Yeah, but I wonder how many of those correspond to lost sales for you. A lot of inveterate pirate I know just collect the stuff they copy, they don't even use it. They're the internet's packrats. The practices of other players in the market have made piracy into an acceptable cultural practice, and it's having flow-on effects onto the honest players.
There is no fragmentation - not in the sense that was being discussed. People just seem to chuck "fragmentation" into any story about Android. Previous criticisms over fragmentation were generally that there were too many hardware variants for developers to support. This, as far as I can see, is a complaint that shoddy proprietary interfaces screw up the customer's experience and ruin Android's rep. There's really nothing fragmentary about it.
He didn't say it was justified, just inevitable. You price something artificially higher than the market bears, you create a black market. Happens with physical goods as well as virtual.
Although I'd disagree with him on price point; $2.10 is pretty much throw-away territory, even if the app in question is useless.
Patents expire all the time, as they still have relatively sane durations. It's copyright that's been extended ad infinitum. You should get your terms straight before making snarky comments.
But you never, ever hear about how direct payments from the U.S. Treasury into the coffers of a corporation is "unconstitutional".
Bull, I hear that all the time. I hear myself saying that, and I hear others saying that. Hell, just look through the slashdot comments around the time of the GFC bailouts.
There are legitimate services that a government should provide. Saying that all "social services" are unilaterally legitimate takes you straight to a soviet-style government - the government is responsible for so many things, they need to take control of the whole economy to get the funds. Yes, funding emergency services and maintaining infrastructure is a function of government.
But giving a tax deduction to single parents because they represent a bloc of marginal voters that could be swayed by such a promise isn't. Nor is targeting infrastructure construction in certain areas, not because they're more in need than others, but because it may swing the vote towards you in an upcoming election. Neither is exempting an industry from a particular legal requirement because their union representatives offered "generous contributions" to your party.
Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.
I'd call that buying votes. I'd call social services (often) buying votes as well. Why do I have to pick one or the other? Government is able to be corrupt in a multitude of ways simultaneously.
"American Republic will endure until Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with public's money"
-- Tocqueville
Unions are corporations; they're just owned by different people. The situation is like depending on a rabid dog to defend you from the wolf. The only thing that differs is who eats you.
If they wouldn't what? I'm not going to sue someone for saying "LordLucless gives 90% of his income to charity", but if they say "LordLucles is a pedophile" I probably would. Saying something bad isn't subject to libel law (in civilized countries - sorry Britain). Saying something that is bad and false is.
All cookies require user permissions. Just because people generally automatically allow them doesn't mean they must. Also, cookies don't intercept your bank password and transmit it to a third party.
It sounds like the thing that's making the development so expensive is government involvement (ie: taxes). It's not like the RIAA, or Wall Street, where they're looking for government money - they're essentially asking for relief from government.
See, the thing is, throttling only makes sense on unlimited connections. If you charge customers for bandwidth, the motivation for throttling goes away - you want them to use more bandwidth so you can bill them more. The rest of the world has perfectly fine internet - its the US/Canada that has shitty internet, because the payment models you demand fly in the face of reality, and your government-endorsed telco monopolists screw with your connection as a result.
I'd much rather my 500GB-capped, free-for-all connection than your "unlimited (some limits may apply)" connection.
Which he, presumably, hasn't been doing, since he's "stopped caring for the future". Whether you invest in shares or community makes no difference if you've made a point of not investing at all.
I was going to mod you down, but I couldn't find a "-1, Damn Stupid" mod. Have fun when you're 65, unemployable, deteriorating physically, and have no saved resources. I hope future you feels like suiciding in an half-as-awesome-as-you manner so that "death before retirement" gamble comes off.
I think what the previous poster was saying is that those religions don't encourage imposing that sort of behaviour outside their community. All the rules in the Bible are for either the Jews (OT) or the Christians (NT). Pretty much the only thing Christians are supposed to do in regards to non-Christians is to tell them about Jesus.
The problem exists when you have a theocracy - which was essentially what we had during the middle ages, and what some Americans believe the US has now. In a theocracy, everyone must belong to the religion in question, therefore state laws applying principles that should only be applied to members of the religious community is somewhat consistent.
Of course. You can't just say afterwards that you can do it much cheaper than those overpaid NASA slobs (whose launch vehicle you just happened to ride up on).
So because some people are stupid, scientific articles should be forbidden from using totally appropriate and correct terminology (here's a hint: broken pottery and shells are prehistoric garbage). Way to retard forward progress buddy!
I guess we should avoid master-slave hardware paradigms, or the term blackboard due to racial sensitivity too, huh? We need to tailor all our language to appease the ignorant, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but I wonder how many of those correspond to lost sales for you. A lot of inveterate pirate I know just collect the stuff they copy, they don't even use it. They're the internet's packrats. The practices of other players in the market have made piracy into an acceptable cultural practice, and it's having flow-on effects onto the honest players.
