The administrators were migrating, the community very likely was looking into it (as happens when administrators decide to fork), even if some parts hadn't heard about the whole thing. If you jump to conclusions that's your own choice, if you want to look into what the community will actually do as promted that's a good idea.
So what exactly is untrue about the community looking to migrate? The interpretation that it's the website that's migrating is not supported by the given quote.
I wonder what happens to the Capitalist (or whoever best fits that ideology) ideal of working your way up if you don't get capital showever on you by fate when increased efficiency makes some workers redundant... wait...
Can't say much for Marxism but in a communistic society (you know, the anarchist one, not the state sized corporation "striving" for communism) there'd be fewer workers controlling the robots, everyone else would be pretty much SOL, just like now, but with no safety nets at all.
Remind me, is i possible to serve XHMTL 1.0 accross the board yet? I think it just about it, and we are to the point of "why the fuck bother anymore", if you can do better at getting shit implemented go right ahead, but so far HsTML5 has made more tangible progress than just about any other single initiative of W3C.
Hell, the developers might have even done it intentionally, either to collect debbuging data and switch it off later or because they could or whatnot. Hell, maybe their managers knew two (and didn't grok what it was about). That still wouldn't make it the company wide effort to harvest wifi trafic data for mining purposes that some poeple are convinced it was. It definitely though Google a lesson about transparency though (i.e. delete the data, code, documents and memories in question next tim).:-/
Ah, I misunderstood your argument to be against an economic restriction (attempt to make weapons expensive), it makes sense in terms of a logistical restriction (attempt to remove guns from certain market). I don't necessarily agree, but that's mostly due to not having firm opinion.
It's not, the yous in that quote are people who hold that attitude in general and the people who made such a contradictory decision at musopen in particular.
The first paragraph does address 'you' as well, and it's not/. user chill there either. You seem to recognize the fact, so why, even after clarification of what my complaint is and who it is directed at, do you insist that the second paragraph must?
WebM was a Xanatos Gambit, they would have won with an immediate takeover, they did win by keeping H.264 affordable, they are winning on slowly pushing it onto a lot of new devices, which in turn sets them up to win by either having WebM prevail long term or keeping H.264 affordable when the next review date hits. It might not have been a win for web standards nor Google's best case scenario, but they came out ahead anyway.
The relative price for attacker and defender is the same, so restricting doesn't make anything worse, it just reduces the total number of weapons in the system. A cheap arms race is still an arms race, so if attacker is buying $X of guns the defender still has to match $X if your argument holds. The attacker will spend $X (because that's what the attack is worth to them) regardless of the precise bang for buck (for realistic values), so how will the defender avoid maintaining an equivalent stockpile?
There are only two cases in which your line of reasoning predicts a difference in this dynamic. Weapons are just too damn expensive, no one can afford any or weapons are close enough to free to be able to arm all your men to the teeth and have a huge reserve at hand for less than $X. Of course all that the latter acomplish is to have mercenaries hired for $X - cheap_guns. Come to think of it though, I've never heard the "an armed society is a polite society" folks advocating weapons drops to put a rifle in everyone's hands. Maybe they do understand the economics of violance better than they like to admit.
I'm not putting worth in your mouth and hope to not hear any more of such accusations. You don't know a thing about me, much less be certain based on the tone my critical-of-musopen comment (I was trying to get some classical music for my mom who was recovering from some very serious surgery from a place that used to actually bring public domain music to people before they put up the paywall, for all intents and purposes they were just another paysite at $50, there's some fucking context for you), would you be so kind to stop the insinuations about my character and stay on topic?
It's not about me and it's not about you either, so why you did or didn't pay makes absolutely no difference to Musopens deeply flawed approach to the issue. Musopen doesn't want torrents, musopen doesn't want you to have the music if you don't pay, it's very much like Mandrake back in the day (I haven't followed Mandrive, they might still do that) where they can't stop you because they do actually license stuff in-line with their beliefs, but will guilt trip you into paying instead. I have no problems with donations or funding (the kickstarter campaign was a great idea). I also understand covering your costs... as long as it is in line with the costs. A much more reasonable approach would be to charge for lossless (big) and streaming access (bandwidth intensive, but convenient, especially for smartphones). That'd look both like covering costs and charging for premium access up and above simple, small mp3 downloads.
But no, this is a "you should support us or else move" and very much counter with the spirit they presented when the site originally came into being. Hope none of the initial contributors (performers who contributed before the paywall that is) just wanted people to be able to get unrestricted classical music, else they might feel kinda cheated. But who cares about them, the Project is more important than contributors or even its ultimate goals.
I'll pass on supporting the crappy pay wall revenue model. Want to waste their bandwidth streaming? Go right ahead! Want to grab a few mp3s? For $50 you get lossless! Well, I don't care, not right now anyway.
