5. Notice the view of the DOM below does not update to reflect the new className you've added.
Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a way to manually edit HTML elements (add attributes, add new HTML, etc) using the DOM inspector like you can in WebKit browsers.
Is this a bug / missing feature or am I doing it wrong?
That phone looks exactly like Android but with a slightly different skin. It even has the same four hardware buttons on the bottom like Android 2.x devices.
Screw native code. They're better off making IE a modern web browser so people can make WebGL games with multiplayer over web sockets. Why share just your models when you can share the entire codebase across operating systems?
Of course the ends justify the means. What you call theft I call a civic obligation to the society that makes your wealth possible. An enlightened society is one which ensures a humane minimum standard of living for all its members. If we have to take from the rich to bring the poor up to that minimum standard, then that coercion is certainly the lesser of the two evils. Otherwise you'll have people dying in the streets while the aristocracy lives a life of opulence.
As for the Social Darwinism angle, I believe you have that slightly off. Her point, if you read closely, was that any charity that comes at the end of a gunpoint is not charity. That a Good Samaritan is by choice, not by mandate.
On the contrary, history has shown us that poverty correlates inversely with welfare states. When the state does not provide adequate welfare, private charity never makes up the difference with statistical significance. There's been at least two major empirical studies to determine this which are summarized concisely on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare
No, his term Randroid implies that Randian philosophy is oversimplified, myopic, and harmful to society. The whole purpose of the so called rational self interest is to promote your own interests before the group's which is counterproductive to running a civilization. Rand basically believed that social darwinism was okay: the strong should survive, the weak should perish, and that that's the way things should be. When most people grow up they get over that kind of immaturity and realize we're all in this together.
That's why we need to extend antitrust laws to preclude OS vendors from strictly controlling what apps can and can't be distributed for a platform. Every OS with an app development SDK should be legally required to at least have an Android style "unknown sources" checkbox to allow sideloading of apps. Even game consoles. Only a law will end the abuse. Expecting people to decide with their wallets can only end the tears we're currently all shedding.
It does indeed look like the vast majority of the people on Slashdot who've had these sorts of close calls ignored it and it went away.
I wonder if the pattern works like this:
- 90% of the accused ignore it and it goes away. - 9% settle out of fear, not knowing they could probably just ignore it and it'll go away. - 1% are too prideful and deny the accusation, thereby making it easy for the **AA to force a big, showboating trial (e.g. Joel Tenenbaum or Jamie Thomas).
The moral of the story:
1. Odds against a copyright holder ever catching you in the act are insanely low to begin with, especially if you use obscure torrent sites, private trackers, or other means of concealing the file sharing.
2. If you are among the unlucky few who are accused, ignore the accusation as long as possible. Odds are the accuser will move on to easier targets.
Post-scarcity economics leads to some fun debates about pricing. I've found that many people want to pay for good software but not many people can agree on what a fair price is. Most indie houses I've visited tell me they struggle mightily on deciding what the "right" price point is. Ultimately their answer boils down to "whatever the market is willing to pay." They just sort of take the pulse of the market and set a price that seems consistent and fair with respect to similar titles.
But that seems wrong to me because it's arbitrary and subjective. If I ask five different Slashdotters whether an Android app is priced reasonably or not, I may get five different answers. Some will think it's too expensive, others will think the app is worth more. The users who think the app is too expensive will pirate it. The users who think it's worth more will only pay as much as the author charges, since they're not furnished with an easy way to give more to the author. This all leads me to believe that we go about pricing software entirely wrong.
If the right price is whatever the market is willing to pay, then why not let the market decide the price itself? Users should be able to decide how much they're going to pay you when they buy your software. If they pick a number below your recommended price (which should be the default), then show them some ads or something. That way at least you're getting the ad revenue instead of piratebay.
But it cuts both ways too. If you let users pick their own price, generous users will have an easy way to give you more money for your work. Some outliers that really like your work may even donate large amounts.
By using this pay-what-you-want model during the app purchasing experience rather than a donations button off to the side, you create an integrated experience which benefits from convenience psychology. The more convenient it is for people to pay you more, the more you will get paid because you've made it easy for your users to be generous.
