Did you do any research or analysis first, or just assume that the word "estimates" means he's wrong? By definition, an estimate is wrong. The question is by how much. Care to throw some estimates of how much that is?
Sherlund tends to be on Microsoft's side, so unless this is a lover's spat I'm inclined to give Sherlund at least some ground here.
If you haven't noticed, the "three screens" idea seems to be taking Microsoft in the wrong direction - tabletizing the desktop and leading to terrible ideas like the ever so portable but completely incompatible Surface RT. Aside from being able to force Xbox users to do stupid shit they resent, and pretending that desktop users like business and gamers who traditionally would not wipe their asses with a tablet if that were the only option, Xbox doesn't seem to be paying off.
If Microsoft felt like maybe things were paying off, it wouldn't rearrange the corporation's earnings statements to further obscure the actual source of revenue. I'll let you find this one for yourself, but it was covered right here, and roundly derided.
I'm guessing your job doesn't consist of digging through reports to try and read between the lines on publicly traded companies? I'm going with the guy who does it professionally until there's something else to base my conclusion on.
I'm much more concerned that to disable a codec, you have to create a new registry key for GDIPlus, then add "DisableTIFFCodec" specifically to disable Windows-wide the built-in TIFF rendering.
There's not a whitelist so that you can search for what's enabled - there's a hidden key that is queried every time a Microsoft application *starts* so that if it is already running making the change has no effect.
That it is called "DisableTIFFCodec" - I'm not even sure what the words are to properly object to that. If someone wants to disable TIFF, they have to know what it's called. And a registry watcher is going to note the GDIPlus failure, and it won't even try to check the actual values so you will never know they exist unless you create a key for every failure and see what else is queried.
I'm sure this is a short circuit optimization to test fewer keys. I'm just as sure there is a better solution. With dynamic linking, couldn't I just remove a file and let the loader eat the error? System files which are properly protected sound like the obvious answer to these sorts of enable/disable toggles.
To actually have a workaround, I have two choices. One, let some binary from Microsoft run. They have never had problems with patches, right? Wrong. Or to view the details, I have to have JavaScript enabled because the page loads as display:hidden which sucks. Or of course view source which is always slightly painful.
It's obscure and arcane and just dirty.
And at this point, the attack surface is so huge and ingrained, they have an officially supported "Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit " which, I assume, adds precautions that cause degraded performance or incompatibility in some applications. So you have to choose between things working and being insecure.
It's like a reverse Metasploit. But even that requires a commandline: "C:\Program Files\EMET\EMET_Conf.exe" --set "*\Microsoft Office\Office1*\Office application filename.exe"
The decisions that were made were probably reasonable independently. In fact I can probably argue for each one without knowing specifics. But someone has to answer to the monstrosity this has become.
I'm not worried about the amount of time the patch will take, because I would rather it work, and testing the various combinations and ensuring it works right takes time. The amount of third party software that might rely on this is probably a huge impact - they can't break Adobe or Mozilla or Google products, and the huge amount of business-critical COTS software that does strange things has to be a headache. I saw a list years ago of all the titles that Windows specifically has hacks to support, and I'm sure it has only grown, even with throwing old titles off the list. But even without that, this should be disturbing.
I use Twitter to store things I want to remember but don't mind losing. When I see a sponsored twit, I comment inappropriately with their hashtags then delete the sponsored twit. I don't think I'm using it right. Also, my followers are definitely not using it right. They may have serious mental issues.
People know which side they are on before the first sentence is done, and frequently before the headline. All the pesky details, at best they support your side. At worst, you think the source is biased, ignorant, or wrong, and facts make you cling more firmly. With an inflammatory nick, people are predisposed to finding fault with my posts. I get specific users who just have to disagree, and positive moderation. I conclude that the smart people just don't wade in when someone is clearly wrong. A quick snipe with a single fact is easier to digest than a manifesto on the many ways someone is wrong. There wil be people leaving and joining, and the noobs will have to learn this lesson again: You learn the most when you assume you are wrong, and consider the opposing argument honestly. Or even try arguing that side and find fault with your own. We are stuck until the internet finds a solution to that.
