Phorm claims to look at robots.txt, but it's unclear what exactly they mean. See http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html#how-do-i-prevent-webwise-from-scanning-my-site
The high "expected value" is irrelevant. The only reason for trying to maximise the expected value is that under some circumstances it is a reasonable proxy the actual value - in particular, in cases where you repeatedly take the "bet" so that in the long term the law of averages (really the laws of large numbers) applies. That's not the case here.
There seems to be a view in America that for some reason online sale of non-physical products can't be taxed in the same way as other sales, either because it's wrong in some way or impossible to police. And yet in the rest of the world it's common - in Europe you have to pay VAT on iTunes purchases just as you do on everything else.
The document referred to is (old) SCO's ABI for System V. If Linux and BSD have not been following this ABI in some respects, perhaps the solution is to have a Linux or BSD ABI that reflects real practice, rather than having a gcc that causes problems because it adheres to a System V ABI that is not being followed.
It should be obvious that California - at least southern California - is not fit for human habitation. Expending arbitrary resources so that people can live there is stupid.
This is *not* the BBC making iPlayer available for non-Windows platforms. They are only providing a *streaming* service, instead of the ability to download programs, which is what they are using DRM for.
Apple knew there were a bunch of fanboys who would pay almost anything to get an iPhone early, so they gouged them for as much as they would pay. Once they'd all bought iPhones, it made sense to cut prices to attract a different market. It turned out that the fanboys were annoyed enough that Apple decided it was worth giving them partial refunds.
So nothing surprising, just Apple doing whatever seemed likely to maximise profits. You don't like it? Tough luck. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
There should be an option to not just block the images, but to "click" on them as well, so that websites you like can get the money from the advertisers.
Morality? It's a bit late for capitalism to start whining about that.
If you're a computer security company no-one's ever heard of, you "conduct" an opinion poll showing that 84% of people will tell you their password in return for a jaffa cake, and the BBC will treat it as news. If you're a bunch of wannabe hackers that no-one's ever heard of, you make up a bunch of nonsense about a "coup" in your non-existent "community", and hey presto Slashdot will wet themselves.
... what they charge in other countries. If it looks like the price is going to drop dramatically after a couple of months, who's going to buy? On the other hand, if they don't charge so much and don't drop the price, people will complain that they were expecting a refund.
This is not a case of licence compatibility, it is a case of dual licensing. You don't have to obey both licences; you can choose which to obey. If (as has been suggested) only some parts of it are dual-licensed, then it may just be that the redistributer didn't notice that.
Slashdot Mirror
Google doesn't do anything unless you use Google. Phorm gets the information from your ISP.
Phorm claims to look at robots.txt, but it's unclear what exactly they mean. See http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/webwise/help.html#how-do-i-prevent-webwise-from-scanning-my-site
The high "expected value" is irrelevant. The only reason for trying to maximise the expected value is that under some circumstances it is a reasonable proxy the actual value - in particular, in cases where you repeatedly take the "bet" so that in the long term the law of averages (really the laws of large numbers) applies. That's not the case here.
Maybe they won't get sued for using the 8-blob Lego brick as a icon for stories about toys.
If the "Internet Economy" means advertisements, then the sooner it collapses the better.
It would be a neat trick to have a gospel of Matthew from the fourth century BCE. It should be CE (or AD).
"All of us have one time or another been completely frustrated by certain Windows usability issues"
In fact, many have never encountered any Windows usability issues at all, never having tried it.
I think that if I had a prosthetic limb I'd be very wary of letting monkeys control it.
You send your patent guy a joke patent application on April 1, and by April 3 he's filed it.
There seems to be a view in America that for some reason online sale of non-physical products can't be taxed in the same way as other sales, either because it's wrong in some way or impossible to police. And yet in the rest of the world it's common - in Europe you have to pay VAT on iTunes purchases just as you do on everything else.
The document referred to is (old) SCO's ABI for System V. If Linux and BSD have not been following this ABI in some respects, perhaps the solution is to have a Linux or BSD ABI that reflects real practice, rather than having a gcc that causes problems because it adheres to a System V ABI that is not being followed.
... 9 Joules delivered in each pulse, one every 10 seconds. Giving an average power of about 1 Watt. Ideal for taking over very small universes.
It'll just a bit later in the night here.
Yes, it's "something" you're missing, not a plugin.
It should be obvious that California - at least southern California - is not fit for human habitation. Expending arbitrary resources so that people can live there is stupid.
This is *not* the BBC making iPlayer available for non-Windows platforms. They are only providing a *streaming* service, instead of the ability to download programs, which is what they are using DRM for.
For the relevant definition of "should", see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
... are the new press releases. How easily you are all trolled.
Nope, we're going to use the SI units and we won't use their definition. It's our language, and we'll use it how we want.
Apple knew there were a bunch of fanboys who would pay almost anything to get an iPhone early, so they gouged them for as much as they would pay. Once they'd all bought iPhones, it made sense to cut prices to attract a different market. It turned out that the fanboys were annoyed enough that Apple decided it was worth giving them partial refunds.
So nothing surprising, just Apple doing whatever seemed likely to maximise profits. You don't like it? Tough luck. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.
There should be an option to not just block the images, but to "click" on them as well, so that websites you like can get the money from the advertisers.
Morality? It's a bit late for capitalism to start whining about that.
If you're a computer security company no-one's ever heard of, you "conduct" an opinion poll showing that 84% of people will tell you their password in return for a jaffa cake, and the BBC will treat it as news. If you're a bunch of wannabe hackers that no-one's ever heard of, you make up a bunch of nonsense about a "coup" in your non-existent "community", and hey presto Slashdot will wet themselves.
... that to read a book you have to make an image of the page on your retina. You know, a COPY.
... what they charge in other countries. If it looks like the price is going to drop dramatically after a couple of months, who's going to buy? On the other hand, if they don't charge so much and don't drop the price, people will complain that they were expecting a refund.
This is not a case of licence compatibility, it is a case of dual licensing. You don't have to obey both licences; you can choose which to obey. If (as has been suggested) only some parts of it are dual-licensed, then it may just be that the redistributer didn't notice that.