And by making "free" an option in exchange for some ad impressions, you've completely abolished piracy. Why visit a shady torrent site that has shady ads when you can get it straight from the author and see their less obnoxious ads?
Whenever I meet with and indie developer, I always strongly encourage this model. The biggest reason: the market already functions this way. When you price your app, the user always has piracy as an alternative. If they don't like your price, they'll simply pirate your app. Let the user make the arbitrary decision of what price is right. Don't pretend you can make it for them. You can't.
While I applaud Rand Paul on this issue and some others, I find his boilerplate conservative stance on cutting taxes, instituting austerity measures, and curtailing the social safety net offensive. Don't be a single issue voter. His stance on many civil liberties issues may be inspiring, but his other views will make our issues with wealth inequality and poverty much, much worse.
Why Freemium always works: even if you don't think your software business model is freemium, it still is. Piracy forces freemium on all business models. Either accept it and face reality, or be in denial like the author of this article.
Bing and Google are the same ball of wax to Apple in that respect. Both companies are trying to compete directly with Apple's portables. I suspect Apple would rather keep Google as the preferred search engine in Safari than piss off a bunch of their customers by switching it to Bing just to spite Google.
Amazon is in a different type of business than HTC, Samsung, etc. Amazon's reasons for forking Android exist regardless of whether or not Google chooses to implement the OP's proposed policy, whereas HTC, Samsung, etc are more willing to accept Google's terms in order to get a low cost, high quality OS on their phones.
Without agreeing to Google's terms, manufactures can't ship devices with the Android Market, Google's apps, or use the Android trademark. That gives Google the power to do as the OP suggests.
thanks to all for your kind words. My best assessment is that most members of the House who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee have not yet focused on SOPA. People should realize that incredible power they have to impact the thinking of their own Representative on the subject. For example, a very intelligent colleague who is not on the Committee approached me today asking about the bill. Why? He had received an urgent and forthright telephone call from a small business person in his district who is tremendously opposed. He wanted to know more about our Open Act Alternative. This is the power that each of you have with your own Representative. I have noticed lot of commentary on line, many thoughtful comments, tweets, etc. But most Representatives are not as plugged into the net world as many of you are. To be heard, you must speak, directly and either by phone or in person. Tweets, emails, petitions are nice, but they don't get the same level of attention. If I had to bet right now (no, not a $10,000 bet!) I would guess that SOPA proponents currently have the upper hand in Congress. But that is because you have not yet been heard from fully yet. That is very much subject to change. I learned long ago not to try to explain the thinking of other Members of Congress on any given subject. Instead, you should ask them. If they represent you in the House, they most likely will be happy to take your call. Please remember if you do call to be not only forthright but also polite. It's likely that the person answering the phone is some young person who is working long hours for low pay who does not deserve rude treatment. The House is out of session now but I will be happy to participate in AMA on SOPA again in the days ahead. Best wishes, Zoe
That's because he is radical. I don't think he's crazy, but the man makes most of the rest of the Republican party look liberal by comparison. Nobody's going to vote for him for the same reason no one will vote for Dennis Kucinich. Too far from the center.
We keep hearing that the U.S. manufacturing sector is horribly depressed due to competition from foreign firms. There is an oversupply of cheap labor overseas and the U.S. simply can't compete.
But we can clearly see here that there is a high demand for hard drives and not enough supply to go around. I wonder what the prospects might be for domestic manufacturing to start ramping up to meet the demand?
True, but now that ALAC is open source, it should be trivial to integrate support for it into arbitrary devices, such as your phone, with a simple software update.
Standardization on one format has advantages, but since conversion to ALAC from FLAC and back again should be lossless, I suppose there's no need for FLAC to die. Nevertheless, I suspect since it's the less portable format since Apple dominates the music player space and won't support FLAC, it should begin to fizzle out assuming Apple maintains its market share.