Looks like someone who is certain there must be a translated version either on the site or linked in a forum. I assume the Firefox visit is from the xp virtual mode of win7.
Seeing requests from a translator service like " via translate" or babelfish might make this less suspicious.
If I wrote you in Persian, I would think that a request for a book would be in that language, if it were not available on the site.
Review the conclusions, considering we don't know search history outside of what is presented. Nothing is obviously wrong. A pro needs to examine the full logs and probably other data, and likely won't find anything wrong. Of course it is harder to prove a negative, since you could have missed the one smoking gun.
Everything I remember from theodp is a hackfest, promoting one-sided arguments and in many cases non sequitur inflammatory garbage. I usually play "spot the nonsense" which is usually easy.
Anecdotes do not make evidence, associate the borg leader who just donated money and didn't really do anything wrong other than make nerds angry, assume that parent and teacher experience can determine whether a child would get an answer correct without knowing how the curriculum or preparation was introducing topics, and using the worst example as representative of the whole.
These are egregious errors. Not as bad as scoring first graders on a multiple choice test, but pretty bad.
The pennies problem is obviously supposed to be 6-1=5, and they had to do something to prevent students from counting all the pictured pennies, or other solutions which did not involve just counting for the answer. It was a poor solution to the difficult problem of writing a good question, and not age appropriate. But it hardly reeks of failure.
I'm not convinced you can read and write. Go up to the top, where the "ponied up $150 million" link is that you're complaining about, and look where the money was spent. It was not on the one test in question, and not on the common curriculum in question.
Come back when you know what you're outraged about. There's genuine outrage to be had, but you missed the mark.
Re-read that. I would not expect either one of these people to be able to do these things. I am not surprised, and given the timeframe I would be surprised if Ford could not put together what is a relatively simple mechanical device compared to what we have these days.
If they can, great, but I don't have that expectation. Ford built an empire on the assembly line, and by paying his employees well. Oppenheimer had more brain work than physical labor as his legacy.
I wouldn't expect someone who can come up with the relationships needed to (fairly) accurately find the most relevant of billions of web pages on the first ten results, to follow best practice or write something that anyone else could use, let alone read. If they can, wonderful, but the expectation is not there.
Maintainability is highly subjective. I have maintained code that got all of its definitions from the database, so that changing field definitions or adding fields requires no code change and very little UI change. Changing business logic was impossible because of where changes were detected and transferred to persistence.
That was a different definition of maintainable.
I have seen code where a clearly separated ui, business layer, persistence layer, and storage, including mapping objects both ways, require changes in 10 places or more to make a tiny change. And the guy before me missed several places so the changed field lengths didn't actually work.
Another different definition of maintainable.
I'm not going to go into the stupidity of excluding medical software because it doesn't fit the definition of coding jobs you want to disparage, your misplaced priorities, or your apparent general ignorance outside of a very small range of experiences you have had, because that's just obvious.
But I do want to impress upon you that maintainability does mean something, and anyone you ask will give you a definition - usually different. There is, however, a generally accepted definition that, while somewhat malleable, involves allowing someone other than who wrote it to find the logic needed to make changes or find bugs and fix them, or add enhancements without having to restructure more than a tiny bit.
Sometimes that involves code reviews to ferret out "clever" but non-obvious solutions, documentation such as UML or other graphs, pseudo code sessions to sanity test a design before it is etched in stone, or kick Murdoch5 (1563847) in the balls.
"what they do" was design an algorithm, which they were pretty good at. Also deciding to use a simple, clean interface, also good. "What' they do" now is run a huge company. That's what they do.
Code, which was a means to those ends, is not something they do well, and probably not "what they do" now, nor for the most part over the last 20 years.
