That BB management has taken 7 or 8 years to figure out what seemingly everyone else has known for years. The release of iPhone started it but once Android took off BB was done. All that money wasted developing new BB phones and then even a BB Android phone. Hubris I guess. Microsoft didn't get it either when they went and bought the Sidekick and then Nokia.
Someone has found a way to put some of the unemployed back to work. I can see it now. Vast warehouses with thousands of citizens pedaling away on stationary bikes connected to generators. Although "citizen-fueled" might mean something else entirely...
Billions of people use processors that run only Machine Language programs that load from the reset vector. Mice, graphics card, the controller chips inside hard drives, etc. There's even a 'multiplier effect' because every Linux computer in operation has a handful of these processors inside it. So the Machine Language 'Operating System' is 20-500 times more popular than any PC operating system, and thousands to hundreds of thousands of times more popular than Linux.
This popularity measure is based on the same notion as the one that asumes that every device out there that runs a Linux kernel is 'linux.' I.e. every Android device, every Tivo, etc.
"Most sites kick you in the balls. But this one only slaps you across the face. Mark Zuckerberg should be applauded for only slapping you!"
Go fuck yourself, you toad. The only way to "take responsibility" for advertising is to remove it. Facebook can charge me a monthly fee if they want, and in return no advertising and no data mining.
Once upon a time someone could express an honestly held opinion without fear of being abused but this is the modern Internet where the witless seem to need to make their point via vulgarity and anger.
Quite a few of us simply can't afford to pay by the month for this or that web site. Advertising means we don't have to pay, just suffer abusive or malicious advertising. If FaceBook is cleaning up the advertising on their site AND providing users some control over it then GOOD ON THEM. They could have simply blocked anyone using an ad blocker altogether and continued with the garbage advertising like many, many other sites are doing.
I know a lot of ad block users who have suggested that publishers should take control of, or better police, their advertising. One of the most common suggestions is that publishers should host the advertising that appears on their pages. So, here's Facebook doing that very thing and yet 90% of the comments above are now whining about that too. You are all a bunch of parasitical crybabies.
I use an ad blocker and a tracker blocker and sometimes a script blocker as well. I strenuously object to the "let the viewer beware" attitude that most web site operators these days seem to have. Allowing third parties to inject code into their pages to be delivered to my browser without a second thought should be a criminal act.
While I have no use for Facebook whatsoever, they should be applauded for stepping up by taking control of, and responsibility for, the advertising that will appear on their pages. If you don't like it then you are all free to quit the site and join folks like me who talk to their friends face to face or on the phone now and then.
You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company.
If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.
Yeah, no, Trump has been the prime mover in a number of major projects that he ran into the ground and then used bankruptcy to extricate his interests. He has even said as much when discussing the national debt. He claimed that he'd get a discount on the debt because he always does. He is basically telling us that he borrows money fully expecting that he won't be paying it all back.
Now, when you're talking about a controversial presidential candidate, you *really* don't want to release anything. Nutjobs would be coming out of the woodwork making claims about his tax returns. The IRS would be obligated to follow up on all of them.
No, only a presidential candidate who has played fast and loose with contractual obligations as a routine business practice need worry about reasonable people, who've been cheated by the candidate, need worry.
I hate Comcast as much as anyone and no longer use their service but in this instance it is hard to see clear cut deception. The Comcast service plan doesn't cover wiring _INSIDE_ the walls (read the OP). But the repair service will cover all of the wiring from the wall outlet, across the floor, the tangle of wiring behind the entertainment center, etc. Oh, and before everyone gets too snarky on me, most utility services, even your electric company, provide repairs only up to the exterior wall of your residence, anything inside is at your expense and has been for decades.
Since when is a phone private? Looking back at their invention, they were never private. This is the most private they've been with the advent of some level of call blocking... and even that is clearly being stonewalled by the big telecom powers, because it would trivial to implement.
If debt collectors can't call you, that's billions of dollars in lost debt bundling and reselling scams.
Like 95% of people were in the phone book just a few years ago, many still are. It was never a private infrasturcture. There was the concept of a 'private line', but that just means one that you don't give the number away in order to try to not get calls. It's not like anybody promised you that you'd never get calls.
