Yeah, looking at the length of all of those TOS boilerplate pages, if you actually did read them, you'd probably do nothing but reading them. Since everyone pretty much just skips to the end, and it is well known and common practice not to read them, I doubt most of the terms are enforceable.
Further, many of them are for updates to products you've already purchased, placed in a click-through that holds the functionality you purchased for ransom. Those are almost certainly completely unenforceable, other than the first one where you presumably had an opportunity to decline and get a refund.
I'm no lawyer, though, so I guess we can assume there's probably some legal chicanery that they use to convince the law lords to give them all the power.
Try Netflix. They sort-of produce shows now. And there are still quite a few gems on cable.
Also, You may be mis-remembering. Cable has always had a ton of garbage. You probably just didn't watch the other 20, then 40, then 60, then 1000 worthless channels. The number of good cable channels maybe hasn't increased, so their share is what you're noticing.
Who do you think paid for that last episode of Marvel: Agents of Shield? You know the one where every other screen shot was a Windows 8 screen?
Apple? Red Hat? Canonical? I'm not sure showing the screens is the best way to sell windows 8. They need to get people to pay before they find out what's in it.
It turns out lost was stupid. All that build up and then no payoff. They just took an idea they were asked about in an interview during season two, which they categorically denied (because it was stupid) and said, "I got nothin' let's just do that thing we said it wasn't"
That's a common trait in storytelling in many mediums, but the lost writers take the cake in terms of inability to write acts II and II after making a ton of promises in act I. I make it a point to avoid anything billed as "from the makers of lost" which is apparently 50% of non-reality shows on major networks.
Yep. The problem with pre-ppaca health care was that the tax environment encouraged the situation where it made sense that you would get your health coverage from your employer.
post-ppaca, the tax environment still encourages you to get your health coverage from your employer, with the added caveat that even if you are self-employed or otherwise choose to get it on your own, you still can't choose your coverage a la carte, under the assumption that you are not competent to make that decision for yourself, like a child or dementia sufferer.
We're turning health coverage into a utility instead of a healthy, competitive marketplace. Utility prices don't adjust to the market the same way that competitive markets do, as billionaire Warren Buffet can attest (he loves investing in utilities. Also, he is a big supporter of ppaca...).
The consumer doesn't see savings as processes improve efficiency, because the utility has no incentive to bother even researching efficiency - it charges the prices it is allowed to charge and puts its effort into meeting regulatory standards and lobbying for price increases. Sometimes cleverly combining the two.
If you don't like the fact that employers have so much power in your health care, you probably shouldn't be supporting a system that doubles down on that paradigm.
If NSA would provide a DNS that was as up-to-date and so-far non-shady as google's, people would probably use that as well.
It's not so much that google is better than the NSA, but you do have the choice not to use certain services, and it is obvious that they must be monitoring them somehow.
Other services that google uses to track you that are not opt-in are less well-liked.
They're not doing it efficiently, no. There are tons of people who use office and other products that just don't get even the few products they're actually using, and don't understand or want to understand the benefits of a windowing desktop. The existence of these people is one of the reasons, I suspect, for the introduction of Metro.
Some of your co-workers probably fall into this category. They take ages to get things done that would take far less time if they had the screen real-estate and technical understanding to have several windows open with useful information up in addition to the office document they're working on. 768 pixels can only support so many lines of text.
You don't want the minimum resolution for text, either. It's much easier to read if text is crisp and well-defined, which comes with using a higher resolution than the absolute minimum. The human mind can pull useful information out at amazingly low S/N ratios. But it doesn't mean that you can be just as efficient as if you don't have to spend half your effort pulling signal out of the static.
I'll consider it as long as the "cost more" aspect is money that I pay and not ads that I watch. My time is valuable. 15 minutes of my time is worth more to me than you're getting from advertisers, so I'm probably willing to pay you directly more than you're getting from them.
Moreso on Snopes and Penn & Teller, less so, Politifact.
Politifact has an agenda, and while the text of their articles usually contains references and facts about the claims in dispute (and they should, because their research method is to call the person making the claim and ask them to produce citations...), their conclusions often bear little relation to the facts in question.
