Hmm. Ok, you are right. So lets make Google de-install the HTML rendering engine from Chrome OS. OH! They can't? Well guess what....
Microsoft created something called "Active Desktop". A browser with an underlining OS. What is Chrome? Same thing. MS was WAY ahead of the curve. But people in the IT community were too closed-minded to see it. And now we no longer have Active Desktop, but we sure have Chrome OS going down our throats as "Something New".
First, I love having options. Second, I hate any one company dominating a market. I got a chance to play with a Windows Phone 7, and I will have to admit that the GUI, operation, and general way the phone works is a brilliant design. Everyone else is trying to make small little app icons, while MS tried a whole different approach, and it really works.
I had about the same result as the person writing this article at an AT&T store. All the iPhones and Android units were up front in clear site, while the MS phones were in back, almost as an afterthought.
Microsoft, get smart! Open stores and get a really good PR person in charge of your marketing! Sell phones that anyone can program without taking 30% of each sale, and 30% of each subscription.
I think people may missread Google's intent. It sounds more like they are giving up an advertising based model that would allow people to view the archived newsprint for free, and instead opting to allow the newspapers themselves to set up subscription charges to read back copies of their newspapers, even if those newspapers are now considered to be public domain.
Don't be evil may be their motto, but they are a big corporation now, and the bottom line determines their actions.
I worked for one of the biggest IT firms in the country (hint: not Apple, not Google, not Hardware). I was chatting to another "older" system engineer about how people at work would choose certain devices to work/play with.
The "younger" groups of people would ask for Macs on their workstations, but only for various things like surfing the Internet (we programmed on the PC). They would buy phones like Apple that had no real programing ability. They would use software that more or less was pre-set and required little in the way of knowledge on how it worked and minimal setup and customization time.
The "older" folks always used devices they could "take apart". Programmable phones, PCs, etc. They would request software that required a higher level of learning and/or time to setup and customize.
I have always believed this was one of the keys to success for companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Apple. They are simple and just function without a lot of fuss or glitter. Simply put, younger people tend to view the technology today like any other technology that has been around for a while. I am sure that the first time people got electricity run to their homes they would spend endless hours turning lights on and off and inviting friends over to see the new wonders. Now we just get pissed when a lightbulb blows out and expect it to work when we need it.
I could be wrong on all this, but just something I observed over my programming career. Oh, and in 25 years of programming on the PC I still do not know any personal friends who actually "program" on an Apple computer or write apps for it. But I do have several friends who own one.
Do any of you young folk remember a man by the name of Daniel Ellsberg? If not, please take a little bit of your time and look up a movie called "The Most Dangerous Man in America". For more information please visit the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/.
Daniel Ellisberg was the man who leaked what has become known as "The Pentagon Papers". He was the first man to be charged under the Espionage Act, with results that the administration did not intend. He never spent a minute in jail. The documentary of his actions came out last year (2009).
Here is a little breakdown of the story:
"The Most Dangerous Man in America" is the story of what happens when a former Pentagon insider, armed only with his conscience, steadfast determination, and a file cabinet full of classified documents, decides to challenge an "Imperial" Presidency-answerable to neither Congress, the press, nor the people-in order to help end the Vietnam War. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg shook America to its foundations when he smuggled a top-secret Pentagon study to the New York Times that showed how five Presidents consistently lied to the American people about the Vietnam War that was killing millions and tearing America apart. President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger called Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America," who "had to be stopped at all costs." But Ellsberg wasn't stopped. Facing 115 years in prison on espionage and conspiracy charges, he fought back. Ensuing events surrounding the so-called Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate and the downfall of President Nixon, and hastened the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg's relentless telling of truth to power, which exposed the secret deeds of an "Imperial Presidency," inspired Americans of all walks of life to forever question the previously-unchallenged pronouncements of its leaders. "The Most Dangerous Man in America" tells the inside story, for the first time on film, of this pivotal event that changed history and transformed our nation's political discourse. It is told largely by the players of that dramatic episode-Ellsberg, his colleagues, family and critics; Pentagon Papers authors and government officials; Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists; Watergate principals, attorneys and the journalists who both covered the story and were an integral part of it; and finally-through White House audiotapes-President Nixon and his inner circle of advisors.