You were in no way guaranteed or sold privacy as you suggest it. All numbers are basically open to be called. That's how the technology works. You can wish you phone was private. You can refer to it as your 'private line', but that doesn't mean it's not a giant public routing network with no real permissions.. because that's what it is.
It's not about you having some right to a private phone line. You don't. You don't own any of the phone network, you have to sacrifice at least some level of privacy there. It's also not really a secure network and that's how it's sold. There is no block all calls but the ones I want option that I have ever seen a phone company offer.
Only now with smartphones have we been given that option and it's often hidden away or underdeveloped because the result is lost revenue for banks.
Damn but that was a fine bit of sophistry. Completely beside the point, however. My phone, which rings in my house, is mine and it is not part of some great, virtual public square that therefore qualifies politician's robocalls as protected free speech.
It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind.
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
I did read the article, thanks. I maintain that my phone is not a public forum. The underpinning of the judge's opinion seemed to be that it is. So, I say again, my phone is line is mine. It not your right, or anyone else's to robocall me, at any hour, for any purpose of your choosing. Therefore, it is fine for the state to come along and ban robocalls as they see fit.
Completely missing the point that my phone line isn't anyone's public forum and hence not covered by the first amendment. The only one with any standing to complain about this law is the telephone owners that like robocalls, especially political ones.
Since when is calling me on my private phone anyone's right, let alone protected speech? It is one thing to say that politicians may not buy advertising space in a paper or on a web site that otherwise carries advertising or that they can't stand up on a soapbox blathering forth in a public space. It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind. My phone isn't a public space and calling me isn't your first amendment right!!
F***ing millennial snowflakes getting their panties in a wad because someone else does something they don't like that doesn't hurt them. It must be a form of bullying. Sue! Sue! Sue! Whine! Whine! Whine! Sue! Sue! Sue!
Did you even read the original post and source material? Getty attempted to extract compensation from the original creator, and legal owner, of the work. They also charged others for use of the work without any legal right to do so or any thought of royalty payment to the owner of the work. Its got nothing to do with millenials.
Go try and sell copies of any Hollywood movie on a commercial scale without permission. You'll be headed for jail. The only difference here is it isn't a billion dollar corporation it's a little old lady. I guess they don't count and they don't have rights in your view.
Finally, take your foul mouthed, brain-dead commentary elsewhere, this isn't Twitter, though you are a twit, This is one of the few message forums where there is still some reasonable, intelligent discussion!
Pretty sure that the FBI already recovered the deleted personal E-Mails. It was reported that they had some time ago. Show that Trump is either clueless or just makes things up from whole cloth.
I agree with you on the Micro-USB ports. They are total crap. Don't know how many broken ones I've been asked to repair on people's tablets and phones.
I'm also a strong supporter of sticking with something universal and that works well.
I know what you mean. I really, really miss my 9 pin serial ports. They were completely universal. Everything had them. Laptops, desktops, nearly all industrial equipment. 9 pin serial ports ruled. They worked really, really well. No need to replace them. I can totally see a 9 pin serial port on the bottom end of my iPhone. I could totally plug my 9 pin serial mouse right in to the iPhone that way.
Slashdot Mirror
That BB management has taken 7 or 8 years to figure out what seemingly everyone else has known for years. The release of iPhone started it but once Android took off BB was done. All that money wasted developing new BB phones and then even a BB Android phone. Hubris I guess. Microsoft didn't get it either when they went and bought the Sidekick and then Nokia.
I am pretty sure that tortuous involves actual physical torture. Think thumbscrews and the like. Perhaps you meant "tortious interference".
Someone has found a way to put some of the unemployed back to work. I can see it now. Vast warehouses with thousands of citizens pedaling away on stationary bikes connected to generators. Although "citizen-fueled" might mean something else entirely...
Billions of people use processors that run only Machine Language programs that load from the reset vector. Mice, graphics card, the controller chips inside hard drives, etc. There's even a 'multiplier effect' because every Linux computer in operation has a handful of these processors inside it. So the Machine Language 'Operating System' is 20-500 times more popular than any PC operating system, and thousands to hundreds of thousands of times more popular than Linux.
