If you believe that, then what's so wrong about the guy having more than half the shares getting his way?
The fact that he doesn't have more than half the shares? He has 10% of the shares, but they are tagged so that they have 10 times the voting rights of the other shares, so with only 10% of the company, he still gets 50% of the control.
An argument could be made that, given the knowledge of a particular hardware vulnerability, software can eliminate the risk when being run on that hardware by working around that vulnerability (to whatever extent is possible).
When you click on a bubble, the relevant window covers the screen, you use it, then dismiss it back to the bubble. That's essentially what switching tabs in a tabbed interface does...
Sure, but what percentage of the income do they make? If they're taking home 80% of the income and paying 46% of the income tax, that seems to be underpaying.
Also, per your link, that statistic is not from the Cuomo, but is stated editorialising by investors.com after his quote.
If that means creating terrible patches and not integrating with the flow of the OSS project itself, they may do that... The choice may be to attempt to get changes harmonized with the community or just publish whatever they come up with at the end. I suspect that there's a latent annoyance about this particular thing coming from the OSS volunteers. But... you can't be surprised that they're not doing a good job of helping you merge them into the mainline. They're doing the least they can get away with.
Except, they're missing out on some of the benefits by doing that. If they get their patches into mainline more easily, it's more likely that the next few releases will have their patches in them, and they won't have to keep updating their patches for the newer versions. Even more so if they contribute a unit test along with the patch - then they can have the comfort of knowing that their special case will be fixed for all time!
Because companies are focused on the short term benefits, they are losing out on the long term benefits for themselves.
And if they put the project "out of business" because it can't manage to handle all these out-of-flow patches, then the project goes away, and the company has to support the legacy system themselves.
I dug a ditch on my street for free, because it benefited me.
As a side effect, it also benefited my neighbours, and I am okay with them getting that benefit for free.
However, now the neighbour whose house fronts two streets wants me to dig a ditch on the other street for free too, and the house next door wants the ditch to run along their driveway as well for free, and the neighbour next door to them wants me to widen the section in front of their house for free, and they all get upset if I say no, because I dug the first ditch for free.
Contributions are only expected in proportion to demand for more work.
If millions of users take the project as it is, use it in its current form, possibly tweak it for themselves, take it apart, add new features for their own use, or do whatever they want with it within the license terms, that's fine - no contribution required. (Although it is always appreciated!)
However, if users start demanding new features, and customizations, and bug fixes, and support requests, on strict timelines, without offering anything back in return for their heightened expectations, that is when the project team starts to expect the users to contribute to the community beyond just issuing demands.
It is unreasonable for the users to expect and demand that the project team do work for the users benefit for free with no contribution back from those users to the community.
The major reason is that if you want to advertisers to pay per ad viewed by the audience, then the advertiser (or rather, the ad network) generally wants to measure the number of views themselves to ensure that you aren't inflating the number.
There are a number of people who instead monetize their site with ads as part of their content. These people generally get paid per click, rather than per view, often through an "affiliate" style arrangement.
However, that requires the site owner to manage their advertising themselves, either by putting the fixed ad in a fixed place in their content, or by constantly updating the ad themselves. If you want to keep your ads "fresh", i.e. ensure that you're not advertising superseded products, which generate no revenue for the advertiser or yourself, you need to be constantly updating your ad catalog.
In theory, this would be something you could outsource to an agent who specializes in ad sales, however the agents have proven themselves to be unscrupulous in that regard.
To use storm.reaver you would have had to sign up with storm.
That is specifically not true. As mentioned in the summary, if you sign up with stormreaver (or storm.reaver, or st.ormrea.ver), google will consider any of those emails as identical, and deliver them all to your mail box.
The market value of the original copy was captured in your parent's statement: "if you do software as business you can meaningfully only sell development effort..."
Dictionary definitions don't seem to agree with you.
(Notably, the alternate definition in each of those, when applied to non-biological parasites, implies a derogatory "without benefiting the host", but the biological definition never includes it.)
I know he's not really serious about his prediction, so he won't take you up on that, but for anyone who actually wants to make a bet like this, http://longbets.org/ was set up for exactly this kind of situation.
There were two different scenarios called out in the article, and the summary:
1. Information which Facebook has on people who are Facebook users, which they have not provided to Facebook and is not shown on their profile (but which Facebook may have gathered as part of a shadow profile for the user) but is targetable by advertisements
2. Information which users have provided to Facebook for purposes other than updating their profile, which is not shown on their profile, but is still targetable by advertisements
Slashdot Mirror
If you believe that, then what's so wrong about the guy having more than half the shares getting his way?
The fact that he doesn't have more than half the shares? He has 10% of the shares, but they are tagged so that they have 10 times the voting rights of the other shares, so with only 10% of the company, he still gets 50% of the control.
An argument could be made that, given the knowledge of a particular hardware vulnerability, software can eliminate the risk when being run on that hardware by working around that vulnerability (to whatever extent is possible).
You realise the bubbles are the "tabs" right?
When you click on a bubble, the relevant window covers the screen, you use it, then dismiss it back to the bubble. That's essentially what switching tabs in a tabbed interface does...
But some people can:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...
https://www.vice.com/en_au/art...
Sure, but what percentage of the income do they make? If they're taking home 80% of the income and paying 46% of the income tax, that seems to be underpaying.
Also, per your link, that statistic is not from the Cuomo, but is stated editorialising by investors.com after his quote.
