Just, quite clearly, saying how many businesses operate.
For example: When you buy enough advertising in a magazine, you get editorial for free.
When you watch the news, the sponsors products will turn up in news articles when possible. This isn't a coincidence. Now businesses have a primary goal of making money, your higher execs will usually promote people who make the most money to managerial positions. Sometimes these promoted individuals are clever folk who maintained their morality and used their sheer business prowess to enable new markets, but most of the time it's just the person who said yes to anything that earned the business a cent.
My point is there is a real disconnect between how people act in businesses (particularly in America) and how a person acts in the real world.
Individuals are focussed on reality, morality and society most when they are idealistic and not shackled to the draconian pressures of living with expenses. They get a job, an see their small moralistic misgivings as worthy exchanges for security and possibly a raise or a bonus.
There are no(or at least very few) people born with the sole intent of damaging the earth or harming others. In our youth (particularly university students) we tend to embrace the cultures of idealism and see the corporate world as blood sucking and alien. Yet all these idealistic individuals somehow disappear. Having reprioritised or flattened their internal needs to do good on the society as a whole, and worry more about things like: will I lose my home?
Basically like this: CoS are paying YT a nice lump of cash to advertise on their site. So YT in return for this cash reinstate the CoS account. Money talks, no business has morals when it comes to cash.
The psystar system isn't too much of a big deal for apple. It increases Mac OS's market share, and sells computers to consumers which apple doesn't target and is not willing to venture into. As noted on/. Apple have the majority of greater than $1,000 PC sales in the USA. Apple don't want the sub-1000 market, it's a lowest-price-wins market, and sells entirely on volume, not quality. I doubt you'll see any legal action until it begins to get out of hand.
Other than the logical fallacies, I think you got over rated because your tone wasn't constructive. So if you don't have the right facts and you're not being constructive.. then it's no surprise that you're score is working towards the negatives. If you did some research before posting you might have had a more informed view, instead you sounded more like a zealot. (Ironic as some apple fans dabble in zealotry.)
I notice the virgin credit card page uses an array of buttons to enter your password. It's a little bit annoying having to click around, but it gets around key loggers very easily.
That would definitely be the case, since they initially rejected free Mac OS for the platform. It seems that the idea of the OLPC has been corrupted by influence.(one can only speculate what kind or how much.)
In the past, the argument against perpetual authorisation was along the lines of "if the music retailer goes under" then all your music will be lost. This, however, is proof that only a change in business strategy can render all your purchased music defunct. There could also be legal/authorisation issues if music labels pull out of the store. (Or in MS's case swap from strategy to another.)
Just to interrupt the flow, but does anyone else think it's a problem that an operating system requires a high end system... when operating systems like BSD will run on your toothbrush.
I think it's disappointing that other platforms are able to present similar features with a much lower set of processing requirements. (E.g OS X requires 16mb video ram for the hardware accelerated windows. Windows vista requires 256mb and there still isn't much performance to write home about. Apple even have this feature running on their iPods now.) MS are by far technically skilled enough to optimise, but clearly it's not in their advantage to do so. (New computer sales are by far the bulk of MS's Windows purchases.)
Touche, it's a good point to make.. as how often do we actually get what is advertised to us from our ISP. (Sure they may give us the pipe we ask for.. then trickle/block/swap out the traffic that comes down it.)
Although it's not really in their favour to block uploads, if they're high level then it saves them money.
P.S has anyone noticed this entry form falling over with unicode character?
Hey ebay, It was nice hanging with you when we were younger, but since then I can feel we've grown our separate ways. I still remember our first dot com bubble burst like it was yesterday.
But, sadly it seems that you're hanging out with a new crowd these days and you've changed, I can't put my finger on it, but you're somehow different. It seems like you don't really care about me anymore, and you don't seem to have coped very well with some of the new people in town. I'm sorry to say it, after all of this time, but I'm seeing someone new they're so much quicker and dealing with each individual companies policies still feels easier than dealing with your friend paypal.
I'm sorry it couldn't work out between us. Signed, The Internet.
Only on Slashdot would someone propose that all of the "content creators" pay more to provide you with free services.
Actually, the opposite is proposed. It should be as cheap as possible to get material out there that is worth paying for. You need the marketplace before you can get the customers.
Ideally the model of "receiver pays" should be extended downwards to consumers. (Many consumer plans already do offer unlimited uploads.)
Spot on, the internet is successful because there is no penalty for the creation of content. Data is usually billed as a receiver pays system. (Generating more reasons to come up with compelling content.)