If you're making a claim that supports their agenda, you can get away with lying - they'll give you a "mostly true," no matter how concrete the evidence against your claim is. If you're making a claim that opposes their agenda, you're lucky if you can get a "mostly false" even if the only thing you got wrong is that there are 999 of something instead of 1000.
1366x768 is good enough for watching a movie on a 13" screen. It's not nearly good enough for doing real work, though, unless you're a full-screen alt-tabber. If you are, you're going to have some problems with the context switching. It turns out your mind also switches contexts.
Yeah, but they'd probably do it by giving some contractor more privileges than he should really have so he can take the heat for releasing state secrets...
Do they have insufficient manpower? They have fewer resources, sure, because their countries are smaller, but they have fewer surveillance targets, too, for the same reason.
Also, there's nothing stopping them from outsourcing their effort to the NSA, which would probably love to be the google apps for business of foreign intelligence signals gathering.
Yes, you've identified one of the big problems with speccing out new machines. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a good solution. It is possible to profile various pieces of software, but I'm not aware of any consumer product that does this in the kind of detail that would allow you to decide if you really need another 8 GB of ram of if you'd be better served with a processor that has an extra 3MB of L3 cache.
That fog exists for everyone, btw, not just people choosing between buying a Mac or trying to play systems integrator on their own.
One thing that seems to be missed a lot in these threads is the cost of building your own solution. Someone has to put time and effort into choosing the hardware, and for a business that only needs a few workstations, it might be more cost effective just to buy a complete off-the-shelf solution that you know is planned to be around for at least 9 months.
Slashdot Mirror
So, apparently "possible to build using known technology" or "would work" are not criteria that matter in design competitions....
Not true. Sometimes they turn into home renovation and gardening channels
They don't have to have just one or the other, you know. They could do a free, $8 + ads, $20 ad-free version or whatever numbers make sense.
I think you may be vastly over estimating their revenue per ad, and vastly underestimating the value of your time.
Yeah, looking at the length of all of those TOS boilerplate pages, if you actually did read them, you'd probably do nothing but reading them. Since everyone pretty much just skips to the end, and it is well known and common practice not to read them, I doubt most of the terms are enforceable.
Further, many of them are for updates to products you've already purchased, placed in a click-through that holds the functionality you purchased for ransom. Those are almost certainly completely unenforceable, other than the first one where you presumably had an opportunity to decline and get a refund.
I'm no lawyer, though, so I guess we can assume there's probably some legal chicanery that they use to convince the law lords to give them all the power.
Hulu's subscriptions have ads. They haven't tried just subscriptions yet.
Try Netflix. They sort-of produce shows now. And there are still quite a few gems on cable.
Also, You may be mis-remembering. Cable has always had a ton of garbage. You probably just didn't watch the other 20, then 40, then 60, then 1000 worthless channels. The number of good cable channels maybe hasn't increased, so their share is what you're noticing.
Who do you think paid for that last episode of Marvel: Agents of Shield? You know the one where every other screen shot was a Windows 8 screen?
Apple? Red Hat? Canonical? I'm not sure showing the screens is the best way to sell windows 8. They need to get people to pay before they find out what's in it.
It turns out lost was stupid. All that build up and then no payoff. They just took an idea they were asked about in an interview during season two, which they categorically denied (because it was stupid) and said, "I got nothin' let's just do that thing we said it wasn't"
That's a common trait in storytelling in many mediums, but the lost writers take the cake in terms of inability to write acts II and II after making a ton of promises in act I. I make it a point to avoid anything billed as "from the makers of lost" which is apparently 50% of non-reality shows on major networks.
Not to mention the 10th amendment, which pretty much says exactly the opposite of the AC's claim.
Hang on. Your new year's resolution is to tell other people to do something that you believe will improve their lives?
Yep. The problem with pre-ppaca health care was that the tax environment encouraged the situation where it made sense that you would get your health coverage from your employer.
post-ppaca, the tax environment still encourages you to get your health coverage from your employer, with the added caveat that even if you are self-employed or otherwise choose to get it on your own, you still can't choose your coverage a la carte, under the assumption that you are not competent to make that decision for yourself, like a child or dementia sufferer.
We're turning health coverage into a utility instead of a healthy, competitive marketplace. Utility prices don't adjust to the market the same way that competitive markets do, as billionaire Warren Buffet can attest (he loves investing in utilities. Also, he is a big supporter of ppaca...).