The only way I'd pay it is to put the whole lot on piratebay. You say that's not nice? Well, what's the point of it being public domain if you have to buy a subscription and it's mean to share it?
For it to be manipulation instead of fraud (when done intentionally) or negligence (when not making sure you have the gold you assume you have) it would have to be explicitly done for the purpose of altering the marketplace. I've yet to see any evidence for the later, much less that is perpetuated mostly or even exclusively by central banks. Hell, how about a plausible (as in, something that makes sense to them, not something people fear they'd do because they are shadowy organizations with goals beyond their interests) motive for devaluing their own gold reserves (though evidence is still needed to take that claim as anything but speculation)?
My current "featurephone" happily runs J2ME apps in the background, the switching is a touch clunky, but it works ok for switching between Google Maps (really well done app BTW), Opera Mini and the phone itself. Dunno how recent of a thing that is though.
I'll leave you to fitting the data to your preconceived notions about what should then, as I can hardly argue about speculation on what it "looks like". In general its as the sibling post notes, there is no difference between "manipulation" and "trade" in the market, e.g. is all the gold hype that benefits current investors advice or manipulation?
I'm sure you won't have trouble providing a comprehensive list of items with real value (that is, not gold and other hordables) that quadrupled in price on top of inflation between 1970 and 1980. For a simple one try hamburgers, they are ubiquitous and have real value, did the price at least double? If the dollar was swinging as much as you imply it better have.
Exchanges are currently the most obvious targets. However even in a world where bitcoins are used not only for all online transactions, but also for all in person transactions (smartphones), you still need to receive your purchases either via delivery (addresses and P/O boxes are traceable for powerful adversaries) or personally (loyalty cards, face recognition, license plate correlation, cellphone triangulation, etc.). If those are available to an adversary when you pay cash, then even with serial number tracking it would be quite hard to figure out who you interact with outside of the scope of the surveillance. With bitcoins the flow between positively identifiable transactions is still a mater of public record by design.
Back when this happened there was a sizable number of people claiming that this was merely a small fraction of Bitcoinica's volume and how it's not a big deal at all, etc. Care to explain why they are now closed and being sued?
Slashdot Mirror
The administrators were migrating, the community very likely was looking into it (as happens when administrators decide to fork), even if some parts hadn't heard about the whole thing. If you jump to conclusions that's your own choice, if you want to look into what the community will actually do as promted that's a good idea.
So what exactly is untrue about the community looking to migrate? The interpretation that it's the website that's migrating is not supported by the given quote.
Didn't you read the whole thing? Apple confirmed that it's just as good, you can rest assured that switching will do you no good.
I wonder what happens to the Capitalist (or whoever best fits that ideology) ideal of working your way up if you don't get capital showever on you by fate when increased efficiency makes some workers redundant... wait...
Can't say much for Marxism but in a communistic society (you know, the anarchist one, not the state sized corporation "striving" for communism) there'd be fewer workers controlling the robots, everyone else would be pretty much SOL, just like now, but with no safety nets at all.
They could call it a Transformer...
I know, what I'm saying is that they made the right choice there and dismissing the effort because it is different completely misses that point.
Remind me, is i possible to serve XHMTL 1.0 accross the board yet? I think it just about it, and we are to the point of "why the fuck bother anymore", if you can do better at getting shit implemented go right ahead, but so far HsTML5 has made more tangible progress than just about any other single initiative of W3C.
What will not developing a good interface for Android instead of not developing their current software accomplish?
I agree complely, a nose operated interface with a flat structure for settings is exactly what DSLRs lack.
Indeed, calm down people. They rescheduled it for the 4th day of deliberations.
Hell, the developers might have even done it intentionally, either to collect debbuging data and switch it off later or because they could or whatnot. Hell, maybe their managers knew two (and didn't grok what it was about). That still wouldn't make it the company wide effort to harvest wifi trafic data for mining purposes that some poeple are convinced it was. It definitely though Google a lesson about transparency though (i.e. delete the data, code, documents and memories in question next tim). :-/
See, if they can convince Apple that it is a good idea to look for that kind of thing they might bother fixing their browser.
Ah, I misunderstood your argument to be against an economic restriction (attempt to make weapons expensive), it makes sense in terms of a logistical restriction (attempt to remove guns from certain market). I don't necessarily agree, but that's mostly due to not having firm opinion.
It's not, the yous in that quote are people who hold that attitude in general and the people who made such a contradictory decision at musopen in particular.
The first paragraph does address 'you' as well, and it's not /. user chill there either. You seem to recognize the fact, so why, even after clarification of what my complaint is and who it is directed at, do you insist that the second paragraph must?
WebM was a Xanatos Gambit, they would have won with an immediate takeover, they did win by keeping H.264 affordable, they are winning on slowly pushing it onto a lot of new devices, which in turn sets them up to win by either having WebM prevail long term or keeping H.264 affordable when the next review date hits. It might not have been a win for web standards nor Google's best case scenario, but they came out ahead anyway.
