The entire American capitalist system is predicated on the idea that workers don't have the freedom to just leave their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions.
And yet I see plenty of people quitting their jobs. I quit my last job and spent four months deciding what I'd like to do next. My local economy didn't collapse.
You are aware though that there's a vast class of people who don't have savings to do that, and cannot save money due to their earning level? It's a trap - and one that very much benefits companies and allows them to keep the wages low because the workers cannot simply leave.
Sure he is. The poster before him said the system is predicated on the idea that you can't quit your job. He quit his job, thus proving that the predicate is false. In fact, you are expected to change jobs several times throughout your life - at least some percentage of those people are quitting their jobs and moving to something else.
You think you're being clever by pointing out a logic error - you're really not. The original poster was not saying that no person ever could quit their job. You might not agree but atleast *try* to comprehend the original point and make your argument against that rather than relying on nitpicking for your 'rebuttal'.
No, the liberals just think that white men have so long been so responsible for so much MORE pain and suffering and other horrible things, that they become better people if they make concerted efforts to undo those 'atrocities'
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world. Odd also given that white men and women were victims of slavery by the millions, at the hands of slave masters of all races.
Totally. If I punch you in the face constantly for an hour, when I stop I am a hero and you should definitely thank me.
Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.
OK, rarr rarr USA, whatever.
If you knew anything outside your little patriotic bubble you'd know the EU quite commonly has gone after European pharma conglomerates. Also, laws here are tighter around competition and privacy than in the US, so obviously US companies are going to fall foul of them more often because they are not stopped at home.
"Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good."
I don't even know what to say about this! If you can't compete on your own merits then where is the problem? Give me something better and maybe I'll try it. WebOS was pretty good, but it couldn't compete on it's merits either. We all see where it is. Make a better product. Google and Apple did and they are winning. On their own merits.
I think you're parsing that incorrectly. The quote is saying that rival search engines are being prevented from competing on their merits. Preinstallation is everything, because user inertia means you won't usually go to the trouble of changing the search engine. So if Google use their power to prevent preinstallation of a rival, you aren't likely to ever know of its merits.
Apple still play but they are a relatively niche provider in the worldwide scheme of things, so it's becoming fair to think of Android as a monopoly. You have to act deliberately carefully when everybody *has* to use you otherwise you will get regulated, and there's evidence of deliberate control of the market by Google.
That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?
Well, largely, yeah. There are only a fraction of apps in comparison. It takes special work to port over now because you have to reimplement / workaround that stuff from Google Services API that you can't use and for many developers it's not worth the effort.
I've been using this OS for over 5 years now, is it even possible at this point to improve the 'backend' core code?.
Yeah, I think this is the central thing now - for all the mobile OSs actually, they've picked their path and we're mostly stuck with what we've got. It's mature so increasingly tiny incremental improvements is the order of the day, you can't really have the big changes like you used to because of the legacy of backwards compatibility and architectural stiffness. Maybe that's for the best, to get high-quality apps you need the technology to move at a sensibly slow pace so that the developers can properly understand it.
I'm fairly happy with what we've got though, perhaps I'm not ambitious enough, but the amount of functionality I have with me all the time now is phenomenal compared with what we could do just a couple of years ago.
I feel like Google is focusing on stupid shit now (emojis) rather than important stuff. The days of clever innovation seem gone.
I don't they are "focussing" on it, it was probably something they needed/wanted to get done so it got done. I doubt what you see in this preview release is the culmination of all of the work that has been going on for Android, it's just a small subset, the few things that were ready to go.
Yeah unfortunately this is something that needs doing - much as it seems trivial, the problem is that Android has to interact with other OS that have already done the thing... I have written a couple of apps with messaging for Android and they both have to have a bit of code that strips out the Apple skin colour unicode characters because Android doesn't support them and they render as ugly blank characters.
In that case looking it up is a fair answer, you've clearly communicated what something is, and the receiver just doesn't know what that thing is so they need to go look it up. There's no lack of understanding here, just a lack of domain knowledge.
Just because you are clever at programming does not mean you are good at communicating. They are separate skills and it's quite possible that you (or 'one') suck at communicating with other people. There is not one single axis of "clever" that everybody resides on.
A good developer takes pride in writing the simplest code possible to solve a problem. If another developer cannot understand it, is the problem the reviewer, or the coder?
