This. Open Source people tend to be fundamentalist in nature, which doesn't exactly make it easy to contribute. Compromise, agreement, pragmatism - these are all foreign concepts to them.
Exactly. I have tried almost all of the methods of contributing listed in the article and have either been ignored or rejected.
I was really hoping that when Mozilla's contract with Google ran out the whole bloated business would collapse and they would go back to just making a browser that people actually want to use. But a new money truck just arrived in town and they can continue to add more and more useless 'features' while destroying all the things that made Firefox popular in the first place.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
How are online merchants offering free shipping without charging higher prices? UPS and FedEx don't deliver packages for free. The merchant eats the cost to get more business. Same with credit cards.
.(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
.They lose money on me but make it back 1000 times over on all the dumbasses who charge more than they can afford to pay back.
I'm sure the credit card company hates people like me, but fuck'em.
When they can charge merchants a 3% fee because you won't consider using cash, you can be sure your CC company fuckin' loves you.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
Hey, guess what, I pay exactly the same price whether I use cash or credit card. The number of businesses that do not accept credit cards is extremely small and getting smaller every day. Yes, merchants *DO* eat the 3% CC fee. They have to. They have no choice thanks to good old fashioned competition. If you don't take credit cards you WILL lose business to competitors who do.
Back some time ago a bunch of merchants won a lawsuit challenging Visa/Mastercard rules, and as a result merchants are now allowed to charge people more for using a credit card instead of paying cash.. Well guess what, I have yet to encounter one single merchant doing that. They have no choice. Once again, good old fashioned competition. If they charge more for using a credit card, they will lose business to competitors who don't.
The credit card company loves people like you who evangelize the idea of using your credit card for everything and then paying it off immediately and then earning cashback on it.
Why? Because most of the people you reach with your message will fail to do so correctly, and ultimately will owe the credit card company fees. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's just too tempting for most people to say, "Well, this ONE month, I'll pay it late and then get that JetSki I've had my eyes on."
There is no "message" and I rarely mention this to anyone. Because I know that most people are too stupid to do it properly.
I've been 98% cashless since the early 90s and never have more than a few dollars on me at any given time.. I put everything on a credit card and write one check a month to pay for everything. And now I don't even have to write a check, I just go online and make a payment straight out of my bank account to the credit card company. And, because I pay everything off every month it costs me nothing, and, since I'm using a 'cash back' credit card, I get a check for $50 every few months. It's not much but it's free money that I didn't have before. I'm sure the credit card company hates people like me, but fuck'em.
Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
How is it an antitrust violation to make hardware that requires an included proprietary tool (iTunes) to be used, in order to configure, operate, or manage the device?
The lawsuit addresses that:
"It would be egregious and unlawful for a major retailer, such as Tower Records, for example, to require that all music CDs purchased at Tower Records can be played only with CD players purchased at Tower Records. Yet, this is precisely what Apple has done."
They aren't obfuscated just to be obfuscated. It makes it much easier to look up filenames in a filesystem if they are all the same length. The directories are all 4 characters as are all the filenames. when you are saving memory and processing by doing this, the device appears much faster than if they didn't do this.
This might be true, but, if you look at the contents of any folder you'll find that all the files in it are unrelated, i.e., several songs from several different albums by several different artists. This is Apple we're talking about, there's no way that some of the obfuscation isn't deliberate.
I have an ipod.. If I am part of this class action settlement, I'll get 10 cents (as someone said earlier). I don;t want the dime; I want to be able to add media to the ipod without going through itunes... Want a class action lawsuit to do some good? Make it so that there are fundamental changes. of course Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
Apparently Apple did change something at some point. I received an iPod Classic 160GB, one of the models listed in the lawsuit, as a Christmas Gift in December 2010. Although I have to use the iTunes software to put music onto the iPod (iTunes being the absolute shittiest software ever written) I have never had a problem putting any music files I want on my iPod, even though none of there were purchased from the iTunes store. The iPod was purchased at Best Buy and is not Jailborken as far as I know.
I notice that the lawsuit specifically defines members of the class action as people who "purchased one of the iPod models listed below directly from Apple between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009"
I was surprised to see so many public figures and media entities jump on board — mainly because of what Ello isn't. It isn't an open source, decentralized social networking technology
Public figures and media entities don't give a flying fuck what it is or isn't. It's a matter of "can we monetize?" and "holy shit, look at that untapped audience". Things like "open source" and "decentralized" are the things only we nerds care about, and even in that group we find ourselves often in the minority.
There' s nothing wrong with open source, but making something open source doesn't automatically make it better or more desirable. If you want to create a legitimate competitor to Facebook, Google or just about any other tech company, it's going to take a serious amount of hardware and infrastructure, and that ain't free..