Calling out flaws in the original study is acceptable.
Publishing another flawed study by cutting out 90% of the data and cherry-picking the outcome you want is not acceptable.
If that means creating terrible patches and not integrating with the flow of the OSS project itself, they may do that... The choice may be to attempt to get changes harmonized with the community or just publish whatever they come up with at the end. I suspect that there's a latent annoyance about this particular thing coming from the OSS volunteers. But ... you can't be surprised that they're not doing a good job of helping you merge them into the mainline. They're doing the least they can get away with.
Except, they're missing out on some of the benefits by doing that. If they get their patches into mainline more easily, it's more likely that the next few releases will have their patches in them, and they won't have to keep updating their patches for the newer versions. Even more so if they contribute a unit test along with the patch - then they can have the comfort of knowing that their special case will be fixed for all time!
Because companies are focused on the short term benefits, they are losing out on the long term benefits for themselves.
And if they put the project "out of business" because it can't manage to handle all these out-of-flow patches, then the project goes away, and the company has to support the legacy system themselves.
https://issuehunt.io/ is a site which enables one to place bounties on Github issues.
BountySource https://www.bountysource.com/ is a similar bounty system, which can front-end a variety of trackers including bugzilla and Github.
I dug a ditch on my street for free, because it benefited me.
As a side effect, it also benefited my neighbours, and I am okay with them getting that benefit for free.
However, now the neighbour whose house fronts two streets wants me to dig a ditch on the other street for free too, and the house next door wants the ditch to run along their driveway as well for free, and the neighbour next door to them wants me to widen the section in front of their house for free, and they all get upset if I say no, because I dug the first ditch for free.
Someone needs to read the Little Red Hen again.
Contributions are only expected in proportion to demand for more work.
If millions of users take the project as it is, use it in its current form, possibly tweak it for themselves, take it apart, add new features for their own use, or do whatever they want with it within the license terms, that's fine - no contribution required. (Although it is always appreciated!)
However, if users start demanding new features, and customizations, and bug fixes, and support requests, on strict timelines, without offering anything back in return for their heightened expectations, that is when the project team starts to expect the users to contribute to the community beyond just issuing demands.
It is unreasonable for the users to expect and demand that the project team do work for the users benefit for free with no contribution back from those users to the community.
Trash thrown *into* the volcano, sure. Trash left littered around the mouth of the volcano will remain there until the next eruption...
The major reason is that if you want to advertisers to pay per ad viewed by the audience, then the advertiser (or rather, the ad network) generally wants to measure the number of views themselves to ensure that you aren't inflating the number.
There are a number of people who instead monetize their site with ads as part of their content. These people generally get paid per click, rather than per view, often through an "affiliate" style arrangement.
However, that requires the site owner to manage their advertising themselves, either by putting the fixed ad in a fixed place in their content, or by constantly updating the ad themselves. If you want to keep your ads "fresh", i.e. ensure that you're not advertising superseded products, which generate no revenue for the advertiser or yourself, you need to be constantly updating your ad catalog.
In theory, this would be something you could outsource to an agent who specializes in ad sales, however the agents have proven themselves to be unscrupulous in that regard.
To use storm.reaver you would have had to sign up with storm.
That is specifically not true. As mentioned in the summary, if you sign up with stormreaver (or storm.reaver, or st.ormrea.ver), google will consider any of those emails as identical, and deliver them all to your mail box.
https://killedbygoogle.com/
https://gcemetery.co/
and https://didgoogleshutdown.com/
are relevant
You get a slight benefit from shortening your own songs from people who play your albums/playlists, rather than compilation playlists/albums.
However, the ratio of single-artist playlists played to compilation playlists played is probably heavily tilted in favour of the compilations...
We discussed that here: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
On Github, but not really "Free" - https://www.unrealengine.com/e...
All documentation not only must be referred to in a gender non specific manner
Aha! You're behind the campaign for Info!
It Just Got Easier to Install Skype on Ubuntu - 1 February 2018
What are the system requirements for Skype?
Skype for Linux system requirements
Linux Version:
64-bit Ubuntu 14.04+
64-bit Debian 8.0+
64-bit OpenSUSE 13.3+
64-bit Fedora Linux 24+
Processor - An Intel Pentium 4 processor or later that's SSE2 and SSE3 capable
RAM - At least 512 MB
Additional software - libappindicator1 or GtkStatusIcon to make the tray icon work (optional)
The market value of the original copy was captured in your parent's statement: "if you do software as business you can meaningfully only sell development effort..."
Oxford: An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
Cambridge: an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it
Merriam-Webster: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds especially: one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures)
Dictionary definitions don't seem to agree with you.
(Notably, the alternate definition in each of those, when applied to non-biological parasites, implies a derogatory "without benefiting the host", but the biological definition never includes it.)
Install Firefox Mobile + uBlock Origin on your smart TV? That's what I've done.
I know he's not really serious about his prediction, so he won't take you up on that, but for anyone who actually wants to make a bet like this, http://longbets.org/ was set up for exactly this kind of situation.
What's that in MPG per person?
There were two different scenarios called out in the article, and the summary:
1. Information which Facebook has on people who are Facebook users, which they have not provided to Facebook and is not shown on their profile (but which Facebook may have gathered as part of a shadow profile for the user) but is targetable by advertisements
2. Information which users have provided to Facebook for purposes other than updating their profile, which is not shown on their profile, but is still targetable by advertisements