I have always communicated with the rule that if you don't understand what I am saying, it's my fault. It's far safer (and more likely to be correct) to assume that the failure is with the speaker than the listener, and I think the same goes for code. Not all code is necessarily easy to understand, but if it isn't then it should be well documented. And if you think the problem is the reviewer then you really shouldn't be getting it reviewed, because you don't care or trust what they say anyway.
Though I'm reluctant to mock this, because I don't want to be on the same side as the gleeful posters that are desperate to tell us how superior they are in not using Facebook. "I'm not on Facebook" has become the new "I don't even have a TV"
Of course they care, but there haven't been enough high profile examples yet to bring it to general attention yet. People didn't care about DRM on music, and then after enough exposure to the bullshit they did. Stop lording it over other people, you're not better, you're just in this field therefore aware of stuff earlier.
"Convenient" is the word. "Comfortable" is a germanism in this context. Lennart is that you?
Depends - 'convenient' implies 'easy'. 'Comfortable' implies that 'I already know it'. I'd say that's more appropriate than trying to say that git is easy...
What I find really odd is they've over-ruled him and said "no, you can't un-publish your own stuff, we own it". So, what, they've decided his stuff was too important to still be his own? So he got fucked because of corporate assholes only to have his copyright infringed?
*sigh* We really shouldn't still be having this conversation about how open source licensing works, but OK: They don't claim to own it, but they can redistribute it under the same licence that it was being distributed under. His copyright isn't infringed, it just remains distributed under the non-reversible licence that he chose to distribute it under in the first place.
Yes you do, very good. And all those people you have distributed it to in the past retain their rights to use it under the licence that you distributed it under.
Simply that the fees are factored into the price and the merchant usually swallows the cost because that has become the accepted norm (not all do, airline flights for example do not). Effectively your 2% is being subsidised by cash payers.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire American capitalist system is predicated on the idea that workers don't have the freedom to just leave their jobs, no matter how bad the conditions.
And yet I see plenty of people quitting their jobs. I quit my last job and spent four months deciding what I'd like to do next. My local economy didn't collapse.
You are aware though that there's a vast class of people who don't have savings to do that, and cannot save money due to their earning level? It's a trap - and one that very much benefits companies and allows them to keep the wages low because the workers cannot simply leave.
Sure he is. The poster before him said the system is predicated on the idea that you can't quit your job. He quit his job, thus proving that the predicate is false. In fact, you are expected to change jobs several times throughout your life - at least some percentage of those people are quitting their jobs and moving to something else.
You think you're being clever by pointing out a logic error - you're really not. The original poster was not saying that no person ever could quit their job. You might not agree but atleast *try* to comprehend the original point and make your argument against that rather than relying on nitpicking for your 'rebuttal'.
Your response is as predictable as it is stupid and trite.
I'm sorry you can't figure out the logical error in your original statement even with this much help.
And you have no self awareness sense of humour... we all have our crosses to bear.
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world. Odd also given that white men and women were victims of slavery by the millions, at the hands of slave masters of all races.
Totally. If I punch you in the face constantly for an hour, when I stop I am a hero and you should definitely thank me.
You're right: the nature of a law doesn't depend on whether it is applied or whether people obey it.
For example, the Nuremberg Laws were anti-Semitic even though many Germans didn't actually follow them.
Godwin's in 3. Props...
Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?
Er... that if Google is not following the law that all companies operating in EU have to follow, that does not make applying that law protectionism.
Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.
OK, rarr rarr USA, whatever.
If you knew anything outside your little patriotic bubble you'd know the EU quite commonly has gone after European pharma conglomerates. Also, laws here are tighter around competition and privacy than in the US, so obviously US companies are going to fall foul of them more often because they are not stopped at home.
"Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good."
I don't even know what to say about this! If you can't compete on your own merits then where is the problem? Give me something better and maybe I'll try it. WebOS was pretty good, but it couldn't compete on it's merits either. We all see where it is. Make a better product. Google and Apple did and they are winning. On their own merits.
I think you're parsing that incorrectly. The quote is saying that rival search engines are being prevented from competing on their merits. Preinstallation is everything, because user inertia means you won't usually go to the trouble of changing the search engine. So if Google use their power to prevent preinstallation of a rival, you aren't likely to ever know of its merits.
Once more from the rooftops:
The rules change when you become a monopoly.
Apple still play but they are a relatively niche provider in the worldwide scheme of things, so it's becoming fair to think of Android as a monopoly. You have to act deliberately carefully when everybody *has* to use you otherwise you will get regulated, and there's evidence of deliberate control of the market by Google.