Since it's unlikely that you can pull a couple of billion dollars out of your ass, your only options are (a) Charge people for access. We already know how well that (won't) work. Or, (2) Advertising. Which puts you right back into the whole privacy problem. Companies like Facebook and Google don't abuse your privacy because they are evil, they do it because it's the only way to make the money that keeps them in business.
There's a reason why companies like Facebook, Google and Ebay have no significant competition.Anyone who says they are going to create a competitor to one of the popular tech companies AND striclty respect your privacy is either a liar or completely delusional with no idea how business actually works.
It will be hard for anyone here to assess this move. Having not used Yahoo! search for a long time, I have no idea about the quality of their search results.
Just Google "Quality of Bing search results".
But seriously, I'm so thankful that Firefox has search built into it because, you know, bookmarking Bing.com is so damn difficult.
The original Battlestar Galactica really pissed me off. It started as a theatrical-release movie and I went to see it. Then later, they announce a Battlestar Galactica TV show. Hey, cool. And what was episode 1 of the TV show? The fucking movie!!
There's no market at this point," said Tom Frencel, the chief executive of Little Guy Games, which put development of a Glass game on hold this year and is looking at other platforms
And why do we need games for Google Glass?
Google Glass is a good example of the old saying "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
This is nice if you happen to live in Austin, but I guarantee it won't go much farther. Maybe a couple more cities and then it will be abandoned, just like Verizon did.
Slashdot Mirror
This. Open Source people tend to be fundamentalist in nature, which doesn't exactly make it easy to contribute. Compromise, agreement, pragmatism - these are all foreign concepts to them.
Exactly. I have tried almost all of the methods of contributing listed in the article and have either been ignored or rejected.
I thought stupidity was the most abundant material on earth.
I was really hoping that when Mozilla's contract with Google ran out the whole bloated business would collapse and they would go back to just making a browser that people actually want to use. But a new money truck just arrived in town and they can continue to add more and more useless 'features' while destroying all the things that made Firefox popular in the first place.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
How are online merchants offering free shipping without charging higher prices? UPS and FedEx don't deliver packages for free. The merchant eats the cost to get more business. Same with credit cards.
.(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
.They lose money on me but make it back 1000 times over on all the dumbasses who charge more than they can afford to pay back.
I'm sure the credit card company hates people like me, but fuck'em.
When they can charge merchants a 3% fee because you won't consider using cash, you can be sure your CC company fuckin' loves you.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
Hey, guess what, I pay exactly the same price whether I use cash or credit card. The number of businesses that do not accept credit cards is extremely small and getting smaller every day. Yes, merchants *DO* eat the 3% CC fee. They have to. They have no choice thanks to good old fashioned competition. If you don't take credit cards you WILL lose business to competitors who do.
Back some time ago a bunch of merchants won a lawsuit challenging Visa/Mastercard rules, and as a result merchants are now allowed to charge people more for using a credit card instead of paying cash.. Well guess what, I have yet to encounter one single merchant doing that. They have no choice. Once again, good old fashioned competition. If they charge more for using a credit card, they will lose business to competitors who don't.
The credit card company loves people like you who evangelize the idea of using your credit card for everything and then paying it off immediately and then earning cashback on it.
Why? Because most of the people you reach with your message will fail to do so correctly, and ultimately will owe the credit card company fees. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It's just too tempting for most people to say, "Well, this ONE month, I'll pay it late and then get that JetSki I've had my eyes on."
There is no "message" and I rarely mention this to anyone. Because I know that most people are too stupid to do it properly.
I've been 98% cashless since the early 90s and never have more than a few dollars on me at any given time.. I put everything on a credit card and write one check a month to pay for everything. And now I don't even have to write a check, I just go online and make a payment straight out of my bank account to the credit card company. And, because I pay everything off every month it costs me nothing, and, since I'm using a 'cash back' credit card, I get a check for $50 every few months. It's not much but it's free money that I didn't have before. I'm sure the credit card company hates people like me, but fuck'em.
Well of course alcohol affected human evolution. Without it, cavemen wouldn't have fucked the ugly cavewomen.
Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
How is it an antitrust violation to make hardware that requires an included proprietary tool (iTunes) to be used, in order to configure, operate, or manage the device?
The lawsuit addresses that:
"It would be egregious and unlawful for a major retailer, such as Tower Records, for example, to require that all music CDs purchased at Tower Records can be played only with CD players purchased at Tower Records. Yet, this is precisely what Apple has done."