The relative price for attacker and defender is the same, so restricting doesn't make anything worse, it just reduces the total number of weapons in the system. A cheap arms race is still an arms race, so if attacker is buying $X of guns the defender still has to match $X if your argument holds. The attacker will spend $X (because that's what the attack is worth to them) regardless of the precise bang for buck (for realistic values), so how will the defender avoid maintaining an equivalent stockpile?
There are only two cases in which your line of reasoning predicts a difference in this dynamic. Weapons are just too damn expensive, no one can afford any or weapons are close enough to free to be able to arm all your men to the teeth and have a huge reserve at hand for less than $X. Of course all that the latter acomplish is to have mercenaries hired for $X - cheap_guns. Come to think of it though, I've never heard the "an armed society is a polite society" folks advocating weapons drops to put a rifle in everyone's hands. Maybe they do understand the economics of violance better than they like to admit.
I'm not putting worth in your mouth and hope to not hear any more of such accusations. You don't know a thing about me, much less be certain based on the tone my critical-of-musopen comment (I was trying to get some classical music for my mom who was recovering from some very serious surgery from a place that used to actually bring public domain music to people before they put up the paywall, for all intents and purposes they were just another paysite at $50, there's some fucking context for you), would you be so kind to stop the insinuations about my character and stay on topic?
It's not about me and it's not about you either, so why you did or didn't pay makes absolutely no difference to Musopens deeply flawed approach to the issue. Musopen doesn't want torrents, musopen doesn't want you to have the music if you don't pay, it's very much like Mandrake back in the day (I haven't followed Mandrive, they might still do that) where they can't stop you because they do actually license stuff in-line with their beliefs, but will guilt trip you into paying instead. I have no problems with donations or funding (the kickstarter campaign was a great idea). I also understand covering your costs... as long as it is in line with the costs. A much more reasonable approach would be to charge for lossless (big) and streaming access (bandwidth intensive, but convenient, especially for smartphones). That'd look both like covering costs and charging for premium access up and above simple, small mp3 downloads.
But no, this is a "you should support us or else move" and very much counter with the spirit they presented when the site originally came into being. Hope none of the initial contributors (performers who contributed before the paywall that is) just wanted people to be able to get unrestricted classical music, else they might feel kinda cheated. But who cares about them, the Project is more important than contributors or even its ultimate goals.
I'll pass on supporting the crappy pay wall revenue model. Want to waste their bandwidth streaming? Go right ahead! Want to grab a few mp3s? For $50 you get lossless! Well, I don't care, not right now anyway.
The only way I'd pay it is to put the whole lot on piratebay. You say that's not nice? Well, what's the point of it being public domain if you have to buy a subscription and it's mean to share it?
GP quite clearly said that the company is larger, not its market cap.
For it to be manipulation instead of fraud (when done intentionally) or negligence (when not making sure you have the gold you assume you have) it would have to be explicitly done for the purpose of altering the marketplace. I've yet to see any evidence for the later, much less that is perpetuated mostly or even exclusively by central banks. Hell, how about a plausible (as in, something that makes sense to them, not something people fear they'd do because they are shadowy organizations with goals beyond their interests) motive for devaluing their own gold reserves (though evidence is still needed to take that claim as anything but speculation)?
My current "featurephone" happily runs J2ME apps in the background, the switching is a touch clunky, but it works ok for switching between Google Maps (really well done app BTW), Opera Mini and the phone itself. Dunno how recent of a thing that is though.
I'll leave you to fitting the data to your preconceived notions about what should then, as I can hardly argue about speculation on what it "looks like". In general its as the sibling post notes, there is no difference between "manipulation" and "trade" in the market, e.g. is all the gold hype that benefits current investors advice or manipulation?
I'm sure you won't have trouble providing a comprehensive list of items with real value (that is, not gold and other hordables) that quadrupled in price on top of inflation between 1970 and 1980. For a simple one try hamburgers, they are ubiquitous and have real value, did the price at least double? If the dollar was swinging as much as you imply it better have.
Exchanges are currently the most obvious targets. However even in a world where bitcoins are used not only for all online transactions, but also for all in person transactions (smartphones), you still need to receive your purchases either via delivery (addresses and P/O boxes are traceable for powerful adversaries) or personally (loyalty cards, face recognition, license plate correlation, cellphone triangulation, etc.). If those are available to an adversary when you pay cash, then even with serial number tracking it would be quite hard to figure out who you interact with outside of the scope of the surveillance. With bitcoins the flow between positively identifiable transactions is still a mater of public record by design.
Back when this happened there was a sizable number of people claiming that this was merely a small fraction of Bitcoinica's volume and how it's not a big deal at all, etc. Care to explain why they are now closed and being sued?