Good point. I forgot about those. But as I understand it, the developer program for those is even more constrained than the iOS developer program. For one, Apple only accepts games. On top of that, the SDK is not generally available and IIRC they do not accept arbitrary applications.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a default, not a mandate. If it doesn't benefit you, like it benefits the vast majority of Firefox users, then turn it off, FFS.
Anyone else not able to see live updates to the DOM with the developer tools?
Try this:
1. Right click on the Firefox start page (about:home) around the empty area left of the Firefox logo -> Inspect element.
2. <div id="topSection"> should be selected.
3. Open Tools -> Web Developer -> Web console.
4. Type: document.getElementById('topSection').className = 'hello';
5. Notice the view of the DOM below does not update to reflect the new className you've added.
Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a way to manually edit HTML elements (add attributes, add new HTML, etc) using the DOM inspector like you can in WebKit browsers.
Is this a bug / missing feature or am I doing it wrong?
You're not patronizing them to begin with if you're blocking their ads. So from their perspective you're the parasitic scum and you won't be missed.
That phone looks exactly like Android but with a slightly different skin. It even has the same four hardware buttons on the bottom like Android 2.x devices.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/telefonica-firefox-os-smartphone-prototype-85340/attachment/photo-06-07-2012-12-11-38
Screw native code. They're better off making IE a modern web browser so people can make WebGL games with multiplayer over web sockets. Why share just your models when you can share the entire codebase across operating systems?
Of course the ends justify the means. What you call theft I call a civic obligation to the society that makes your wealth possible. An enlightened society is one which ensures a humane minimum standard of living for all its members. If we have to take from the rich to bring the poor up to that minimum standard, then that coercion is certainly the lesser of the two evils. Otherwise you'll have people dying in the streets while the aristocracy lives a life of opulence.
On the contrary, history has shown us that poverty correlates inversely with welfare states. When the state does not provide adequate welfare, private charity never makes up the difference with statistical significance. There's been at least two major empirical studies to determine this which are summarized concisely on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty#Table_of_poverty_levels_pre_and_post_welfare
No, his term Randroid implies that Randian philosophy is oversimplified, myopic, and harmful to society. The whole purpose of the so called rational self interest is to promote your own interests before the group's which is counterproductive to running a civilization. Rand basically believed that social darwinism was okay: the strong should survive, the weak should perish, and that that's the way things should be. When most people grow up they get over that kind of immaturity and realize we're all in this together.
Can only end in tears rather. Slashdot needs an edit button.
That's why we need to extend antitrust laws to preclude OS vendors from strictly controlling what apps can and can't be distributed for a platform. Every OS with an app development SDK should be legally required to at least have an Android style "unknown sources" checkbox to allow sideloading of apps. Even game consoles. Only a law will end the abuse. Expecting people to decide with their wallets can only end the tears we're currently all shedding.
*crickets*
It does indeed look like the vast majority of the people on Slashdot who've had these sorts of close calls ignored it and it went away.
I wonder if the pattern works like this:
- 90% of the accused ignore it and it goes away.
- 9% settle out of fear, not knowing they could probably just ignore it and it'll go away.
- 1% are too prideful and deny the accusation, thereby making it easy for the **AA to force a big, showboating trial (e.g. Joel Tenenbaum or Jamie Thomas).
The moral of the story:
1. Odds against a copyright holder ever catching you in the act are insanely low to begin with, especially if you use obscure torrent sites, private trackers, or other means of concealing the file sharing.
2. If you are among the unlucky few who are accused, ignore the accusation as long as possible. Odds are the accuser will move on to easier targets.
Routinely back everything you store in the cloud locally. Problem solved.
Post-scarcity economics leads to some fun debates about pricing. I've found that many people want to pay for good software but not many people can agree on what a fair price is. Most indie houses I've visited tell me they struggle mightily on deciding what the "right" price point is. Ultimately their answer boils down to "whatever the market is willing to pay." They just sort of take the pulse of the market and set a price that seems consistent and fair with respect to similar titles.