First, lets clear up some terms: My PC is a computer. My MAC is a computer. The iPhone is and appliance. The iPad is an appliance. If you don't know the difference, do some research.
What is Apple's main business model on the iPhone, iPad, iPod? To market 3rd party software through their system and make money. If I was allowed to write Flash applications that ran in the browser on these platforms, then no one would have to rush out to Apple's iTunes store to buy anything for these appliances.
And you think that Steve will fully embrace HTML5? No way. iTunes would be dead if HTML5 was fully functional on any of Apple's products. You could write the same applications that would run in the browser and completely defeat the native apps that Apple sells.
"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow."
The above statement is wrong. The IPCC's latest report said exactly the opposite of this statement. The computer models showed a global decrease in precipitation due to the warming of the earth's atmosphere, not an increase. An increase in global humidity would cause increased cloud cover at lower altitudes, which has been proven years ago causes a decrease in surface temperature due to the refection effect.
I read the report. If you take the IPCC to be the default standard for climate change, then you have to believe that there has not been an increase in snow coverage. The white stuff you see coming down outside is actually just common "Albino Brain Chiggers". They are harmless. Put some tin foil on your head and they will stay out of your ears. Also, they are caused by global warming.
I owned a small self-publishing company for 3 years and sold it. When I started the company I made a firm decision that the company would NOT obtain or transfer copyright ownership from anyone we published for. I knew there were a few publishers that we competed against that had "questionable" contracts that appeared to transfer copyright ownership and/or enforcement from the creator of the work. I thought that by using a more honorable business model we could attract writers and offer another method to get works distributed.
Oh, wow, let me tell you how this industry is...
My company started almost from day one to be hit with a series of slanders and false statements from a number of "anonomous" sources. I was put through the grinder, but did manage to build a good reputation with the people we published and distributed for. I talked to a lot of other people who used various other companies, and got the chance to see some of the contracts that the competition used. I can tell you that most, if not all, either outright transferred the majority of ownership from the original creator or had terms that were so vague that it would take a team of lawyers to figure it out.
My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company, not for the works WE printed, but for another totally unrelated work. He didn't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works, even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print, created since the day he was born. WOW!
When you control the distribution of a product, you can write your own terms to those who need their product sold. It's as simple as that. For years the publishing companies controlled all the methods to get books into the stores, and it continues to this day. Writers often find that they have to either sign on the dotted line or simply forget about ever having their works seen by the public. I also discovered that a lot of writers and creators had no idea that they had signed away their rights until I pointed out the terms in their contracts.
I once thought that companies such as Amazon could change the landscape for the independant writer/creator. But what I have been noticing is that even with Amazon most people are "locked" in to some sort of system that simply will not let go. A year or so ago I think that even Amazon tried (and may have succeded) into having all works printed through their own company, thereby eliminating small printing companies out of the loop. It's interesting to see that even Amazon must bend to the will of another company when it comes to distribution pricing.
And lets not even begin to think about what Google's book scanning system is doing to the copyright landscape. "Do no evil"? Bite me on that one. I am glad to be out of the publishing business, and feel greatly sorry for the future generations that will have content locked, forced upon them, distributed through systems they have to participate in, and prices dictated not my market forces but by lack of competition.
My horror story with Paypal starts many years ago. I had a personal account with them since something like the late 90s, and never once had an issue with them. That was before I went into business for myself, and converted the account over to a business account around the year 2000. What a mistake.
Now, let me just state the following:
- We sold books, novels, and prints.
- We sold works that were NOT adult.
- We sold works that we clearly had the copyright on.
- We were an independant publisher.
I learned oneday that the account had been closed due to a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. Well, we were in the business of self publishing, things like science fiction novels and fantasy books. We sold online through our own website and through Amazon.com. I contacted Paypal and got a nice lady on the phone who went over our online web site with me on the phone and could not find what would have been a violation. So the account was re-activated...
