Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.
That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.
Maybe because there is a difference between someone "targetting" someone and publishing something with a "target audience" in mind.
Only if the company booked facebook to a show an ad only to 14 year old girls, this would be actual targetting. If they just booked the ad for a, say, generally femaile audience, 14 year olds might still see it, but would not be targetted.
There has to be more than that to it, because if that was the case, it would be cheaper for Google just to run a shuttle between the Google campus and the Caltrain station.
In general, I don't get the cultural fascination that US americans have for charity, while at the same time showing extreme disdain for welfare, public services, public funding of infrastructure (except for roads, military and prisons, go figure) and even decent conditions of employment. E.g. waiters/waitresses are to be paid starvation wages, and rely on tips. Why do they have to beg?, is it so that customers can feel superior or something?, I have trouble understanding this.
I have the same trouble understanding that. But I at least have a theory: They just don't want gouvernment to do it. They know that there should be some things provided by the society (welfare, health, education...) they want as little gouvernment involvement as possible. So it is widespread believe that "society" here means that everyone should take part of that responsibility by donating to charity as your income allows it.
We Europeans rather think that all that stuf that "society" should provide is the very job of the gouvernment.
In a very sketchy example, when someone donates to the establishment: In the US that would be a sign that society is still working, people are helping their fellow people and all is well as there is no need for gouvernment involvement. In wide parts of Europe, this would be a sign that gouvernment failed to provide even the basic human needs.
But what we have here is people moving into the city, but the jobs being outside in the valley. So they're basically accepting a longer commute and probably higher rents. If people are pushed out of the city by that, they probably would be closer to the better job opportunities in the SF vicinity.
No. I said they did not refuse to grant a license. They gave a quote based on the current tarif. Youtube declined and now blames gema for not granting a license.
I wonder if false accusations are legal under "free speech" anywhere?
OK, you have to use a bit of legalese nitpicking to the original statement, but if you watch really closely, the original statement indeed is false.
It says that the GEMA did not GRANT the rights. Which is not correct as in exchange for their legal monopoly the GEMA has, it has the legal duty to grant the rights to anyone. The real problem is that the two partys can't agree on a price.
No. When someone WATCHES a video that contains music liscenced by any royality collecting agency that the GEMA has an agreement to collect the german liscence fees for.
The same way that YouTube pays the according fee when someone in another country watches a video that contains music.
I don't know but this is not how it works on my android phone. It rings a notification each time someone sends me a message, no matter if I'm currently using the phone or the hangouts app.
Do you have your phone set to save power by turning off wifi when in standby and limited hangouts to wifi traffic?
Your account is attached to your phone number. While in theory you're right, you'd have to go through the hassle of getting a new phone number and getting that number out to your friends and contacts. And western Europe is no third world country. While we have less credit card coverage than the US, that's probably because online payments were already common without them.
Not quite. Facebook DID roll out a similar app, Facebook chat. It does basically the same, but also works in a regular PC browser. (but comes bundles into the FB app on phones)
After one year you're definitly hooked, so I'd expect a very high conversion rate. That 1$ is still much cheaper than paying for SMS again. (Or being out of the loop because your friends keep on using WA)
Similar over here. Not girlfriends though, but - which is even more intresting - the same guys that I've been trying to introduce to ICQ-type instant messaging at all dragged me 2 years ago to the "new fantastic thing, that lets you send free sms".
I guess that's the difference between inventing the best thing since slices bread and making people believe you just invented sliced bread.
Slashdot Mirror
Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.
That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.
what has one to do with the other?
Maybe because there is a difference between someone "targetting" someone and publishing something with a "target audience" in mind.
Only if the company booked facebook to a show an ad only to 14 year old girls, this would be actual targetting. If they just booked the ad for a, say, generally femaile audience, 14 year olds might still see it, but would not be targetted.
IIRC, the tried exactly that, but were stopped by legal reasons.
There has to be more than that to it, because if that was the case, it would be cheaper for Google just to run a shuttle between the Google campus and the Caltrain station.
In general, I don't get the cultural fascination that US americans have for charity, while at the same time showing extreme disdain for welfare, public services, public funding of infrastructure (except for roads, military and prisons, go figure) and even decent conditions of employment.