If you begin to charge the content creators, then it will stop seeding start ups. Yahoo! is a good example of how the ability to host content inexpensively leads to growth.
A fast connection to your ISP, doesn't mean you'll have a fast Internet experience.
While this will no doubt allow the ISP to deliver cache/proxy data very quickly, it will not be financially viable to provide very fast live-internet down this pipe. E.g anything that can be classified as a web-application will probably still be quite average/slow speeds.
The price comes about from using an existing infrastructure, as you know the biggest cost in rolling out a network is the transmission medium. (Especially if it's not your expense to maintain it.)
I second this argument. Particularly when Adobe is pretty notorious for blame-storming their lack-luster efforts in overhauling the photoshop code. The fact is that their painting program has been getting slower with each revision and it's most basic functions, which perform little more than they did 4 versions ago, are becoming defunct.
Photoshop is spaghetti code at it's worst and it's one of the main reasons why the heuristics of the interface works so well, but simultaneously why their code has been getting heavier with little functionality improvements.
Photoshop is not modular at all, it still even loads all your plugins at bootup for example. Sheesh Discreet Maya has been owned by 3 companies in the last few years and it has not only progressed in greater bounds, but it's price has remained constant and it loads faster than photoshop.
Correctly entirely.. because since no other platform was hacked that day, it could have been hacked at the end of the day's competition and still have been the first to get hacked.. which aligns perfectly with my parent statement of "it still fell first". Which also raises a curiosity to where you are quoting "race" from.
While this does make sense on the surface, the point of failure is that the hackers are not just entering the competition and trying their luck with random keystrokes. Each person is coming to the event with something they have prepared earlier. (Hence why the machine fell in 2 minutes, it fell with the first attempt.) This hacker targeted the mac for the follow-on benefits, it's a valuable prize and it'll earn him a lot of press. Now he can charge more per hour for his security consulting.
No one is going to be interested in the fact that it required user-assistance and can't be executed remotely (which are by far the most worrisome.)
Better yet, if they actually read the T&C's they'll see that you can still run background apps, it's just not advised. Otherwise applications like AIM won't be able to run.
In the past I've written replies which effectively defended the mac platform, not due to some loyalty, but because most of the feedback people write is pure b/s. I prefer factual arguments, not near-random fear mongering.
I haven't RTFA but from the surface it sounds like a fair exploit test, and sure it only fell over with user interaction, but it still fell first. So good on them, they'll enjoy their prize of a macbook air and a sweet $10k.
I agree that it's FUD, it's easily seen by the rather narrow scope for this outcome to be "factual". (You can get any result you want if you're incredibly specific with the scope - hence the MS Windows TCO vs the Linux TCO reports a while ago.)
But that is not what is interesting and I could only think of one thing from seeing this article: Is MS now funding anti-apple "research" (similar to all the anti-open source research.) After last months high market share readings do MS now see Apple as a threat?
Slashdot Mirror
Just, quite clearly, saying how many businesses operate.
For example: When you buy enough advertising in a magazine, you get editorial for free.
When you watch the news, the sponsors products will turn up in news articles when possible. This isn't a coincidence.
Now businesses have a primary goal of making money, your higher execs will usually promote people who make the most money to managerial positions. Sometimes these promoted individuals are clever folk who maintained their morality and used their sheer business prowess to enable new markets, but most of the time it's just the person who said yes to anything that earned the business a cent.
My point is there is a real disconnect between how people act in businesses (particularly in America) and how a person acts in the real world.
Individuals are focussed on reality, morality and society most when they are idealistic and not shackled to the draconian pressures of living with expenses. They get a job, an see their small moralistic misgivings as worthy exchanges for security and possibly a raise or a bonus.
There are no(or at least very few) people born with the sole intent of damaging the earth or harming others. In our youth (particularly university students) we tend to embrace the cultures of idealism and see the corporate world as blood sucking and alien. Yet all these idealistic individuals somehow disappear. Having reprioritised or flattened their internal needs to do good on the society as a whole, and worry more about things like: will I lose my home?
Basically like this: CoS are paying YT a nice lump of cash to advertise on their site. So YT in return for this cash reinstate the CoS account. Money talks, no business has morals when it comes to cash.
I VNC and SSH into my main machine from an ipod touch.
The psystar system isn't too much of a big deal for apple. It increases Mac OS's market share, and sells computers to consumers which apple doesn't target and is not willing to venture into. As noted on /. Apple have the majority of greater than $1,000 PC sales in the USA. Apple don't want the sub-1000 market, it's a lowest-price-wins market, and sells entirely on volume, not quality.
