I think people should not be haunted with ads by any technique. So this is not nitpicking, it is just regulation of how much privacy invading is allowed. And in my opinion this kind of automated man-hunt should be forbidden.
But the alternative is being "haunted" with ads that are completely unrelated to anything you are interested in. Relevancy actually turns ads from an annoyance to being potentially useful.
More likely, this is evidence that there never was a Snowball Earth. We've never been sure whether the entire Earth froze up or just large areas of it.
But the consensus of climate scientists is that Snowball Earth happened, therefore it's unscientific to question it. Are you a Global Cooling Denialist?
Yes, why listen to local radio stations for free when you spend $4 for an app AND eat up your bandwidth (if you're not on an unlimited plan). Also keep in mind that during an emergency (earthquake, hurricane, terror attack) when you really need up-to-date information, the radio will likely still work while the cell-phone system will be overloaded or reserved for emergency workers.
Presumably one advantage would be that you could register your "ship" in Liberia, Panama or some other flag of convenience such that you pay minimal taxes, avoid local labor & environmental laws, etc.
Ask yourself why is there such a mad rush to have FCC regulate the ISPs when there is really no problem with them discriminating between content providers in reality, only in theory. Here is a crazy conspiracy theory for you: how about if net neutrality is being used as a first step towards the FCC regulating content on the Internet.
So to summarize, you believe net neutrality regulation is unnecessary because although ISPs could theoretically mess with content providers, they haven't done so yet. You warn against net neutrality regulation because the FCC could theoretically move towards regulating content despite showing no indication doing that. In other words, the dangers of not regulating net neutrality are only theoretical so we should ignore them, but the dangers of implementing net neutrality regulation are theoretical so we must be afraid of it.
Stroustrup (inventor of C++) is hardly a source of unbiased opinion on this topic. His elitist argument comes off sounding like "Calculators are bad because anyone can use them, engineers should use slide rules. Would you want someone designing a bridge who was too stupid to use a slide rule?" Professional programmers can be more productive if they are able to spend more time creating and less time fighting with their tools, and denying amateurs access to those tools sounds more like job-protectionism than professionalism.
This was all also true for 10+ years before 9/11, when many of today's "security" measures were not in place.
What about the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1996 (1 killed/111 injured)? What about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (168 killed/680 injured)? What about the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (6 killed/1000 injured)?
Consumer Reports is another periodical website that uses the subscription model (though in that case it is because they don't accept advertising so their reviews can be truly independent). What they have in common with WSJ, Economist and various scientific/medical journals is that they offer highly specialized data to a niche market that is willing to pay a premium for it. General interest newspapers and magazines do not fall into that category which is why the advertising-based model works much better for them.
Lego is the company name. The individual toy parts are "Lego bricks" (or blocks) not "Legos". You wouldn't say "Nintendos" in place of "Nintendo games" or "Hot Wheelses" instead of "Hot Wheels cars". I have heard girls say "Barbies" instead of "Barbie dolls", but that is equally incorrect.
If everyone knows they can get something for free (and continue to download it for free), eventually, they will just expect it.
That's why there's no market for expensive bottled water since everyone can get free water at a drinking fountain. Oh wait...
Look at iPhone apps. Since most are.99-$1, if you try to sell one for $30 (no matter how good it is), you will most likely not get any sales because people expect it to be cheap.
First of all, that's not true. There are some iPhone apps (like turn-by-turn navigation apps) that cost $50-$70 and sell surprisingly well. Secondly, app pricing is based on supply and demand. Any first-year CS student can write a fart-app or flashlight-app in 10 minutes, and thus there are hundreds of them in the app store and the price is driven down to $0.99 (or even free). Who would pay $30 for such an app? If the creator thinks he can sell 100,000 copies at $0.99 or 1,000 copies at $30, which price should he choose?
Most would assume "fair and balanced" referred to their own reporting, not "our bias counter-acts the opposing bias of the other mainstream media outlets so that, taken in total, the average is fair and balanced".
