It seems like advertising is backing away a bit, with the notable exception of the web. Ad-supported cable is dying but the no-ads premiums channels like HBO are doing well, and zero-ad subscription services like Netflix are cleaning up. The tech industry does seem to have more than it's share of advertising companies masquerading as something else. And the number of multi-billion dollar acquisitions for things like chat platforms, many that have subsequently been sold at a fraction of their purchase price, is suggestive of a bubble.
It's called the free(ish) market. Websites that have compelling content will attract viewers who are either willing to suffer ads or fork over a usage fee or donation. Sites that don't, won't. If sites people like start dying, they'll fork over some cash to save them.
Sure there is. I remember when Google entered the advertising business. Their whole schtick was that they only presented small text ads, well identified as such. They were fast, unobtrusive, and often useful.
Then Doubleclick bought Google for negative whateverbillionty dollars.
2) Apparently the topography to windward (west) is important. Chile and Hawaii are favoured locations for telescopes because they have ocean to the west, and ocean is very flat (relative to land). That means the air blowing over your telescope is experiencing pretty laminar flow most of the time. Places like Tibet with lots of mountainous land to the west get more turbulent flow.
Would you not enjoy having super powers? Cheats are super powers: you get to walk tall among the mere mortals. Most people don't have the slightest desire to be challenged, they just want to win.
Starting a jet engine isn't just pressing a button. I don't think airports would particularly appreciate every airliner sitting on the runway threshold firing up it's engines. I suppose you could use this for taxiing from the runway to the terminal, but there usually aren't many holdups in that process.
You can do all the same things in Apple devices too. Don't believe the anti-hype. Apple has developed an annoying addiction to pentalobe screws, but the screwdrivers for those now seem to be available at many hardware stores. There are excellent tear down guides, step by step instructions for individual part replacements, and replacement part sales.
Have to call bullshit. Your own assertion supports the OPs point. I've replaced the battery in my current iPhone twice (and the screen three times). If "battery failure" was really the primary problem with old phones then people wouldn't upgrade for $1000, they'd replace the battery for $30. The primary reason to upgrade is that people want a new phone.
It's a standard feature of emerging technology. The new thing is much better than the old thing, so people use any excuse to upgrade. When the technology becomes mature there's much less impetus to buy a whole new device. Digital cameras and desktop computers are now pretty mature. Smartphones are fast approaching.
I doubt very much he told apt to remove his window manager. The apt system (either apt itself or some Ubuntu package(s)) has some buggy bits that don't do so well keeping track of dependencies. As someone else pointed out, this is probably the code that looks for unneeded libraries. The OP wanted to remove his game, but apt said "by the way, here's some other stuff I found that you don't need anymore, want me to remove it?" and the OP hit yes (sounds like a good idea, no?).
You can't do the same thing in OS X. I don't know about Windows. The app store can't remove or modify system files unless you're explicitly installing an OS upgrade.
In general, programs on the Mac are much more self-contained, at the expense of a bit of replication of libraries. The OS X bundle/framework paradigm is excellent, and well worth copying. I'm not sure what app store Windows does, but in the past this kind of problem in that OS was known as "dll hell." Linux has much of the same problem, and the currently implemented fixes are pretty clunky.
Absolutely. BIOS wasn't more "locked down" than UEFI just because you couldn't change BIOS settings through a r/w file interface. Maybe a bit more inconvenient for system utility authors, but it seems to me that's a good thing.
It's a little worse than that. At least on Ubuntu, the package manger is pretty aggressive about removing old stuff. When you install or uninstall a package it mentions that it found all this old cruft, and would you like to remove it (Y/n)? A regular user is pretty likely to just say yes. You don't need to specifically be trying to free up space.
Assuming you mean Ubuntu Snappy, kinda. The transactional updates will let you roll back changes (which is awesome) but it doesn't really fix the fact that package managers shouldn't be doing stupid stuff like that in the first place. The new package managers coming out of the major distros should hopefully fix a lot of the problems with the old ones.
That seems more than a little black and white. Mounting UEFI vars as read only by default, requiring specifically mounting write to change them would solve a lot of problems. Making writing to UEFI not a file system operation would too. You know, like BIOS used to be.
I remember we used to have to write down our hard drive specs because BIOS settings could be overwritten by bad memory accesses. Thank god someone fixed that (and invented auto detection).
No, he's not an idiot. He's a normal person. Normal people click uninstall and expect their game to be uninstalled, not their OS's GUI. Linux package managers are well overdue for redesign. Making hardware brick able by software is also bad design. Mounting firmware as ordinary rw files, ditto.