Oh, then a few months later same thing. Account closed. This time with this message...
In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.
I tried for over a month to get the account back in good standing, but was constantly told that the decision was final and there was nothing I could do. We sold everything on our main website through Amazon.com also (who never had any issue with the books we printed), and they also accepted Paypal as a payment method. Still to this day I have not been told a reason, nor given any information on why this action was taken. We simply gave up on Paypal and converted the site over to a real merchant account.
3 years ago I sold the company and the assets to another publishing firm. I started a new enterprise under a new LLC and opened a Paypal account again. No problems, no issues. Oh, I must have been an idiot to think Paypal was not going to do it to me again...
Well, my new account is now closed. It seems that Paypal has not blocked the company from using the account, but they did blacklist me. As soon as we went in to convert the account over to a business account I entered my SSN and wham! Account closed due to the original violation from over 3 years ago.
Now, I was under the assumption in the United Stated that you could not blacklist a person from your business unless there was a dam good legal reason. And why won't they tell me what in the world I did to violate their user agreement? Its like being tried, convicted, and sentenced without as much as a ray of hope to prove your not guilty.
I had a service rep fom Paypal (a manager) go over our new website (we sell clothing) and could not find a single thing that could possible violate any policies from Paypal, nor could he find any reason for this decision. But it is final, and over with.
To make a long story short, I am now blacklisted from ever using Paypal again. No reason, no explanation, no way of proving that I am not guilty, and no way to do anything about it. It has been, to this day, the most horrible experience I have ever gone through. I kept getting the impression from Paypal that I was some sort of pornographer. I feel ashamed and tarnished by this decision, and will have to deal with it for the rest of my life.
I personally recommend to anyone who asks me to stay away from Paypal. NEVER use this company, as you have NO protection under law from any harm they cause you or your company.
Get a real merchant account. With a merchant account you deal directly with the credit card companies and
There was a system out about 6 or so years ago that would allow anyone to post a virtual "sticky" note on a web page and anyone else who had the program could read it. Same concept as what Google is trying.
All I can remember is the amount of spam and junk that was written up, mostly on webpages that people didn't like or who were rivals. A lot of companies got VERY upset about the system, and the company what created the software pulled it.
Bad idea. Put this one back in the box and try something else Google. Bad idea.
Hulu has probably the best advertising model for web video content ever devised. And now that Disney has agreed to place their content on Hulu, I think the fight for premium content may be over and done with. Sorry Google, you lose this one.
Try http://www.hulu.com/ and come back and let us know what you think of this revenue model over anything that Google has tried so far.
I have been a developer for over 30 years. My first application (we called them "programs" back then) was on the TRS-80 microcomputer sold by Radio Shack. In all this time I have seen a very disturbing trend towards closed operating systems and platforms.
If the automotive industry operated the same way, you would be forced to only buy service and parts from "authorized" centers and distributors. This was long ago outlawed by state and federal regulations.
If Microsoft were to only allow "approved" applications on their OS (computer or mobile), the federal government would be looking at a major case against their anti-competitive behaviour.
Is there really a clause in the TOS for iPhone developers that they cannot say anything about a rejected application? Wow. I cannot understand how any company in todays market can get away with that.
Well, lets see... Microsoft: open and free development for their platform, and will run on multiple hardware configurations. Google: open and free development for their platform, and will run on multiple hardware configurations. Apple: closed platform with final say of any application developed, and with a percentage of all applications being paid to Apple Corp.
Can someone tell me again why I should by an iPhone? Can someone tell me why Apple has not been taken to court? Can someone explain to me the hype on why Apple is so much better than MS?
"A Mozilla Plugin to Help Overcome IE Rendering Flaw"
Should it not read: A Mozilla Plugin to add Enhanced IE Rendering?
Come on. This old fight between browsers is becoming stale. IE included many things now in the HTML specs that were not available in any other browser, such as CSS Style for shadow effects, etc. Why is it that when something new comes out for IE that it is automatically described as a "bug" fix or a workaround to a "flaw"?
