Cash transactions and deposits attract immediate suspicion. Even withdrawing an amount in cash is restricted in most countries.
Officially this is to crack down on crime and money laundering, but unofficially this is so that it is less likely there will be runs on banks and because electronic transactions are much easier to track.
That much has become clear for quite a while now. What's also become clear is they don't know how to do it, what direction they're in and they're unusual recent behaviour is just a bunch of initial death throes.
2. The article is about how the techology is being used as an end-run around bans and other restrictions on GM foods.
4. You're criticizing attacks on alternatives to GM foods, that are being introduced because of a nonsensical fear mongering campaign against GM foods, where those alternatives are objectively not as inherently safe as GM foods, as "fear mongering bullshit". Really? Seriously?
Trying to separate GM food from the use of this technology is also a joke.
The logical conclusion of the wide use of GM food is that you won't be able to grow anything without Monsanto. That is their business model. We also have no idea what the long-term effects would be of this level of trust in a handful of powerful companies nor what kind of crops we would get with this unfettered. You're faced with a future situation where even growing anything in your back garden could cease to be a viable alternative.
People can call it scare mongering all they like, but we won't know until we're in that situation and if and when we are it will be too late. Allowing companies to control natural food production is inherently dangerous and unethical.
What other seed provider would this be and where will you go when they all do the same thing? I don't think you have the slightest clue how this works, do you?
In what universe can you called suing farmers for cross-contamination and then locking farmers into having to buy seeds from Monsanto an ethical or sustainable business practice?
People see smoke all around and then start asking for evidence of the fire.
Because Google don't want you running your own services. They want to you to be using their e-mail and other services. Giving people all that bandwidth and allowing them to run what they like on their own negates their business model.
I never liked him ever since I saw the way he started outright glorifying 'Secure Boot' and how there would be no problem with Microsoft being gatekeeper.
As for Mir, forking away is not a great thing to see but Canonical have the right to do it.
I know. The inertia with MySQL is just pain ridiculous. I'm currently weening the company I work for off MySQL because we're starting to get amounts of data that is necessitating ridiculous sharding frameworks in MySQL with implications for applications, and everyone seems to think this is fine and a sign that everything is OK. I've heard it all - "MySQL is what I know", "Does Postgres have support for bulk loading", "We don't need what Postgres provides, we can do all that in MySQL"........
The answer to everything with MySQL is yet more sharding, more complexity and hiving more and more stuff into temporary tables with less rows in them. But hey, MySQL is perfectly fine and it has great performance!
I've never understood the worship for Tennant. He played the role permanently looking like a stunned rabbit with his eyeballs about to pop out. That was basically all he did.
Re:They shot themselves in the foot
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 1
It was an imminently practical response.
You can't have a gratis product dependent on commercial components. It's a competitive death sentence in a market where none of the commercial alternatives have the same limitations.
You can't have any market based on software that isn't good enough. The end. That's why GTK was complete total and utter waste of time and effort.
Re:They shot themselves in the foot
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 1
It was anything but a practical response. If you're pushing inferior software on people (in almost twenty years GTK has never been on a par with anything else in terms of GUI development) and selling it on the basis of a license then that is simply an emotional response. The software is either good enough or it isn't - that's practical. We've had to wait a long, long time with the Linux desktop being all decimated to find that out.
Re:They shot themselves in the foot
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 1
We most probably would have eventually anyway, but it's a moot point. Qt was only ever good enough because a company could put dedicated time and resources into it where GTK has never had that. Regardless of license no one in the Mac or Windows development world would ever have took GTK seriously.
Re:They shot themselves in the foot
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 1
Scribus, Krita, Digikam, Kontact...... The quality shows through in their development. Evolution is all but abandoned these days despite the years of funded full-time effort into it and the GIMP's interface is a poster for how poor GTK GUIs are. Gnumeric is a bizarre thing to be using when Libreoffice is around.
GTK apps are crushed under their own weight of bugs and required manpower.
Re:They shot themselves in the foot
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 2
Trust me I've heard all the arguments, and the 'bindings' argument is usually somewhere near the top of the list. Most of the GTK bindings are pretty poor and really, what's the point of having all the bindings in the world when your underlying API quality is so poor? If it's poor in one language it's poor in another.
Re:I just started working on gnome
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 1
Gnome's development cycle has been unsustainable for some time. Relying on a toolkit that continually struggles for manpower to fix bugs is no something you want to be doing as an application developer.
Re:KDE and Gnome are still comparable
on
The Last GUADEC?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why should anyone be modded up who is basing the general usage of desktop environments on Google trends?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the way it is. Keep the research papers churning, regardless of how utter crap they are, and more importantly keep the research grants flowing.
I remember the BBC did a programme a few years ago asking why people are so sceptical about science these days. This is exactly why.