The whole thing is politically impossible, not because random homeowners would suffer (you could adjust things so they came out neutral) but because the heavy users of tax shelters and loopholes would. That's kind of the point of using a very simple tax scheme: there's nowhere to hide.
Your example brings up an important point: many of the deductions are really hidden subsidies. The ability to deduct things like interest on your mortgage is a subsidy to real estate owners (and mortgage issuers). We feel warm and fuzzy when it's a little nuclear family getting the benefit but the major beneficiaries are really the corporate holders, from the scuzzy slum lord up. Subsidizing real estate purchases might be a good idea, but a direct subsidy with a simple tax scheme would be both simpler and more transparent.
Ssh, it's a secret, but 70-80% of a modern economy is make up purely of selling each other stuff and trading favours: real estate, nail places, retail, financial services, etc. If you're ever curious why technology hasn't given us three hour work days, go down to a mall and look at all the people who's job it is to stand around all day in case a customer comes in and wants to buy something. But everyone has to feel they're gainfully employed, so we maintain the illusion.
It's not that oil isn't important to the Canadian economy (8% is still a big deal) but it's not like the Canadian economy isn't diverse. We do have a diversity problem, which is illustrated a bit lower on that page: 80% of our exports go to the US. So if the US takes a dislike to us, because we tried to legalize pot 15 years before they were ready, or we want to build a pipeline, it can hit Canada hard. Also if the US dollar goes down relative to the loonie.
He didn't suggest anything that necessarily means a regressive tax scheme. He said it should be simple: you make $X, you pay $Y. If Y/X is the same regardless of what X is then the scheme is neither regressive nor progressive. If Y/X is higher when X is higher, the scheme is progressive.
A simple way to have a tunable progressive scheme would be Y = aX + bX^2. Set a and b as you like.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like advertising is backing away a bit, with the notable exception of the web. Ad-supported cable is dying but the no-ads premiums channels like HBO are doing well, and zero-ad subscription services like Netflix are cleaning up. The tech industry does seem to have more than it's share of advertising companies masquerading as something else. And the number of multi-billion dollar acquisitions for things like chat platforms, many that have subsequently been sold at a fraction of their purchase price, is suggestive of a bubble.
The toxicity of plutonium has been generally over hyped. Wikipedia says it's about the same as nerve gas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's called the free(ish) market. Websites that have compelling content will attract viewers who are either willing to suffer ads or fork over a usage fee or donation. Sites that don't, won't. If sites people like start dying, they'll fork over some cash to save them.
Sure there is. I remember when Google entered the advertising business. Their whole schtick was that they only presented small text ads, well identified as such. They were fast, unobtrusive, and often useful.
Then Doubleclick bought Google for negative whateverbillionty dollars.
1) Google adaptive optics and be amazed.
2) Apparently the topography to windward (west) is important. Chile and Hawaii are favoured locations for telescopes because they have ocean to the west, and ocean is very flat (relative to land). That means the air blowing over your telescope is experiencing pretty laminar flow most of the time. Places like Tibet with lots of mountainous land to the west get more turbulent flow.
He didn't mention that in Canadian football the balls are bigger too.
Would you not enjoy having super powers? Cheats are super powers: you get to walk tall among the mere mortals. Most people don't have the slightest desire to be challenged, they just want to win.
Starting a jet engine isn't just pressing a button. I don't think airports would particularly appreciate every airliner sitting on the runway threshold firing up it's engines. I suppose you could use this for taxiing from the runway to the terminal, but there usually aren't many holdups in that process.
I don't think commercial jets have any internal combustion engines. But why do you think they'll become "non-viable" in the future?
Bought into the bottled water mafia hey? I grew up drinking distilled water. Many people in my home town had distillers.
You can do all the same things in Apple devices too. Don't believe the anti-hype. Apple has developed an annoying addiction to pentalobe screws, but the screwdrivers for those now seem to be available at many hardware stores. There are excellent tear down guides, step by step instructions for individual part replacements, and replacement part sales.
What kind of phone did you have that had less user serviceable parts than a car? When your car needs an oil change do you junk it too?
Have to call bullshit. Your own assertion supports the OPs point. I've replaced the battery in my current iPhone twice (and the screen three times). If "battery failure" was really the primary problem with old phones then people wouldn't upgrade for $1000, they'd replace the battery for $30. The primary reason to upgrade is that people want a new phone.