There is no fragmentation - not in the sense that was being discussed. People just seem to chuck "fragmentation" into any story about Android. Previous criticisms over fragmentation were generally that there were too many hardware variants for developers to support. This, as far as I can see, is a complaint that shoddy proprietary interfaces screw up the customer's experience and ruin Android's rep. There's really nothing fragmentary about it.
He didn't say it was justified, just inevitable. You price something artificially higher than the market bears, you create a black market. Happens with physical goods as well as virtual.
Although I'd disagree with him on price point; $2.10 is pretty much throw-away territory, even if the app in question is useless.
Patents expire all the time, as they still have relatively sane durations. It's copyright that's been extended ad infinitum. You should get your terms straight before making snarky comments.
Probably because they think reverse-discrimination is as idiotic as the rest of us.
But you never, ever hear about how direct payments from the U.S. Treasury into the coffers of a corporation is "unconstitutional".
Bull, I hear that all the time. I hear myself saying that, and I hear others saying that. Hell, just look through the slashdot comments around the time of the GFC bailouts.
There are legitimate services that a government should provide. Saying that all "social services" are unilaterally legitimate takes you straight to a soviet-style government - the government is responsible for so many things, they need to take control of the whole economy to get the funds. Yes, funding emergency services and maintaining infrastructure is a function of government.
But giving a tax deduction to single parents because they represent a bloc of marginal voters that could be swayed by such a promise isn't. Nor is targeting infrastructure construction in certain areas, not because they're more in need than others, but because it may swing the vote towards you in an upcoming election. Neither is exempting an industry from a particular legal requirement because their union representatives offered "generous contributions" to your party.
Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.
I'd call that buying votes. I'd call social services (often) buying votes as well. Why do I have to pick one or the other? Government is able to be corrupt in a multitude of ways simultaneously.
"American Republic will endure until Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with public's money"
-- Tocqueville
Unions are corporations; they're just owned by different people. The situation is like depending on a rabid dog to defend you from the wolf. The only thing that differs is who eats you.
Anyone can run Android; not everyone can sell it with Android branding. The branding is what Google controls, not the code.
If they wouldn't what? I'm not going to sue someone for saying "LordLucless gives 90% of his income to charity", but if they say "LordLucles is a pedophile" I probably would. Saying something bad isn't subject to libel law (in civilized countries - sorry Britain). Saying something that is bad and false is.
The one I see doesn't mention "Download" at all.
"bad" is not equivalent to "factually incorrect"
So what, they can get away with placing clearly-marked advertisements on their own pages? The horror...
I notice the top organic results point straight to MS
All cookies require user permissions. Just because people generally automatically allow them doesn't mean they must. Also, cookies don't intercept your bank password and transmit it to a third party.
TL;DR: You're wrong.
It sounds like the thing that's making the development so expensive is government involvement (ie: taxes). It's not like the RIAA, or Wall Street, where they're looking for government money - they're essentially asking for relief from government.
See, the thing is, throttling only makes sense on unlimited connections. If you charge customers for bandwidth, the motivation for throttling goes away - you want them to use more bandwidth so you can bill them more. The rest of the world has perfectly fine internet - its the US/Canada that has shitty internet, because the payment models you demand fly in the face of reality, and your government-endorsed telco monopolists screw with your connection as a result.
I'd much rather my 500GB-capped, free-for-all connection than your "unlimited (some limits may apply)" connection.
I think it must be a reference to a TV show that only screens in the US.
Which he, presumably, hasn't been doing, since he's "stopped caring for the future". Whether you invest in shares or community makes no difference if you've made a point of not investing at all.
Ironically, the OP correcting someone else for not using ironic correctly is both hypocritical and ironic.
I was going to mod you down, but I couldn't find a "-1, Damn Stupid" mod. Have fun when you're 65, unemployable, deteriorating physically, and have no saved resources. I hope future you feels like suiciding in an half-as-awesome-as-you manner so that "death before retirement" gamble comes off.
So easy it may have been...deliberate?
Comprehension fail. "Conservative" doesn't always reference politics.
I think what the previous poster was saying is that those religions don't encourage imposing that sort of behaviour outside their community. All the rules in the Bible are for either the Jews (OT) or the Christians (NT). Pretty much the only thing Christians are supposed to do in regards to non-Christians is to tell them about Jesus.
The problem exists when you have a theocracy - which was essentially what we had during the middle ages, and what some Americans believe the US has now. In a theocracy, everyone must belong to the religion in question, therefore state laws applying principles that should only be applied to members of the religious community is somewhat consistent.
Of course. You can't just say afterwards that you can do it much cheaper than those overpaid NASA slobs (whose launch vehicle you just happened to ride up on).
So because some people are stupid, scientific articles should be forbidden from using totally appropriate and correct terminology (here's a hint: broken pottery and shells are prehistoric garbage). Way to retard forward progress buddy!
I guess we should avoid master-slave hardware paradigms, or the term blackboard due to racial sensitivity too, huh? We need to tailor all our language to appease the ignorant, after all.