Please people, I like FF and IE for different reasons. At least write unbiased stories and stop bashing each other's code efforts.
I for one welcome their return, and would like to ask them about why they chose nipples for men. Seems like a mistake, but only our Aien Overlords know for sure.
Well, lets start with a little history lesson: Industries change, and business models change with them. When the first passenger airliner first took its maiden voyage across the Atlantic the passenger streamliner companies were saying that it would not catch on and that people would never want to fly. Well, after 8 years the streamliner companies were crying to governments worldwide to pass laws to save their industry. Didn't work, and the streamliner companies had to re-invent themselves into luxury liners (and became an even bigger industry in the cruise ship and vacation areas).
Open-Source and GPL is the beginning of a new business model that was brought on by the high prices and restrictive nature of proprietary closed-source software. Simply stated, it is the fault of the big software monopolies that forced the adoption of Open-Source on such a grand scale.
Future Open-Source software will be created and sold based on the work and labor that was put into it. Businesses and individuals will always pay for good software. The new business model will become one where the software is valued based on the quality and amount of work, not by the arbitrary inflated value placed on it by its creator.
Proprietary software companies will not go out of business, but they are going to have to re-invent themselves to survive (such as become service oriented companies).
Google is such a cool example of a service oriented company that could only have survived and become a billion dollar corporation with the use of GPL and Open-Source. The platform they are running is unimportant, but the service they provide is their business model. They have probably modified the Linux installations they use, and they do not have to let anyone see the new code unless they want to sell a distribution.
Don't ruin my memory of the original Battlestar Galactica by "revisioning"
this complete ripoff of a series.
Man, if this thing comes out I will parental lock the Sci-Fi channel and
scramble the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Ok, you are right. So lets make Google de-install the HTML rendering engine from Chrome OS. OH! They can't? Well guess what....
Microsoft created something called "Active Desktop". A browser with an underlining OS. What is Chrome? Same thing. MS was WAY ahead of the curve. But people in the IT community were too closed-minded to see it. And now we no longer have Active Desktop, but we sure have Chrome OS going down our throats as "Something New".
First, I love having options. Second, I hate any one company dominating a market. I got a chance to play with a Windows Phone 7, and I will have to admit that the GUI, operation, and general way the phone works is a brilliant design. Everyone else is trying to make small little app icons, while MS tried a whole different approach, and it really works.
I had about the same result as the person writing this article at an AT&T store. All the iPhones and Android units were up front in clear site, while the MS phones were in back, almost as an afterthought.
Microsoft, get smart! Open stores and get a really good PR person in charge of your marketing! Sell phones that anyone can program without taking 30% of each sale, and 30% of each subscription.
I think people may missread Google's intent. It sounds more like they are giving up an advertising based model that would allow people to view the archived newsprint for free, and instead opting to allow the newspapers themselves to set up subscription charges to read back copies of their newspapers, even if those newspapers are now considered to be public domain. Don't be evil may be their motto, but they are a big corporation now, and the bottom line determines their actions.
Even though the title is misleading, I still have only one thing to say....
"DON'T BE EVIL"
Like every other monolithic company in the world.
I worked for one of the biggest IT firms in the country (hint: not Apple, not Google, not Hardware). I was chatting to another "older" system engineer about how people at work would choose certain devices to work/play with.
The "younger" groups of people would ask for Macs on their workstations, but only for various things like surfing the Internet (we programmed on the PC). They would buy phones like Apple that had no real programing ability. They would use software that more or less was pre-set and required little in the way of knowledge on how it worked and minimal setup and customization time.
The "older" folks always used devices they could "take apart". Programmable phones, PCs, etc. They would request software that required a higher level of learning and/or time to setup and customize.
I have always believed this was one of the keys to success for companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Apple. They are simple and just function without a lot of fuss or glitter. Simply put, younger people tend to view the technology today like any other technology that has been around for a while. I am sure that the first time people got electricity run to their homes they would spend endless hours turning lights on and off and inviting friends over to see the new wonders. Now we just get pissed when a lightbulb blows out and expect it to work when we need it.