E.g. waiters/waitresses are to be paid starvation wages, and rely on tips. Why do they have to beg?, is it so that customers can feel superior or something?, I have trouble understanding this.
I have the same trouble understanding that. But I at least have a theory: They just don't want gouvernment to do it. They know that there should be some things provided by the society (welfare, health, education...) they want as little gouvernment involvement as possible. So it is widespread believe that "society" here means that everyone should take part of that responsibility by donating to charity as your income allows it.
We Europeans rather think that all that stuf that "society" should provide is the very job of the gouvernment.
In a very sketchy example, when someone donates to the establishment:
In the US that would be a sign that society is still working, people are helping their fellow people and all is well as there is no need for gouvernment involvement.
In wide parts of Europe, this would be a sign that gouvernment failed to provide even the basic human needs.
But what we have here is people moving into the city, but the jobs being outside in the valley. So they're basically accepting a longer commute and probably higher rents. If people are pushed out of the city by that, they probably would be closer to the better job opportunities in the SF vicinity.
Well, what jobs did you have in mind where being "REALLY pretty" is the key qualification?
If this about taxes, then have the laws changed that allows Google to pay (only?) 14% tax. And stop discussing about what a bus stop costs!
You think SamTrans should run buses directly from places where Google (and Apple, etc) employees live to their workplace with no other stops?
I'm not sure anyone would be happier to see millions of dollars used to create publicly funded employer shuttles.
Well, there seems to be a demand for it and it seems there is already someone PAYING for such a service.
I wouldn't know why a public foundes bus company should be damned to only serve routes that lose money.
Get the cheese to sick bay!
I know I'm showing my age, but that was one of the most popular memes back on Fido-Net... Anyone else remembers that?
and guess what they found out:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker...
according to TheH they had "problems with too much nudity" (Article in German)
But they offered to grant you one and that fact was ignored in Youtubes title card.
And, I already wrote in my first post that there is some nitpicking involved.
No. I said they did not refuse to grant a license. They gave a quote based on the current tarif. Youtube declined and now blames gema for not granting a license.
I wonder if false accusations are legal under "free speech" anywhere?
OK, you have to use a bit of legalese nitpicking to the original statement, but if you watch really closely, the original statement indeed is false.
It says that the GEMA did not GRANT the rights. Which is not correct as in exchange for their legal monopoly the GEMA has, it has the legal duty to grant the rights to anyone. The real problem is that the two partys can't agree on a price.
No. When someone WATCHES a video that contains music liscenced by any royality collecting agency that the GEMA has an agreement to collect the german liscence fees for.
The same way that YouTube pays the according fee when someone in another country watches a video that contains music.
Bullshit. The "green" thing would have been to put the office in a high-density area where the rail transit ALREADY FUCKING GOES!
Guess why they call it HIGH DENSITY? Because it's already stuffed and you can't simply put another office park there.
I don't know but this is not how it works on my android phone. It rings a notification each time someone sends me a message, no matter if I'm currently using the phone or the hangouts app.
Do you have your phone set to save power by turning off wifi when in standby and limited hangouts to wifi traffic?
Your account is attached to your phone number. While in theory you're right, you'd have to go through the hassle of getting a new phone number and getting that number out to your friends and contacts. And western Europe is no third world country. While we have less credit card coverage than the US, that's probably because online payments were already common without them.
Not quite. Facebook DID roll out a similar app, Facebook chat. It does basically the same, but also works in a regular PC browser. (but comes bundles into the FB app on phones)
After one year you're definitly hooked, so I'd expect a very high conversion rate. That 1$ is still much cheaper than paying for SMS again. (Or being out of the loop because your friends keep on using WA)
Similar over here. Not girlfriends though, but - which is even more intresting - the same guys that I've been trying to introduce to ICQ-type instant messaging at all dragged me 2 years ago to the "new fantastic thing, that lets you send free sms".
I guess that's the difference between inventing the best thing since slices bread and making people believe you just invented sliced bread.
Non-cloudness? Is that true?
Wrong question.
"Non-cloudness? What the heck is that in the first place?"
Oh.. one more thing... do those "unlimited" texts include international?
Andoid couldn't do iMessage because the name was already taken. So it's called "hangouts"