Writing code, which is not "what they do", is something they are apparently lousy at. And that's fine, because they hired a boatload of people to do it for them so they could focus on "what they do".
Lobbying starts with large campaign contributions. You make the short list, you get face time, and can influence legislation. Outright corruption and direct bribery are a completely different thing. That's giving the candidate directly, or indirectly for their direct benefit, some amount of money.
It makes having a discussion a lot easier if people talk about paying the candidate's next election funds and straight up bribery as if they were the distinct things they actually are.
We can agree that direct corruption is bad. We can't agree that paying for the election is bad. That's where we need to talk.
It's funny because people who get a decent paying job where bureaucrats want them to touch strangers' junk stop being people. It has nothing to do with the bureaucrats and the people who think security theater works.
He is pitting the outrage against itself. You can't support and condone spying without implicitly approving these programs. So either they are voicing faux outrage, or they have to consider him a whistle-blower worthy of at least protection.
I expect more quotes like this, building from subtle trolling to using actual quotes either in support of his case or against the programs in question.
I guess that's why we cooperated to form agrarian societies to bring the food where we live, formed cities and cultures, and enough infrastructure to support the industrial followed by the information revolution?
Because a few asshats here and there, who will always spoil the party, are the only things you know about history and human nature.
I guess we all signed oaths on grass or leaves, and communicated abstract ideas in a nonexistent language in order to achieve the goal of not starving to death.
You're not insightful - you're obvious, and obvious is immediately suspect as wrong. And in this case, you're wrong. If I had a club, I would club you in an attempt to be dominant, and the rest of the people would resume their discussion and forget you existed. You would remember me, because I stuck out in your mind, and it would dominate your opinion of how people work together, or fail to, but it wouldn't be truth.
No. They will run the company into the ground to make the financial goals. You just ruined half or more of the business based economy, and put millions of people out of work.
Misunderstandings and ignorance included, all of these replies are your answer, and none are. Each shareholder voted for their own reasons. You would have to poll them all for an actual answer. With the number of shares involved, it may be more about company control and stock price than compensation. Think like a shareholder. If you don't own stock, pick 3 companies and buy token stock, like $20 each. follow the price for a year. You will understand so much more that way.
Have all contributors be personally invested. From the unemployed hacker to the red hat ceo, everyone in linux wants it to work. It is more than a paycheck. Can you do that with this site? No. Not even close. You have to hire intelligently, over many years. It is possible. But how much development cost went into linux? How much went into what Linus or tenenbaum rejected? Work that was done, in other words, but discarded? We have to count that for comparison, and it won't be pretty.
The dollar amount has been repeatedly debunked and you're an idiot for mentioning it. But apparently in the middle of the night, the site is still slow and hit and miss. To that point, the architecture has to suck balls. It needs rework badly, complete rewriting. It is easy to say this upfront and be accidentally right. But it is harder to study and conclude this is the only course of action. I continue to preach caution in conclusions, but there is no arguing alternatives if you have kept up.
Anyone who identifies a dupe can be moderated +6 awesome for 7 days. Anyone who submits a dupe is automatically modded -1 for 7 days. Karma bonus for both memory over a week, and reading comprehension. And fuck dice for ruining what once was mediocre.
That's the kind of idea that sounds great until you get to the details. Who actually employs them, how do they get hired, who watches over the project managers as a stakeholder?
The reason contractors get used is they offload all of these problems.
"I know someone who is employed by the government therefore they can hire people directly." "My brother works in IT, they can just shore up the team and have them do the website."
No, these do not work. Adding infrastructure to handle these employed people is an overhead cost. Having a place for them to work, hardware and software licenses, someone as help desk, box admins. If you want a distributed team you have voice and connectivity issues to fix.
Finding a team of qualified people who can be self-supportive and operate in the way you need a team to operate so they can just get code, requirements, and testing done, is not simple.