I could be wrong on all this, but just something I observed over my programming career. Oh, and in 25 years of programming on the PC I still do not know any personal friends who actually "program" on an Apple computer or write apps for it. But I do have several friends who own one.
Do any of you young folk remember a man by the name of Daniel Ellsberg? If not, please take a little bit of your time and look up a movie called "The Most Dangerous Man in America". For more information please visit the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/.
Daniel Ellisberg was the man who leaked what has become known as "The Pentagon Papers". He was the first man to be charged under the Espionage Act, with results that the administration did not intend. He never spent a minute in jail. The documentary of his actions came out last year (2009).
Here is a little breakdown of the story:
"The Most Dangerous Man in America" is the story of what happens when a former Pentagon insider, armed only with his conscience, steadfast determination, and a file cabinet full of classified documents, decides to challenge an "Imperial" Presidency-answerable to neither Congress, the press, nor the people-in order to help end the Vietnam War. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg shook America to its foundations when he smuggled a top-secret Pentagon study to the New York Times that showed how five Presidents consistently lied to the American people about the Vietnam War that was killing millions and tearing America apart. President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger called Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America," who "had to be stopped at all costs." But Ellsberg wasn't stopped. Facing 115 years in prison on espionage and conspiracy charges, he fought back. Ensuing events surrounding the so-called Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate and the downfall of President Nixon, and hastened the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg's relentless telling of truth to power, which exposed the secret deeds of an "Imperial Presidency," inspired Americans of all walks of life to forever question the previously-unchallenged pronouncements of its leaders. "The Most Dangerous Man in America" tells the inside story, for the first time on film, of this pivotal event that changed history and transformed our nation's political discourse. It is told largely by the players of that dramatic episode-Ellsberg, his colleagues, family and critics; Pentagon Papers authors and government officials; Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists; Watergate principals, attorneys and the journalists who both covered the story and were an integral part of it; and finally-through White House audiotapes-President Nixon and his inner circle of advisors.
Documentary is available at Megavideo: http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6VI4M5CC
First, lets clear up some terms: My PC is a computer. My MAC is a computer. The iPhone is and appliance. The iPad is an appliance. If you don't know the difference, do some research.
What is Apple's main business model on the iPhone, iPad, iPod? To market 3rd party software through their system and make money. If I was allowed to write Flash applications that ran in the browser on these platforms, then no one would have to rush out to Apple's iTunes store to buy anything for these appliances.
And you think that Steve will fully embrace HTML5? No way. iTunes would be dead if HTML5 was fully functional on any of Apple's products. You could write the same applications that would run in the browser and completely defeat the native apps that Apple sells.
"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow."
The above statement is wrong. The IPCC's latest report said exactly the opposite of this statement. The computer models showed a global decrease in precipitation due to the warming of the earth's atmosphere, not an increase. An increase in global humidity would cause increased cloud cover at lower altitudes, which has been proven years ago causes a decrease in surface temperature due to the refection effect.
I read the report. If you take the IPCC to be the default standard for climate change, then you have to believe that there has not been an increase in snow coverage. The white stuff you see coming down outside is actually just common "Albino Brain Chiggers". They are harmless. Put some tin foil on your head and they will stay out of your ears. Also, they are caused by global warming.
Nothing to see here.
I agree. I dropped the book due to the fact that I did not want to bother trying to fight the other company over the subject.
I owned a small self-publishing company for 3 years and sold it. When I started the company I made a firm decision that the company would NOT obtain or transfer copyright ownership from anyone we published for. I knew there were a few publishers that we competed against that had "questionable" contracts that appeared to transfer copyright ownership and/or enforcement from the creator of the work. I thought that by using a more honorable business model we could attract writers and offer another method to get works distributed.
Oh, wow, let me tell you how this industry is...
My company started almost from day one to be hit with a series of slanders and false statements from a number of "anonomous" sources. I was put through the grinder, but did manage to build a good reputation with the people we published and distributed for. I talked to a lot of other people who used various other companies, and got the chance to see some of the contracts that the competition used. I can tell you that most, if not all, either outright transferred the majority of ownership from the original creator or had terms that were so vague that it would take a team of lawyers to figure it out.