That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?
Well, largely, yeah. There are only a fraction of apps in comparison. It takes special work to port over now because you have to reimplement / workaround that stuff from Google Services API that you can't use and for many developers it's not worth the effort.
Command lines are by nature more intuitive than GUIs. They require you to learn commands
I don't think the word 'intuitive' means what you think it means.
I've been using this OS for over 5 years now, is it even possible at this point to improve the 'backend' core code?.
Yeah, I think this is the central thing now - for all the mobile OSs actually, they've picked their path and we're mostly stuck with what we've got. It's mature so increasingly tiny incremental improvements is the order of the day, you can't really have the big changes like you used to because of the legacy of backwards compatibility and architectural stiffness. Maybe that's for the best, to get high-quality apps you need the technology to move at a sensibly slow pace so that the developers can properly understand it.
I'm fairly happy with what we've got though, perhaps I'm not ambitious enough, but the amount of functionality I have with me all the time now is phenomenal compared with what we could do just a couple of years ago.
I feel like Google is focusing on stupid shit now (emojis) rather than important stuff. The days of clever innovation seem gone.
I don't they are "focussing" on it, it was probably something they needed/wanted to get done so it got done. I doubt what you see in this preview release is the culmination of all of the work that has been going on for Android, it's just a small subset, the few things that were ready to go.
Yeah unfortunately this is something that needs doing - much as it seems trivial, the problem is that Android has to interact with other OS that have already done the thing... I have written a couple of apps with messaging for Android and they both have to have a bit of code that strips out the Apple skin colour unicode characters because Android doesn't support them and they render as ugly blank characters.
I have always communicated with the rule that if you don't understand what I am saying, it's my fault.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain again?
Oh - touche.
In that case looking it up is a fair answer, you've clearly communicated what something is, and the receiver just doesn't know what that thing is so they need to go look it up. There's no lack of understanding here, just a lack of domain knowledge.
Just because you are clever at programming does not mean you are good at communicating. They are separate skills and it's quite possible that you (or 'one') suck at communicating with other people. There is not one single axis of "clever" that everybody resides on.
I'm not sure which way this goes.
A good developer takes pride in writing the simplest code possible to solve a problem. If another developer cannot understand it, is the problem the reviewer, or the coder?
I have always communicated with the rule that if you don't understand what I am saying, it's my fault. It's far safer (and more likely to be correct) to assume that the failure is with the speaker than the listener, and I think the same goes for code. Not all code is necessarily easy to understand, but if it isn't then it should be well documented. And if you think the problem is the reviewer then you really shouldn't be getting it reviewed, because you don't care or trust what they say anyway.
The xscreensaver message is a perfect example of a diva developer being an arsehole
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi...
It is old, but timebombing your code is astonishingly bad form.
What you say "big problem"...? Compared to what?
Though I'm reluctant to mock this, because I don't want to be on the same side as the gleeful posters that are desperate to tell us how superior they are in not using Facebook. "I'm not on Facebook" has become the new "I don't even have a TV"
Of course they care, but there haven't been enough high profile examples yet to bring it to general attention yet. People didn't care about DRM on music, and then after enough exposure to the bullshit they did. Stop lording it over other people, you're not better, you're just in this field therefore aware of stuff earlier.
"Convenient" is the word. "Comfortable" is a germanism in this context. Lennart is that you?
Depends - 'convenient' implies 'easy'. 'Comfortable' implies that 'I already know it'. I'd say that's more appropriate than trying to say that git is easy...
A first gen iPad is stuck at IOS 5, but generally those things still works fine.
Good luck getting any apps that will run on it now though...
What I find really odd is they've over-ruled him and said "no, you can't un-publish your own stuff, we own it". So, what, they've decided his stuff was too important to still be his own? So he got fucked because of corporate assholes only to have his copyright infringed?
*sigh* We really shouldn't still be having this conversation about how open source licensing works, but OK: They don't claim to own it, but they can redistribute it under the same licence that it was being distributed under. His copyright isn't infringed, it just remains distributed under the non-reversible licence that he chose to distribute it under in the first place.
You still retain copyright over your own copy.
Yes you do, very good. And all those people you have distributed it to in the past retain their rights to use it under the licence that you distributed it under.
Simply that the fees are factored into the price and the merchant usually swallows the cost because that has become the accepted norm (not all do, airline flights for example do not). Effectively your 2% is being subsidised by cash payers.