It's a standard feature of emerging technology. The new thing is much better than the old thing, so people use any excuse to upgrade. When the technology becomes mature there's much less impetus to buy a whole new device. Digital cameras and desktop computers are now pretty mature. Smartphones are fast approaching.
I doubt very much he told apt to remove his window manager. The apt system (either apt itself or some Ubuntu package(s)) has some buggy bits that don't do so well keeping track of dependencies. As someone else pointed out, this is probably the code that looks for unneeded libraries. The OP wanted to remove his game, but apt said "by the way, here's some other stuff I found that you don't need anymore, want me to remove it?" and the OP hit yes (sounds like a good idea, no?).
You can't do the same thing in OS X. I don't know about Windows. The app store can't remove or modify system files unless you're explicitly installing an OS upgrade.
In general, programs on the Mac are much more self-contained, at the expense of a bit of replication of libraries. The OS X bundle/framework paradigm is excellent, and well worth copying. I'm not sure what app store Windows does, but in the past this kind of problem in that OS was known as "dll hell." Linux has much of the same problem, and the currently implemented fixes are pretty clunky.
Absolutely. BIOS wasn't more "locked down" than UEFI just because you couldn't change BIOS settings through a r/w file interface. Maybe a bit more inconvenient for system utility authors, but it seems to me that's a good thing.
It's a little worse than that. At least on Ubuntu, the package manger is pretty aggressive about removing old stuff. When you install or uninstall a package it mentions that it found all this old cruft, and would you like to remove it (Y/n)? A regular user is pretty likely to just say yes. You don't need to specifically be trying to free up space.
Assuming you mean Ubuntu Snappy, kinda. The transactional updates will let you roll back changes (which is awesome) but it doesn't really fix the fact that package managers shouldn't be doing stupid stuff like that in the first place. The new package managers coming out of the major distros should hopefully fix a lot of the problems with the old ones.
Incredibly delicate?
That seems more than a little black and white. Mounting UEFI vars as read only by default, requiring specifically mounting write to change them would solve a lot of problems. Making writing to UEFI not a file system operation would too. You know, like BIOS used to be.
I remember we used to have to write down our hard drive specs because BIOS settings could be overwritten by bad memory accesses. Thank god someone fixed that (and invented auto detection).
No, he's not an idiot. He's a normal person. Normal people click uninstall and expect their game to be uninstalled, not their OS's GUI. Linux package managers are well overdue for redesign. Making hardware brick able by software is also bad design. Mounting firmware as ordinary rw files, ditto.
The vehicle-covered to not covered duty cycle on a rural highway is pretty high.
The whole thing is politically impossible, not because random homeowners would suffer (you could adjust things so they came out neutral) but because the heavy users of tax shelters and loopholes would. That's kind of the point of using a very simple tax scheme: there's nowhere to hide.
Your example brings up an important point: many of the deductions are really hidden subsidies. The ability to deduct things like interest on your mortgage is a subsidy to real estate owners (and mortgage issuers). We feel warm and fuzzy when it's a little nuclear family getting the benefit but the major beneficiaries are really the corporate holders, from the scuzzy slum lord up. Subsidizing real estate purchases might be a good idea, but a direct subsidy with a simple tax scheme would be both simpler and more transparent.
Hm. Everyone seems to have abandoned SourceForge for alternatives. I've been reading Slashdot for something like twenty years (!) but... yeah.
Sorry, I copied the link but didn't paste it: http://www.investorsfriend.com...
Ssh, it's a secret, but 70-80% of a modern economy is make up purely of selling each other stuff and trading favours: real estate, nail places, retail, financial services, etc. If you're ever curious why technology hasn't given us three hour work days, go down to a mall and look at all the people who's job it is to stand around all day in case a customer comes in and wants to buy something. But everyone has to feel they're gainfully employed, so we maintain the illusion.
It's not that oil isn't important to the Canadian economy (8% is still a big deal) but it's not like the Canadian economy isn't diverse. We do have a diversity problem, which is illustrated a bit lower on that page: 80% of our exports go to the US. So if the US takes a dislike to us, because we tried to legalize pot 15 years before they were ready, or we want to build a pipeline, it can hit Canada hard. Also if the US dollar goes down relative to the loonie.
He didn't suggest anything that necessarily means a regressive tax scheme. He said it should be simple: you make $X, you pay $Y. If Y/X is the same regardless of what X is then the scheme is neither regressive nor progressive. If Y/X is higher when X is higher, the scheme is progressive.
A simple way to have a tunable progressive scheme would be Y = aX + bX^2. Set a and b as you like.