My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company, not for the works WE printed, but for another totally unrelated work. He didn't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works, even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print, created since the day he was born. WOW!
When you control the distribution of a product, you can write your own terms to those who need their product sold. It's as simple as that. For years the publishing companies controlled all the methods to get books into the stores, and it continues to this day. Writers often find that they have to either sign on the dotted line or simply forget about ever having their works seen by the public. I also discovered that a lot of writers and creators had no idea that they had signed away their rights until I pointed out the terms in their contracts.
I once thought that companies such as Amazon could change the landscape for the independant writer/creator. But what I have been noticing is that even with Amazon most people are "locked" in to some sort of system that simply will not let go. A year or so ago I think that even Amazon tried (and may have succeded) into having all works printed through their own company, thereby eliminating small printing companies out of the loop. It's interesting to see that even Amazon must bend to the will of another company when it comes to distribution pricing.
And lets not even begin to think about what Google's book scanning system is doing to the copyright landscape. "Do no evil"? Bite me on that one.
I am glad to be out of the publishing business, and feel greatly sorry for the future generations that will have content locked, forced upon them, distributed through systems they have to participate in, and prices dictated not my market forces but by lack of competition.
Nuff said.
Eric Freyhart
My horror story with Paypal starts many years ago. I had a personal account with them since something like the late 90s, and never once had an issue with them. That was before I went into business for myself, and converted the account over to a business account around the year 2000. What a mistake.
Now, let me just state the following:
- We sold books, novels, and prints.
- We sold works that were NOT adult.
- We sold works that we clearly had the copyright on.
- We were an independant publisher.
I learned oneday that the account had been closed due to a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. Well, we were in the business of self publishing, things like science fiction novels and fantasy books. We sold online through our own website and through Amazon.com. I contacted Paypal and got a nice lady on the phone who went over our online web site with me on the phone and could not find what would have been a violation. So the account was re-activated...
Oh, then a few months later same thing. Account closed. This time with this message...
In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and Acceptable Use Policy, we have closed your account. Your funds may be held for 180 days from the date of your last transaction. After 180 days, you will be able to access your funds by requesting an online bank transfer or, if applicable, a check from PayPal. Please update your address or bank information as we cannot be held responsible for checks issued to an incorrect address. We do ask that you please remove reference(s) to PayPal from your site.
I tried for over a month to get the account back in good standing, but was constantly told that the decision was final and there was nothing I could do. We sold everything on our main website through Amazon.com also (who never had any issue with the books we printed), and they also accepted Paypal as a payment method. Still to this day I have not been told a reason, nor given any information on why this action was taken. We simply gave up on Paypal and converted the site over to a real merchant account.
3 years ago I sold the company and the assets to another publishing firm. I started a new enterprise under a new LLC and opened a Paypal account again. No problems, no issues. Oh, I must have been an idiot to think Paypal was not going to do it to me again...
Well, my new account is now closed. It seems that Paypal has not blocked the company from using the account, but they did blacklist me. As soon as we went in to convert the account over to a business account I entered my SSN and wham! Account closed due to the original violation from over 3 years ago.
Now, I was under the assumption in the United Stated that you could not blacklist a person from your business unless there was a dam good legal reason. And why won't they tell me what in the world I did to violate their user agreement? Its like being tried, convicted, and sentenced without as much as a ray of hope to prove your not guilty.
I had a service rep fom Paypal (a manager) go over our new website (we sell clothing) and could not find a single thing that could possible violate any policies from Paypal, nor could he find any reason for this decision. But it is final, and over with.
To make a long story short, I am now blacklisted from ever using Paypal again. No reason, no explanation, no way of proving that I am not guilty, and no way to do anything about it. It has been, to this day, the most horrible experience I have ever gone through. I kept getting the impression from Paypal that I was some sort of pornographer. I feel ashamed and tarnished by this decision, and will have to deal with it for the rest of my life.
I personally recommend to anyone who asks me to stay away from Paypal. NEVER use this company, as you have NO protection under law from any harm they cause you or your company.