Cash transactions and deposits attract immediate suspicion. Even withdrawing an amount in cash is restricted in most countries.
Officially this is to crack down on crime and money laundering, but unofficially this is so that it is less likely there will be runs on banks and because electronic transactions are much easier to track.
That much has become clear for quite a while now. What's also become clear is they don't know how to do it, what direction they're in and they're unusual recent behaviour is just a bunch of initial death throes.
We all know the lone assassin thing was and is crap. As for who and why, that's another story.
let natural selection take care of you.
I hope you realise the irony in that statement.
Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.
Uh huh. Yer right. It isn't necessary to continue reading after that one.
2. The article is about how the techology is being used as an end-run around bans and other restrictions on GM foods.
4. You're criticizing attacks on alternatives to GM foods, that are being introduced because of a nonsensical fear mongering campaign against GM foods, where those alternatives are objectively not as inherently safe as GM foods, as "fear mongering bullshit". Really? Seriously?
Trying to separate GM food from the use of this technology is also a joke. The logical conclusion of the wide use of GM food is that you won't be able to grow anything without Monsanto. That is their business model. We also have no idea what the long-term effects would be of this level of trust in a handful of powerful companies nor what kind of crops we would get with this unfettered. You're faced with a future situation where even growing anything in your back garden could cease to be a viable alternative. People can call it scare mongering all they like, but we won't know until we're in that situation and if and when we are it will be too late. Allowing companies to control natural food production is inherently dangerous and unethical.
What other seed provider would this be and where will you go when they all do the same thing? I don't think you have the slightest clue how this works, do you?
In what universe can you called suing farmers for cross-contamination and then locking farmers into having to buy seeds from Monsanto an ethical or sustainable business practice?
People see smoke all around and then start asking for evidence of the fire.
Read some recent patents by Monsanto or Keygene for a clue.
Is this a joke?
It already exists.
Buy a new iPhone........
Amazon doesn't report profits for tax reasons, and they are involved in the same creative accounting every other well connected company is.
Stabbing who in the back, exactly?
Because Google don't want you running your own services. They want to you to be using their e-mail and other services. Giving people all that bandwidth and allowing them to run what they like on their own negates their business model.
I never liked him ever since I saw the way he started outright glorifying 'Secure Boot' and how there would be no problem with Microsoft being gatekeeper.
As for Mir, forking away is not a great thing to see but Canonical have the right to do it.
I know. The inertia with MySQL is just pain ridiculous. I'm currently weening the company I work for off MySQL because we're starting to get amounts of data that is necessitating ridiculous sharding frameworks in MySQL with implications for applications, and everyone seems to think this is fine and a sign that everything is OK. I've heard it all - "MySQL is what I know", "Does Postgres have support for bulk loading", "We don't need what Postgres provides, we can do all that in MySQL"........
The answer to everything with MySQL is yet more sharding, more complexity and hiving more and more stuff into temporary tables with less rows in them. But hey, MySQL is perfectly fine and it has great performance!
I've never understood the worship for Tennant. He played the role permanently looking like a stunned rabbit with his eyeballs about to pop out. That was basically all he did.
It was an imminently practical response.
You can't have a gratis product dependent on commercial components. It's a competitive death sentence in a market where none of the commercial alternatives have the same limitations.
You can't have any market based on software that isn't good enough. The end. That's why GTK was complete total and utter waste of time and effort.
It was anything but a practical response. If you're pushing inferior software on people (in almost twenty years GTK has never been on a par with anything else in terms of GUI development) and selling it on the basis of a license then that is simply an emotional response. The software is either good enough or it isn't - that's practical. We've had to wait a long, long time with the Linux desktop being all decimated to find that out.
We most probably would have eventually anyway, but it's a moot point. Qt was only ever good enough because a company could put dedicated time and resources into it where GTK has never had that. Regardless of license no one in the Mac or Windows development world would ever have took GTK seriously.
Scribus, Krita, Digikam, Kontact...... The quality shows through in their development. Evolution is all but abandoned these days despite the years of funded full-time effort into it and the GIMP's interface is a poster for how poor GTK GUIs are. Gnumeric is a bizarre thing to be using when Libreoffice is around.
GTK apps are crushed under their own weight of bugs and required manpower.
Trust me I've heard all the arguments, and the 'bindings' argument is usually somewhere near the top of the list. Most of the GTK bindings are pretty poor and really, what's the point of having all the bindings in the world when your underlying API quality is so poor? If it's poor in one language it's poor in another.
Gnome's development cycle has been unsustainable for some time. Relying on a toolkit that continually struggles for manpower to fix bugs is no something you want to be doing as an application developer.
Why should anyone be modded up who is basing the general usage of desktop environments on Google trends?