Would people quit an existing job for a 3-year contract? Probably no. Do you want a team made up of people who don't have a job? For unemployment it sounds like a great idea, but is this the team you want?
Tell us how your idea would work, and make it sound like you through about this in more than a rainbow and unicorn fart kind of way. Because while it sounds good, it just won't work. Is everyone background checked? And knows what HIPAA requires? And knows to follow the government implementation guidelines? And can do the proper vulnerability scanning required? I'm pretty sure we just took most of the unemployed citizens out of the pool.
But fuck it, let's go with pure unadulterated idealism, because it works.
It is impossible for someone to be this obtuse any way other than intentionally. Not reading, taking out of context, or turning the brain off would all be intentional. Not learning how to read, or not seeking help getting better, likewise. Good luck in life, kid. You're going to need all you can get. Moderators, the parent post is not worth moderating. It is best left alone as an example of how not to participate in any kind of discussion.
That is exactly what they do, only rounding is involved. $60 minus spotify rounds to zero.
Or are you saying a $45 payment for a year would make a difference?
Depending on the people involved, it may take $1000 to $5000 to mean anything.
The current method allows adding obscure and unknown acts, with a reasonable threshold built in naturally.
Most importantly, the payments are not for services rendered. This is how all of the music industry works, and they run risks on angering the MAFIAA. Imperfect compensation or no spotify, which do you choose?
Maybe in a few years they can change it, but now is a little early to make changes the industry won't like.
Is it ten o'clock yet? I can't wait until it's ten o'clock. Do you know why? I bet you don't. I just like ten o'clock. Especially when it's in the morning because I can say "top o' the mornin' to ya" and sound bright and cheery.
And look at all the apostrophes I get to use! It's almost like apostrophes can do anything. They're magical and mystical and wonderful. Got to love apostrophes.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you do any research or analysis first, or just assume that the word "estimates" means he's wrong?
By definition, an estimate is wrong. The question is by how much. Care to throw some estimates of how much that is?
Sherlund tends to be on Microsoft's side, so unless this is a lover's spat I'm inclined to give Sherlund at least some ground here.
If you haven't noticed, the "three screens" idea seems to be taking Microsoft in the wrong direction - tabletizing the desktop and leading to terrible ideas like the ever so portable but completely incompatible Surface RT. Aside from being able to force Xbox users to do stupid shit they resent, and pretending that desktop users like business and gamers who traditionally would not wipe their asses with a tablet if that were the only option, Xbox doesn't seem to be paying off.
If Microsoft felt like maybe things were paying off, it wouldn't rearrange the corporation's earnings statements to further obscure the actual source of revenue. I'll let you find this one for yourself, but it was covered right here, and roundly derided.
I'm guessing your job doesn't consist of digging through reports to try and read between the lines on publicly traded companies? I'm going with the guy who does it professionally until there's something else to base my conclusion on.
I'm much more concerned that to disable a codec, you have to create a new registry key for GDIPlus, then add "DisableTIFFCodec" specifically to disable Windows-wide the built-in TIFF rendering.
There's not a whitelist so that you can search for what's enabled - there's a hidden key that is queried every time a Microsoft application *starts* so that if it is already running making the change has no effect.
That it is called "DisableTIFFCodec" - I'm not even sure what the words are to properly object to that. If someone wants to disable TIFF, they have to know what it's called. And a registry watcher is going to note the GDIPlus failure, and it won't even try to check the actual values so you will never know they exist unless you create a key for every failure and see what else is queried.
I'm sure this is a short circuit optimization to test fewer keys. I'm just as sure there is a better solution. With dynamic linking, couldn't I just remove a file and let the loader eat the error? System files which are properly protected sound like the obvious answer to these sorts of enable/disable toggles.