The consumer doesn't see savings as processes improve efficiency, because the utility has no incentive to bother even researching efficiency - it charges the prices it is allowed to charge and puts its effort into meeting regulatory standards and lobbying for price increases. Sometimes cleverly combining the two.
If you don't like the fact that employers have so much power in your health care, you probably shouldn't be supporting a system that doubles down on that paradigm.
If NSA would provide a DNS that was as up-to-date and so-far non-shady as google's, people would probably use that as well.
It's not so much that google is better than the NSA, but you do have the choice not to use certain services, and it is obvious that they must be monitoring them somehow.
Other services that google uses to track you that are not opt-in are less well-liked.
Are you sure that bitcoin is liberating? The block chain thing sounds awfully non-anonymous.
They're not doing it efficiently, no. There are tons of people who use office and other products that just don't get even the few products they're actually using, and don't understand or want to understand the benefits of a windowing desktop. The existence of these people is one of the reasons, I suspect, for the introduction of Metro.
Some of your co-workers probably fall into this category. They take ages to get things done that would take far less time if they had the screen real-estate and technical understanding to have several windows open with useful information up in addition to the office document they're working on. 768 pixels can only support so many lines of text.
You don't want the minimum resolution for text, either. It's much easier to read if text is crisp and well-defined, which comes with using a higher resolution than the absolute minimum. The human mind can pull useful information out at amazingly low S/N ratios. But it doesn't mean that you can be just as efficient as if you don't have to spend half your effort pulling signal out of the static.
Shouldn't the app trap this out, though? This kind of error belongs in the logs, not in a user message.
I'll consider it as long as the "cost more" aspect is money that I pay and not ads that I watch. My time is valuable. 15 minutes of my time is worth more to me than you're getting from advertisers, so I'm probably willing to pay you directly more than you're getting from them.
Inflation losses aren't deductible. You don't get to adjust your basis price for inflation.
The Fed takes its 2% of the value of all cash holdings every year, if their stated goals can be believed.
Moreso on Snopes and Penn & Teller, less so, Politifact.
Politifact has an agenda, and while the text of their articles usually contains references and facts about the claims in dispute (and they should, because their research method is to call the person making the claim and ask them to produce citations...), their conclusions often bear little relation to the facts in question.
If you're making a claim that supports their agenda, you can get away with lying - they'll give you a "mostly true," no matter how concrete the evidence against your claim is. If you're making a claim that opposes their agenda, you're lucky if you can get a "mostly false" even if the only thing you got wrong is that there are 999 of something instead of 1000.
1366x768 is good enough for watching a movie on a 13" screen. It's not nearly good enough for doing real work, though, unless you're a full-screen alt-tabber. If you are, you're going to have some problems with the context switching. It turns out your mind also switches contexts.
72dpi is like 24fps. Just barely good enough.
Yeah, but they'd probably do it by giving some contractor more privileges than he should really have so he can take the heat for releasing state secrets...
Based on my experience with friends and family discussing the TSA procedures, I am afraid you'll lose that bet.
Do they have insufficient manpower? They have fewer resources, sure, because their countries are smaller, but they have fewer surveillance targets, too, for the same reason.
Also, there's nothing stopping them from outsourcing their effort to the NSA, which would probably love to be the google apps for business of foreign intelligence signals gathering.
Like a pollack, perhaps the price is part of the piece.
If no one paid 1.8 M, then you wouldn't have something to talk about and the artist would still be trying to unload his unfinished Cambodian flag.
Yes, you've identified one of the big problems with speccing out new machines. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a good solution. It is possible to profile various pieces of software, but I'm not aware of any consumer product that does this in the kind of detail that would allow you to decide if you really need another 8 GB of ram of if you'd be better served with a processor that has an extra 3MB of L3 cache.
That fog exists for everyone, btw, not just people choosing between buying a Mac or trying to play systems integrator on their own.
One thing that seems to be missed a lot in these threads is the cost of building your own solution. Someone has to put time and effort into choosing the hardware, and for a business that only needs a few workstations, it might be more cost effective just to buy a complete off-the-shelf solution that you know is planned to be around for at least 9 months.
What kind of "high security" allows opportunities for rape to even occur?