This popularity measure is based on the same notion as the one that asumes that every device out there that runs a Linux kernel is 'linux.' I.e. every Android device, every Tivo, etc.
Yeah, no. Machine Language != Operating System.
“Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win.” Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Best quote I've read this month. KUDOS!!
Is that the NSA of all people knowing how vulnerable systems can be and then failing to seriously protect their own.
Yawn, wake me when there's some actual news.
Also, anyone who puts much faith in Intel's claims is either naive or a company shill. This simply business as usual for Intel.
"Most sites kick you in the balls. But this one only slaps you across the face. Mark Zuckerberg should be applauded for only slapping you!"
Go fuck yourself, you toad. The only way to "take responsibility" for advertising is to remove it. Facebook can charge me a monthly fee if they want, and in return no advertising and no data mining.
Once upon a time someone could express an honestly held opinion without fear of being abused but this is the modern Internet where the witless seem to need to make their point via vulgarity and anger.
Quite a few of us simply can't afford to pay by the month for this or that web site. Advertising means we don't have to pay, just suffer abusive or malicious advertising. If FaceBook is cleaning up the advertising on their site AND providing users some control over it then GOOD ON THEM. They could have simply blocked anyone using an ad blocker altogether and continued with the garbage advertising like many, many other sites are doing.
I know a lot of ad block users who have suggested that publishers should take control of, or better police, their advertising. One of the most common suggestions is that publishers should host the advertising that appears on their pages. So, here's Facebook doing that very thing and yet 90% of the comments above are now whining about that too. You are all a bunch of parasitical crybabies.
I use an ad blocker and a tracker blocker and sometimes a script blocker as well. I strenuously object to the "let the viewer beware" attitude that most web site operators these days seem to have. Allowing third parties to inject code into their pages to be delivered to my browser without a second thought should be a criminal act.
While I have no use for Facebook whatsoever, they should be applauded for stepping up by taking control of, and responsibility for, the advertising that will appear on their pages. If you don't like it then you are all free to quit the site and join folks like me who talk to their friends face to face or on the phone now and then.
95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
Well put my friend!
You're confusing personal bankruptcy with one of many businesses doing so. Those are not the same thing. The businesses file their own taxes. Any business that isn't a pass-through LLC has to. If someone owns a bunch of business entities, and one or several of them fail to the point where bankruptcy protection is involved, then there are public records involved - because the matter goes before a court. Which doesn't have much to do with the personal income taxes of the person (or one of the people) who owned shares of that company. If you really want scandalous, pay attention to the giant money-laundering operation that is the Clinton Foundation.
Yeah, no, Trump has been the prime mover in a number of major projects that he ran into the ground and then used bankruptcy to extricate his interests. He has even said as much when discussing the national debt. He claimed that he'd get a discount on the debt because he always does. He is basically telling us that he borrows money fully expecting that he won't be paying it all back.
Now, when you're talking about a controversial presidential candidate, you *really* don't want to release anything. Nutjobs would be coming out of the woodwork making claims about his tax returns. The IRS would be obligated to follow up on all of them.
No, only a presidential candidate who has played fast and loose with contractual obligations as a routine business practice need worry about reasonable people, who've been cheated by the candidate, need worry.
Our account data seems to available for the asking. Why do we even bother with having a password anymore?
I hate Comcast as much as anyone and no longer use their service but in this instance it is hard to see clear cut deception. The Comcast service plan doesn't cover wiring _INSIDE_ the walls (read the OP). But the repair service will cover all of the wiring from the wall outlet, across the floor, the tangle of wiring behind the entertainment center, etc. Oh, and before everyone gets too snarky on me, most utility services, even your electric company, provide repairs only up to the exterior wall of your residence, anything inside is at your expense and has been for decades.