Get a real merchant account. With a merchant account you deal directly with the credit card companies and
There was a system out about 6 or so years ago that would allow anyone to post a virtual "sticky" note on a web page and anyone else who had the program could read it. Same concept as what Google is trying.
All I can remember is the amount of spam and junk that was written up, mostly on webpages that people didn't like or who were rivals. A lot of companies got VERY upset about the system, and the company what created the software pulled it.
Bad idea. Put this one back in the box and try something else Google. Bad idea.
Hulu has probably the best advertising model for web video content ever devised. And now that Disney has agreed to place their content on Hulu, I think the fight for premium content may be over and done with. Sorry Google, you lose this one.
Try http://www.hulu.com/ and come back and let us know what you think of this revenue model over anything that Google has tried so far.
I have been a developer for over 30 years. My first application (we called them "programs" back then) was on the TRS-80 microcomputer sold by Radio Shack. In all this time I have seen a very disturbing trend towards closed operating systems and platforms. If the automotive industry operated the same way, you would be forced to only buy service and parts from "authorized" centers and distributors. This was long ago outlawed by state and federal regulations. If Microsoft were to only allow "approved" applications on their OS (computer or mobile), the federal government would be looking at a major case against their anti-competitive behaviour. Is there really a clause in the TOS for iPhone developers that they cannot say anything about a rejected application? Wow. I cannot understand how any company in todays market can get away with that. Well, lets see... Microsoft: open and free development for their platform, and will run on multiple hardware configurations. Google: open and free development for their platform, and will run on multiple hardware configurations. Apple: closed platform with final say of any application developed, and with a percentage of all applications being paid to Apple Corp. Can someone tell me again why I should by an iPhone? Can someone tell me why Apple has not been taken to court? Can someone explain to me the hype on why Apple is so much better than MS?
"A Mozilla Plugin to Help Overcome IE Rendering Flaw"
Should it not read: A Mozilla Plugin to add Enhanced IE Rendering?
Come on. This old fight between browsers is becoming stale. IE included many things now in the HTML specs that were not available in any other browser, such as CSS Style for shadow effects, etc. Why is it that when something new comes out for IE that it is automatically described as a "bug" fix or a workaround to a "flaw"?
Please people, I like FF and IE for different reasons. At least write unbiased stories and stop bashing each other's code efforts.
I for one welcome their return, and would like to ask them about why they chose nipples for men. Seems like a mistake, but only our Aien Overlords know for sure.
Well, lets start with a little history lesson: Industries change, and business models change with them. When the first passenger airliner first took its maiden voyage across the Atlantic the passenger streamliner companies were saying that it would not catch on and that people would never want to fly. Well, after 8 years the streamliner companies were crying to governments worldwide to pass laws to save their industry. Didn't work, and the streamliner companies had to re-invent themselves into luxury liners (and became an even bigger industry in the cruise ship and vacation areas).
Open-Source and GPL is the beginning of a new business model that was brought on by the high prices and restrictive nature of proprietary closed-source software. Simply stated, it is the fault of the big software monopolies that forced the adoption of Open-Source on such a grand scale.
Future Open-Source software will be created and sold based on the work and labor that was put into it. Businesses and individuals will always pay for good software. The new business model will become one where the software is valued based on the quality and amount of work, not by the arbitrary inflated value placed on it by its creator.
Proprietary software companies will not go out of business, but they are going to have to re-invent themselves to survive (such as become service oriented companies).
Google is such a cool example of a service oriented company that could only have survived and become a billion dollar corporation with the use of GPL and Open-Source. The platform they are running is unimportant, but the service they provide is their business model. They have probably modified the Linux installations they use, and they do not have to let anyone see the new code unless they want to sell a distribution.
Nuff said....
Hmmmm. You got the the wrong way around. Halo is based on Larry Niven's Ringworld series.
Don't ruin my memory of the original Battlestar Galactica by "revisioning" this complete ripoff of a series. Man, if this thing comes out I will parental lock the Sci-Fi channel and scramble the code.