To actually have a workaround, I have two choices. One, let some binary from Microsoft run. They have never had problems with patches, right? Wrong. Or to view the details, I have to have JavaScript enabled because the page loads as display:hidden which sucks. Or of course view source which is always slightly painful.
It's obscure and arcane and just dirty.
And at this point, the attack surface is so huge and ingrained, they have an officially supported "Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit " which, I assume, adds precautions that cause degraded performance or incompatibility in some applications. So you have to choose between things working and being insecure.
It's like a reverse Metasploit. But even that requires a commandline:
"C:\Program Files\EMET\EMET_Conf.exe" --set "*\Microsoft Office\Office1*\Office application filename.exe"
The decisions that were made were probably reasonable independently. In fact I can probably argue for each one without knowing specifics. But someone has to answer to the monstrosity this has become.
I'm not worried about the amount of time the patch will take, because I would rather it work, and testing the various combinations and ensuring it works right takes time. The amount of third party software that might rely on this is probably a huge impact - they can't break Adobe or Mozilla or Google products, and the huge amount of business-critical COTS software that does strange things has to be a headache. I saw a list years ago of all the titles that Windows specifically has hacks to support, and I'm sure it has only grown, even with throwing old titles off the list. But even without that, this should be disturbing.
I use Twitter to store things I want to remember but don't mind losing. When I see a sponsored twit, I comment inappropriately with their hashtags then delete the sponsored twit.
I don't think I'm using it right. Also, my followers are definitely not using it right. They may have serious mental issues.
People know which side they are on before the first sentence is done, and frequently before the headline. All the pesky details, at best they support your side. At worst, you think the source is biased, ignorant, or wrong, and facts make you cling more firmly.
With an inflammatory nick, people are predisposed to finding fault with my posts. I get specific users who just have to disagree, and positive moderation. I conclude that the smart people just don't wade in when someone is clearly wrong. A quick snipe with a single fact is easier to digest than a manifesto on the many ways someone is wrong.
There wil be people leaving and joining, and the noobs will have to learn this lesson again:
You learn the most when you assume you are wrong, and consider the opposing argument honestly. Or even try arguing that side and find fault with your own. We are stuck until the internet finds a solution to that.
Looks like someone who is certain there must be a translated version either on the site or linked in a forum. I assume the Firefox visit is from the xp virtual mode of win7.
Seeing requests from a translator service like " via translate" or babelfish might make this less suspicious.
If I wrote you in Persian, I would think that a request for a book would be in that language, if it were not available on the site.
Review the conclusions, considering we don't know search history outside of what is presented. Nothing is obviously wrong. A pro needs to examine the full logs and probably other data, and likely won't find anything wrong. Of course it is harder to prove a negative, since you could have missed the one smoking gun.
Everything I remember from theodp is a hackfest, promoting one-sided arguments and in many cases non sequitur inflammatory garbage. I usually play "spot the nonsense" which is usually easy.
Anecdotes do not make evidence, associate the borg leader who just donated money and didn't really do anything wrong other than make nerds angry, assume that parent and teacher experience can determine whether a child would get an answer correct without knowing how the curriculum or preparation was introducing topics, and using the worst example as representative of the whole.
These are egregious errors. Not as bad as scoring first graders on a multiple choice test, but pretty bad.
The pennies problem is obviously supposed to be 6-1=5, and they had to do something to prevent students from counting all the pictured pennies, or other solutions which did not involve just counting for the answer. It was a poor solution to the difficult problem of writing a good question, and not age appropriate. But it hardly reeks of failure.
I'm not convinced you can read and write. Go up to the top, where the "ponied up $150 million" link is that you're complaining about, and look where the money was spent. It was not on the one test in question, and not on the common curriculum in question.
Come back when you know what you're outraged about. There's genuine outrage to be had, but you missed the mark.
Re-read that. I would not expect either one of these people to be able to do these things. I am not surprised, and given the timeframe I would be surprised if Ford could not put together what is a relatively simple mechanical device compared to what we have these days.
