It certainly looks as if Facebook's attempted pivot from being a seller of personal data to a responsible netizen is not going well at all. It almost seems as if the whole Facebook company were not set up to do anything but exploit the personal information of people.
$700 plus $7 per month to replace something that currently works just fine? Even if I did need RFID tracking of my car, I could do it a lot less expensively.
.
On the other hand, paint it white, call it iPlate and let Apple sell it. I'm sure the Apple fanbois will buy them up.
Of course not. Facebook's business model is the accumulation and sharing of data. Why does anyone expect them to behave in a manner that runs against their business model?
No thanks. Not interested. FedEx, UPS, USPS have earned my respect for the quality of their delivery. I have little confidence in Amazon digging up someone who wants to deliver packages. I once had a package delivered by a gig-based delivery service, and it did not result in a good experience. http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
That's my sentiment as well. Firefox's downfall started when the developers started to ignore what Firefox users wanted, and killed off a lot of functionality that Firefox once had, while bloating it with un-asked-for bloat.
Quite the opposite, actually. I'm sure you'd like to think that everyone who offers critique of Firefox is a Chrome fanboi, but that is nothing more than an error on your part.
"... the company does say "half a billion people around the world" use the browser. In other words, it's a major platform that web developers have to consider...."
Web developers will more than likely consider browsers that have significant (i.e., > 15-20%) market share, not one that is hyped up by its developers.
... obviously doesn't use plug-ins, or care about sites rendering properly. I've had too many sites not render properly with Firefox. It's not surprising, given the very low market share of Firefox. Web developers do not seem to want to test against it.
If a regular software/engineer/programmer can't read it and figure it out in a couple minutes, then it's rigged against you. Plain and simple.
That's pretty much my thought on this. If a "quick guide" is needed to explain the legalese, then the legalese is, to use your words, rigged against me. The "quick guide" is not binding, the legalese is. So why have the quick guide there in the first place?
Troll? Well, then, please answer this for me... If GPL3 is so easy to understand, why is the first link on the GPL3 page a link to "A Quick Guide to GPLv3?" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...
GPL has just become way to complex for me to use. The lawyers have taken over the wording, doing what lawyers usually do -- make things so complex you need a lawyer to explain their opinion of what it really means.
It means if you blame your tools, you're not a good carpenter.:)
.
The Microsoft guy was using twitter without understanding the limitations of twitter. However, he blamed twitter for his lack of ability to use it for the purpose he wanted, when he probably should not have been using twitter to convey the message in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
It certainly looks as if Facebook's attempted pivot from being a seller of personal data to a responsible netizen is not going well at all. It almost seems as if the whole Facebook company were not set up to do anything but exploit the personal information of people.
.
On the other hand, paint it white, call it iPlate and let Apple sell it. I'm sure the Apple fanbois will buy them up.
Of course not. Facebook's business model is the accumulation and sharing of data. Why does anyone expect them to behave in a manner that runs against their business model?
I could never get used to the shape when I used it with my left hand. It just felt... wrong.
...uploaded a year later to a web server, believed to be owned by the organization, with no password protection....
Whoever put into place this stunningly amazing illustration of absolute ignorance about security should never be allowed near a keyboard again.
... I once had a package delivered by a gig-based delivery service, and it did not result in a good experience...
I forgot to add...
.
I only had that bad experience once because I stopped buying stuff from the online store that used that gig-based delivery service.
No thanks. Not interested. FedEx, UPS, USPS have earned my respect for the quality of their delivery. I have little confidence in Amazon digging up someone who wants to deliver packages. I once had a package delivered by a gig-based delivery service, and it did not result in a good experience. http://nymag.com/selectall/201...
And congrats to all that support and develop for it, especially one Mr Linus Benedict Torvalds.
...I'm sorry to see things going this way,...
That's my sentiment as well. Firefox's downfall started when the developers started to ignore what Firefox users wanted, and killed off a lot of functionality that Firefox once had, while bloating it with un-asked-for bloat.
...Chrome fanbois?? ...
Quite the opposite, actually. I'm sure you'd like to think that everyone who offers critique of Firefox is a Chrome fanboi, but that is nothing more than an error on your part.
...If 15% is your cutoff,...
Wow, Firefox is less than 6%? No wonder the web developers seem to ignore its existence.
.
"... the company does say "half a billion people around the world" use the browser. In other words, it's a major platform that web developers have to consider...."
Web developers will more than likely consider browsers that have significant (i.e., > 15-20%) market share, not one that is hyped up by its developers.
... You should care about the quality of the content....
It's difficult to care about content when I have trouble reading the content due to rendering issues. So, yes, I do care about rendering problems.
... obviously doesn't use plug-ins, or care about sites rendering properly. I've had too many sites not render properly with Firefox. It's not surprising, given the very low market share of Firefox. Web developers do not seem to want to test against it.
Oh wow, someone has a thin skin. Disagreement != trolling, in spite of what the thin skinned GPL folk think.
If a regular software/engineer/programmer can't read it and figure it out in a couple minutes, then it's rigged against you. Plain and simple.
That's pretty much my thought on this. If a "quick guide" is needed to explain the legalese, then the legalese is, to use your words, rigged against me. The "quick guide" is not binding, the legalese is. So why have the quick guide there in the first place?
Troll? Well, then, please answer this for me... If GPL3 is so easy to understand, why is the first link on the GPL3 page a link to "A Quick Guide to GPLv3?" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...
...because first impressions ...
because I listened to the entire mp3 audio (as bad as it was) of the meeting and formed my own opinion.
GPL has just become way to complex for me to use. The lawyers have taken over the wording, doing what lawyers usually do -- make things so complex you need a lawyer to explain their opinion of what it really means.
.
This.
Well, why didn't they write it down and save Pythagoras the trouble of having to figure it out for himself?
Look where it got us...
.
+1 to the OpenBSD project for putting security above speed.
-1 to intel for putting speed above security.
Using "Facebook" and "Privacy" in the same sentence.
.
The Microsoft guy was using twitter without understanding the limitations of twitter. However, he blamed twitter for his lack of ability to use it for the purpose he wanted, when he probably should not have been using twitter to convey the message in the first place.