I doubt you'll see any legal action until it begins to get out of hand.
Other than the logical fallacies, I think you got over rated because your tone wasn't constructive. So if you don't have the right facts and you're not being constructive.. then it's no surprise that you're score is working towards the negatives. If you did some research before posting you might have had a more informed view, instead you sounded more like a zealot. (Ironic as some apple fans dabble in zealotry.)
I'd move to a foreign country and set up the site again.
I notice the virgin credit card page uses an array of buttons to enter your password. It's a little bit annoying having to click around, but it gets around key loggers very easily.
That would definitely be the case, since they initially rejected free Mac OS for the platform. It seems that the idea of the OLPC has been corrupted by influence.(one can only speculate what kind or how much.)
In the past, the argument against perpetual authorisation was along the lines of "if the music retailer goes under" then all your music will be lost. This, however, is proof that only a change in business strategy can render all your purchased music defunct. There could also be legal/authorisation issues if music labels pull out of the store. (Or in MS's case swap from strategy to another.)
I think it's disappointing that other platforms are able to present similar features with a much lower set of processing requirements. (E.g OS X requires 16mb video ram for the hardware accelerated windows. Windows vista requires 256mb and there still isn't much performance to write home about. Apple even have this feature running on their iPods now.) MS are by far technically skilled enough to optimise, but clearly it's not in their advantage to do so. (New computer sales are by far the bulk of MS's Windows purchases.)
Although it's not really in their favour to block uploads, if they're high level then it saves them money.
P.S has anyone noticed this entry form falling over with unicode character?
it seems that microsoft think we need help with driving.. on the contrary I think it's microsoft that need help with drivers.
It was nice hanging with you when we were younger, but since then I can feel we've grown our separate ways. I still remember our first dot com bubble burst like it was yesterday.
But, sadly it seems that you're hanging out with a new crowd these days and you've changed, I can't put my finger on it, but you're somehow different. It seems like you don't really care about me anymore, and you don't seem to have coped very well with some of the new people in town.
I'm sorry to say it, after all of this time, but I'm seeing someone new they're so much quicker and dealing with each individual companies policies still feels easier than dealing with your friend paypal.
I'm sorry it couldn't work out between us.
Signed,
The Internet.
Actually, the opposite is proposed. It should be as cheap as possible to get material out there that is worth paying for. You need the marketplace before you can get the customers.
Ideally the model of "receiver pays" should be extended downwards to consumers. (Many consumer plans already do offer unlimited uploads.)
If you begin to charge the content creators, then it will stop seeding start ups. Yahoo! is a good example of how the ability to host content inexpensively leads to growth.
While this will no doubt allow the ISP to deliver cache/proxy data very quickly, it will not be financially viable to provide very fast live-internet down this pipe. E.g anything that can be classified as a web-application will probably still be quite average/slow speeds.
The price comes about from using an existing infrastructure, as you know the biggest cost in rolling out a network is the transmission medium. (Especially if it's not your expense to maintain it.)
Photoshop is spaghetti code at it's worst and it's one of the main reasons why the heuristics of the interface works so well, but simultaneously why their code has been getting heavier with little functionality improvements.
Photoshop is not modular at all, it still even loads all your plugins at bootup for example. Sheesh Discreet Maya has been owned by 3 companies in the last few years and it has not only progressed in greater bounds, but it's price has remained constant and it loads faster than photoshop.
you win at the internet.
the thyroid will convert it into hormones, and most of your body-generated cholesterol gets converted into bile.
Correctly entirely.. because since no other platform was hacked that day, it could have been hacked at the end of the day's competition and still have been the first to get hacked.. which aligns perfectly with my parent statement of "it still fell first". Which also raises a curiosity to where you are quoting "race" from.
No one is going to be interested in the fact that it required user-assistance and can't be executed remotely (which are by far the most worrisome.)
I'm tired of people using the word "monopoly", for anything that is "legally exclusive".
Better yet, if they actually read the T&C's they'll see that you can still run background apps, it's just not advised. Otherwise applications like AIM won't be able to run.
I haven't RTFA but from the surface it sounds like a fair exploit test, and sure it only fell over with user interaction, but it still fell first. So good on them, they'll enjoy their prize of a macbook air and a sweet $10k.
But that is not what is interesting and I could only think of one thing from seeing this article: Is MS now funding anti-apple "research" (similar to all the anti-open source research.) After last months high market share readings do MS now see Apple as a threat?