boss would love to send you - however, for him to justify it to anyone who asks, it needs to also be a sound *business* decision..and that's where you need to put on your non-techy hat and instead, think about cost-benefit.
The OP is just a whiny anecdotal bitch. First, when you complain about performance, you provide relevant hardware information. Then, you provide statistics. Ultimately, you can say "look!" -- but without either of the first and second item, you just appear to be a random whiner.
The bottom line isn't about what is cheaper and what can be put in - it's the users.
When I ordered my wife's new phone, I asked how much memory she wanted. She didn't know - said her current one is 64, so at least 64. I said hold on, wait:
Went home, checked her phone, said, "You realize with all the apps, photos, videos, etc..you've only breached 5gigs on your phone, right?"
Many users simply *do not need the capacity*. Just because many of us are geeks, install a ton of stuff, and store a lot of media, doesn't mean most people do. Many people use their phones _as phones_ and enjoy the simple features of photo/videos on demand on occasion, reasonable security, being able to video chat, etc...and have a good UI to work with. They don't *need* huge storage. A reason why 16 gig models are often the best selling isn't because everyone utilizes cloud storage - but because they simply DO NOT NEED that much storage, and just want the built in features.
Think: Customer centric. It'd do many of the previous posters some good -- calling yourself an IT genius does nothing if your technology doesn't serve real people.