Since when is a phone private? Looking back at their invention, they were never private. This is the most private they've been with the advent of some level of call blocking... and even that is clearly being stonewalled by the big telecom powers, because it would trivial to implement. If debt collectors can't call you, that's billions of dollars in lost debt bundling and reselling scams. Like 95% of people were in the phone book just a few years ago, many still are. It was never a private infrasturcture. There was the concept of a 'private line', but that just means one that you don't give the number away in order to try to not get calls. It's not like anybody promised you that you'd never get calls. You were in no way guaranteed or sold privacy as you suggest it. All numbers are basically open to be called. That's how the technology works. You can wish you phone was private. You can refer to it as your 'private line', but that doesn't mean it's not a giant public routing network with no real permissions.. because that's what it is. It's not about you having some right to a private phone line. You don't. You don't own any of the phone network, you have to sacrifice at least some level of privacy there. It's also not really a secure network and that's how it's sold. There is no block all calls but the ones I want option that I have ever seen a phone company offer. Only now with smartphones have we been given that option and it's often hidden away or underdeveloped because the result is lost revenue for banks.
Damn but that was a fine bit of sophistry. Completely beside the point, however. My phone, which rings in my house, is mine and it is not part of some great, virtual public square that therefore qualifies politician's robocalls as protected free speech.
I know it has been out of fashion for quite a while, but RTFA. In fact, just read all of the summary. The judges did not say that there is a general right to robocall your phone at any hour. What they said was that the government could not ban calls with a specific type of content -- in this case political calls.
Had the law enacted a ban on robocalls that was independent of content, it would have been OK.
I did read the article, thanks. I maintain that my phone is not a public forum. The underpinning of the judge's opinion seemed to be that it is. So, I say again, my phone is line is mine. It not your right, or anyone else's to robocall me, at any hour, for any purpose of your choosing. Therefore, it is fine for the state to come along and ban robocalls as they see fit.
Donald? Donald Trump?? Is that you???
Congress repealed the ban on robocalling cell phones a few years back. Seems most of us no longer had land lines so...
Completely missing the point that my phone line isn't anyone's public forum and hence not covered by the first amendment. The only one with any standing to complain about this law is the telephone owners that like robocalls, especially political ones.
Since when is calling me on my private phone anyone's right, let alone protected speech? It is one thing to say that politicians may not buy advertising space in a paper or on a web site that otherwise carries advertising or that they can't stand up on a soapbox blathering forth in a public space. It is quite another to decide that anyone has the right to call my phone whenever they want for any purpose they might have in mind. My phone isn't a public space and calling me isn't your first amendment right!!
F***ing millennial snowflakes getting their panties in a wad because someone else does something they don't like that doesn't hurt them. It must be a form of bullying. Sue! Sue! Sue! Whine! Whine! Whine! Sue! Sue! Sue!
Did you even read the original post and source material? Getty attempted to extract compensation from the original creator, and legal owner, of the work. They also charged others for use of the work without any legal right to do so or any thought of royalty payment to the owner of the work. Its got nothing to do with millenials.
Go try and sell copies of any Hollywood movie on a commercial scale without permission. You'll be headed for jail. The only difference here is it isn't a billion dollar corporation it's a little old lady. I guess they don't count and they don't have rights in your view.
Finally, take your foul mouthed, brain-dead commentary elsewhere, this isn't Twitter, though you are a twit, This is one of the few message forums where there is still some reasonable, intelligent discussion!
Pretty sure that the FBI already recovered the deleted personal E-Mails. It was reported that they had some time ago. Show that Trump is either clueless or just makes things up from whole cloth.
Did you read the news articles? Isn't Trump calling for the Russians to hack her mail server right now rather than a year ago??
I agree with you on the Micro-USB ports. They are total crap. Don't know how many broken ones I've been asked to repair on people's tablets and phones.
I'm also a strong supporter of sticking with something universal and that works well.
I know what you mean. I really, really miss my 9 pin serial ports. They were completely universal. Everything had them. Laptops, desktops, nearly all industrial equipment. 9 pin serial ports ruled. They worked really, really well. No need to replace them. I can totally see a 9 pin serial port on the bottom end of my iPhone. I could totally plug my 9 pin serial mouse right in to the iPhone that way.