If they can, great, but I don't have that expectation. Ford built an empire on the assembly line, and by paying his employees well. Oppenheimer had more brain work than physical labor as his legacy.
I wouldn't expect someone who can come up with the relationships needed to (fairly) accurately find the most relevant of billions of web pages on the first ten results, to follow best practice or write something that anyone else could use, let alone read. If they can, wonderful, but the expectation is not there.
Maintainability is highly subjective. I have maintained code that got all of its definitions from the database, so that changing field definitions or adding fields requires no code change and very little UI change. Changing business logic was impossible because of where changes were detected and transferred to persistence.
That was a different definition of maintainable.
I have seen code where a clearly separated ui, business layer, persistence layer, and storage, including mapping objects both ways, require changes in 10 places or more to make a tiny change. And the guy before me missed several places so the changed field lengths didn't actually work.
Another different definition of maintainable.
I'm not going to go into the stupidity of excluding medical software because it doesn't fit the definition of coding jobs you want to disparage, your misplaced priorities, or your apparent general ignorance outside of a very small range of experiences you have had, because that's just obvious.
But I do want to impress upon you that maintainability does mean something, and anyone you ask will give you a definition - usually different. There is, however, a generally accepted definition that, while somewhat malleable, involves allowing someone other than who wrote it to find the logic needed to make changes or find bugs and fix them, or add enhancements without having to restructure more than a tiny bit.
Sometimes that involves code reviews to ferret out "clever" but non-obvious solutions, documentation such as UML or other graphs, pseudo code sessions to sanity test a design before it is etched in stone, or kick Murdoch5 (1563847) in the balls.
"what they do" was design an algorithm, which they were pretty good at. Also deciding to use a simple, clean interface, also good. "What' they do" now is run a huge company. That's what they do.
Code, which was a means to those ends, is not something they do well, and probably not "what they do" now, nor for the most part over the last 20 years.
Writing code, which is not "what they do", is something they are apparently lousy at. And that's fine, because they hired a boatload of people to do it for them so they could focus on "what they do".
Where "worked" means you get a monochrome screen of death every 49.7 days?
Lobbying starts with large campaign contributions. You make the short list, you get face time, and can influence legislation. Outright corruption and direct bribery are a completely different thing. That's giving the candidate directly, or indirectly for their direct benefit, some amount of money.
It makes having a discussion a lot easier if people talk about paying the candidate's next election funds and straight up bribery as if they were the distinct things they actually are.
We can agree that direct corruption is bad. We can't agree that paying for the election is bad. That's where we need to talk.
It's funny because people who get a decent paying job where bureaucrats want them to touch strangers' junk stop being people. It has nothing to do with the bureaucrats and the people who think security theater works.
I don't watch videos if I have to enable javascript, so I'll just guess. They brought in cannons to eat the guns?
He is pitting the outrage against itself. You can't support and condone spying without implicitly approving these programs. So either they are voicing faux outrage, or they have to consider him a whistle-blower worthy of at least protection.
I expect more quotes like this, building from subtle trolling to using actual quotes either in support of his case or against the programs in question.
I guess that's why we cooperated to form agrarian societies to bring the food where we live, formed cities and cultures, and enough infrastructure to support the industrial followed by the information revolution?
Because a few asshats here and there, who will always spoil the party, are the only things you know about history and human nature.
I guess we all signed oaths on grass or leaves, and communicated abstract ideas in a nonexistent language in order to achieve the goal of not starving to death.
You're not insightful - you're obvious, and obvious is immediately suspect as wrong. And in this case, you're wrong. If I had a club, I would club you in an attempt to be dominant, and the rest of the people would resume their discussion and forget you existed. You would remember me, because I stuck out in your mind, and it would dominate your opinion of how people work together, or fail to, but it wouldn't be truth.
No. They will run the company into the ground to make the financial goals. You just ruined half or more of the business based economy, and put millions of people out of work.