They aren't obfuscated just to be obfuscated. It makes it much easier to look up filenames in a filesystem if they are all the same length. The directories are all 4 characters as are all the filenames. when you are saving memory and processing by doing this, the device appears much faster than if they didn't do this.
This might be true, but, if you look at the contents of any folder you'll find that all the files in it are unrelated, i.e., several songs from several different albums by several different artists. This is Apple we're talking about, there's no way that some of the obfuscation isn't deliberate.
Did I miss something? You can load MP3's and M3U play lists on an IPod with Linux. Get rid of Windows/Mac and the problem goes away.
There are programs for all operating systems that do this. They work, sort of, but are just as shitty and broken as iTunes, just in different ways
I have an ipod.. If I am part of this class action settlement, I'll get 10 cents (as someone said earlier). I don;t want the dime; I want to be able to add media to the ipod without going through itunes... Want a class action lawsuit to do some good? Make it so that there are fundamental changes. of course Apple will say that it is impossible to put media on the ipod with out itunes... I know a few jailborken ipods that show otherwise.
Apparently Apple did change something at some point. I received an iPod Classic 160GB, one of the models listed in the lawsuit, as a Christmas Gift in December 2010. Although I have to use the iTunes software to put music onto the iPod (iTunes being the absolute shittiest software ever written) I have never had a problem putting any music files I want on my iPod, even though none of there were purchased from the iTunes store. The iPod was purchased at Best Buy and is not Jailborken as far as I know.
I notice that the lawsuit specifically defines members of the class action as people who "purchased one of the iPod models listed below directly from Apple between September 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009"
I was surprised to see so many public figures and media entities jump on board — mainly because of what Ello isn't. It isn't an open source, decentralized social networking technology
Public figures and media entities don't give a flying fuck what it is or isn't. It's a matter of "can we monetize?" and "holy shit, look at that untapped audience". Things like "open source" and "decentralized" are the things only we nerds care about, and even in that group we find ourselves often in the minority.
There' s nothing wrong with open source, but making something open source doesn't automatically make it better or more desirable. If you want to create a legitimate competitor to Facebook, Google or just about any other tech company, it's going to take a serious amount of hardware and infrastructure, and that ain't free..
Since it's unlikely that you can pull a couple of billion dollars out of your ass, your only options are (a) Charge people for access. We already know how well that (won't) work. Or, (2) Advertising. Which puts you right back into the whole privacy problem. Companies like Facebook and Google don't abuse your privacy because they are evil, they do it because it's the only way to make the money that keeps them in business.
There's a reason why companies like Facebook, Google and Ebay have no significant competition .Anyone who says they are going to create a competitor to one of the popular tech companies AND striclty respect your privacy is either a liar or completely delusional with no idea how business actually works.
... no mantissa?
She's the CEO of Yahoo.
"UP TO two times tougher than competitive glass"
"survives drops UP TO 80 percent of the time"
Just meaningless weasel words.
It will be hard for anyone here to assess this move. Having not used Yahoo! search for a long time, I have no idea about the quality of their search results.
Just Google "Quality of Bing search results".
But seriously, I'm so thankful that Firefox has search built into it because, you know, bookmarking Bing.com is so damn difficult.
Now that Google has every reason to crush Firefox, what is Mozilla's market share going to be in 2019? I sense a poll coming up.
Google doesn't have to crush Firefox. The shitty arrogant Firefox developers are doing that on their own.
Yahoo *is* Bing, actually, as far as the search engine backend goes.
And Bing really is a search engine backend
[rimshot]
The original Battlestar Galactica really pissed me off. It started as a theatrical-release movie and I went to see it. Then later, they announce a Battlestar Galactica TV show. Hey, cool. And what was episode 1 of the TV show? The fucking movie!!
There's no market at this point," said Tom Frencel, the chief executive of Little Guy Games, which put development of a Glass game on hold this year and is looking at other platforms
And why do we need games for Google Glass?
Google Glass is a good example of the old saying "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Google needs to change something quickly before they lose all their potential customers.
They might not be losing potential customers. Perhaps the market is just already saturated.
Exactly. Everyone who is willing to drop $1500 on a gadget that is nothing more than a solution searching for a problem, has already done so.
Gotta love unlimited data!
Right.
And after one minute of usage, when you've exceeded your allocation of "unlimited" data, your speed will be throttled. So what's the point.
All a gigabit cellular network would do is give you the ability to hit your data limit in less than a minute.
Exactly. And you'll get the privledge of paying more for the faster speed, too.
This is nice if you happen to live in Austin, but I guarantee it won't go much farther. Maybe a couple more cities and then it will be abandoned, just like Verizon did.