But that seems wrong to me because it's arbitrary and subjective. If I ask five different Slashdotters whether an Android app is priced reasonably or not, I may get five different answers. Some will think it's too expensive, others will think the app is worth more. The users who think the app is too expensive will pirate it. The users who think it's worth more will only pay as much as the author charges, since they're not furnished with an easy way to give more to the author. This all leads me to believe that we go about pricing software entirely wrong.
If the right price is whatever the market is willing to pay, then why not let the market decide the price itself? Users should be able to decide how much they're going to pay you when they buy your software. If they pick a number below your recommended price (which should be the default), then show them some ads or something. That way at least you're getting the ad revenue instead of piratebay.
But it cuts both ways too. If you let users pick their own price, generous users will have an easy way to give you more money for your work. Some outliers that really like your work may even donate large amounts.
By using this pay-what-you-want model during the app purchasing experience rather than a donations button off to the side, you create an integrated experience which benefits from convenience psychology. The more convenient it is for people to pay you more, the more you will get paid because you've made it easy for your users to be generous.
And by making "free" an option in exchange for some ad impressions, you've completely abolished piracy. Why visit a shady torrent site that has shady ads when you can get it straight from the author and see their less obnoxious ads?
Whenever I meet with and indie developer, I always strongly encourage this model. The biggest reason: the market already functions this way. When you price your app, the user always has piracy as an alternative. If they don't like your price, they'll simply pirate your app. Let the user make the arbitrary decision of what price is right. Don't pretend you can make it for them. You can't.
While I applaud Rand Paul on this issue and some others, I find his boilerplate conservative stance on cutting taxes, instituting austerity measures, and curtailing the social safety net offensive. Don't be a single issue voter. His stance on many civil liberties issues may be inspiring, but his other views will make our issues with wealth inequality and poverty much, much worse.
If your house burns down, it doesn't matter how good your local backups were. They all burned down.
A good backup strategy requires both a strong local backup system and offsite "cloud" backups. Don't rely exclusively on one or the other.
Why Freemium always works: even if you don't think your software business model is freemium, it still is. Piracy forces freemium on all business models. Either accept it and face reality, or be in denial like the author of this article.
Bing and Google are the same ball of wax to Apple in that respect. Both companies are trying to compete directly with Apple's portables. I suspect Apple would rather keep Google as the preferred search engine in Safari than piss off a bunch of their customers by switching it to Bing just to spite Google.
Amazon is in a different type of business than HTC, Samsung, etc. Amazon's reasons for forking Android exist regardless of whether or not Google chooses to implement the OP's proposed policy, whereas HTC, Samsung, etc are more willing to accept Google's terms in order to get a low cost, high quality OS on their phones.
Without agreeing to Google's terms, manufactures can't ship devices with the Android Market, Google's apps, or use the Android trademark. That gives Google the power to do as the OP suggests.
I voted for Zoe Lofgren, and she vigorously opposes this travesty.
Here's a statement she made today, on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/nfhhy/member_of_house_judiciary_committee_ama_on_sopa/
(Yes, she has a Reddit account.)
That's because he is radical. I don't think he's crazy, but the man makes most of the rest of the Republican party look liberal by comparison. Nobody's going to vote for him for the same reason no one will vote for Dennis Kucinich. Too far from the center.
We keep hearing that the U.S. manufacturing sector is horribly depressed due to competition from foreign firms. There is an oversupply of cheap labor overseas and the U.S. simply can't compete.
But we can clearly see here that there is a high demand for hard drives and not enough supply to go around. I wonder what the prospects might be for domestic manufacturing to start ramping up to meet the demand?
True, but now that ALAC is open source, it should be trivial to integrate support for it into arbitrary devices, such as your phone, with a simple software update.
Standardization on one format has advantages, but since conversion to ALAC from FLAC and back again should be lossless, I suppose there's no need for FLAC to die. Nevertheless, I suspect since it's the less portable format since Apple dominates the music player space and won't support FLAC, it should begin to fizzle out assuming Apple maintains its market share.
Good point. I forgot about those. But as I understand it, the developer program for those is even more constrained than the iOS developer program. For one, Apple only accepts games. On top of that, the SDK is not generally available and IIRC they do not accept arbitrary applications.