Misunderstandings and ignorance included, all of these replies are your answer, and none are.
Each shareholder voted for their own reasons. You would have to poll them all for an actual answer.
With the number of shares involved, it may be more about company control and stock price than compensation. Think like a shareholder.
If you don't own stock, pick 3 companies and buy token stock, like $20 each. follow the price for a year. You will understand so much more that way.
Have all contributors be personally invested. From the unemployed hacker to the red hat ceo, everyone in linux wants it to work. It is more than a paycheck.
Can you do that with this site? No. Not even close. You have to hire intelligently, over many years.
It is possible. But how much development cost went into linux?
How much went into what Linus or tenenbaum rejected? Work that was done, in other words, but discarded?
We have to count that for comparison, and it won't be pretty.
The dollar amount has been repeatedly debunked and you're an idiot for mentioning it.
But apparently in the middle of the night, the site is still slow and hit and miss. To that point, the architecture has to suck balls. It needs rework badly, complete rewriting.
It is easy to say this upfront and be accidentally right. But it is harder to study and conclude this is the only course of action.
I continue to preach caution in conclusions, but there is no arguing alternatives if you have kept up.
Anyone who identifies a dupe can be moderated +6 awesome for 7 days.
Anyone who submits a dupe is automatically modded -1 for 7 days.
Karma bonus for both memory over a week, and reading comprehension. And fuck dice for ruining what once was mediocre.
That's the kind of idea that sounds great until you get to the details. Who actually employs them, how do they get hired, who watches over the project managers as a stakeholder?
The reason contractors get used is they offload all of these problems.
"I know someone who is employed by the government therefore they can hire people directly." "My brother works in IT, they can just shore up the team and have them do the website."
No, these do not work. Adding infrastructure to handle these employed people is an overhead cost. Having a place for them to work, hardware and software licenses, someone as help desk, box admins. If you want a distributed team you have voice and connectivity issues to fix.
Finding a team of qualified people who can be self-supportive and operate in the way you need a team to operate so they can just get code, requirements, and testing done, is not simple.
Would people quit an existing job for a 3-year contract? Probably no. Do you want a team made up of people who don't have a job? For unemployment it sounds like a great idea, but is this the team you want?
Tell us how your idea would work, and make it sound like you through about this in more than a rainbow and unicorn fart kind of way. Because while it sounds good, it just won't work. Is everyone background checked? And knows what HIPAA requires? And knows to follow the government implementation guidelines? And can do the proper vulnerability scanning required? I'm pretty sure we just took most of the unemployed citizens out of the pool.
But fuck it, let's go with pure unadulterated idealism, because it works.
It is impossible for someone to be this obtuse any way other than intentionally. Not reading, taking out of context, or turning the brain off would all be intentional. Not learning how to read, or not seeking help getting better, likewise.
Good luck in life, kid. You're going to need all you can get.
Moderators, the parent post is not worth moderating. It is best left alone as an example of how not to participate in any kind of discussion.
That is exactly what they do, only rounding is involved. $60 minus spotify rounds to zero.
Or are you saying a $45 payment for a year would make a difference?
Depending on the people involved, it may take $1000 to $5000 to mean anything.
The current method allows adding obscure and unknown acts, with a reasonable threshold built in naturally.
Most importantly, the payments are not for services rendered. This is how all of the music industry works, and they run risks on angering the MAFIAA. Imperfect compensation or no spotify, which do you choose?
Maybe in a few years they can change it, but now is a little early to make changes the industry won't like.
Is it ten o'clock yet? I can't wait until it's ten o'clock. Do you know why? I bet you don't. I just like ten o'clock. Especially when it's in the morning because I can say "top o' the mornin' to ya" and sound bright and cheery.
And look at all the apostrophes I get to use! It's almost like apostrophes can do anything. They're magical and mystical and wonderful. Got to love apostrophes.