I completely trust Murduch's outlets, because I know they are biased and can read through it... It's much, much harder with media that claims to be unbiased
What part of the Fox News motto "Fair and Balanced" do you believe is not a claim to be unbiased?
No, he's saying that copyright law and the fugitive slave law were both laws designed to protect property owners from having their property seized by others. In one case, our definition of what can constitute "property" has changed since the law was made. In the other case, it needs to.
I understand being upset but I was responding to opt-in and opt-out, and it's pretty simple - your dollars are your vote for you and how serious you are. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of people up in arms saying we need laws to prevent this. I call BS on that.
And I call BS on your free market democracy ("your dollars are your vote"). You're right about one thing though; we don't need new laws to prevent this. We need the old laws that allow companies to lock down devices that their customers own (DMCA, etc) removed so that we have a real Free market.
Rogers, apparently, prioritizes devices on it's network the following way: 1) Rogers phones 2) Rogers data sticks 3) Unlocked phones 4) Unlocked data sticks.
I wonder where roaming phones are on that list (for example a tourist with an T-Mobile or AT&T phone)?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but WikiLeakiLeaks sounds funnier. It sounds like something a two-year-old calls his wet diaper. "Mommy! Wicky Leaky Leaks!
But the alternative is being "haunted" with ads that are completely unrelated to anything you are interested in. Relevancy actually turns ads from an annoyance to being potentially useful.
But the consensus of climate scientists is that Snowball Earth happened, therefore it's unscientific to question it. Are you a Global Cooling Denialist?
Yes, why listen to local radio stations for free when you spend $4 for an app AND eat up your bandwidth (if you're not on an unlimited plan). Also keep in mind that during an emergency (earthquake, hurricane, terror attack) when you really need up-to-date information, the radio will likely still work while the cell-phone system will be overloaded or reserved for emergency workers.
I believe := started with Algol.
for all other values of N then P != NP
Presumably one advantage would be that you could register your "ship" in Liberia, Panama or some other flag of convenience such that you pay minimal taxes, avoid local labor & environmental laws, etc.
Not to mention an endless supply of free 'blank' discs delivered directly to your home.
So to summarize, you believe net neutrality regulation is unnecessary because although ISPs could theoretically mess with content providers, they haven't done so yet. You warn against net neutrality regulation because the FCC could theoretically move towards regulating content despite showing no indication doing that. In other words, the dangers of not regulating net neutrality are only theoretical so we should ignore them, but the dangers of implementing net neutrality regulation are theoretical so we must be afraid of it.
Stroustrup (inventor of C++) is hardly a source of unbiased opinion on this topic. His elitist argument comes off sounding like "Calculators are bad because anyone can use them, engineers should use slide rules. Would you want someone designing a bridge who was too stupid to use a slide rule?" Professional programmers can be more productive if they are able to spend more time creating and less time fighting with their tools, and denying amateurs access to those tools sounds more like job-protectionism than professionalism.
There were also some attacks on US embassies during that period, but I was sticking to terrorist attacks on US soil.
Easy, use a triple-click with an "accessibility" tolerance of +/- one click.
What about the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1996 (1 killed/111 injured)? What about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (168 killed/680 injured)? What about the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (6 killed/1000 injured)?
Consumer Reports is another periodical website that uses the subscription model (though in that case it is because they don't accept advertising so their reviews can be truly independent). What they have in common with WSJ, Economist and various scientific/medical journals is that they offer highly specialized data to a niche market that is willing to pay a premium for it. General interest newspapers and magazines do not fall into that category which is why the advertising-based model works much better for them.
If Next Generation is any indicator, about five seasons.
If cigarettes cause cancer, why do so many people still smoke?
Lego is the company name. The individual toy parts are "Lego bricks" (or blocks) not "Legos". You wouldn't say "Nintendos" in place of "Nintendo games" or "Hot Wheelses" instead of "Hot Wheels cars". I have heard girls say "Barbies" instead of "Barbie dolls", but that is equally incorrect.
Sadly, yes:
31 Fart Apps in 90 Seconds
iPhone Fart App Rakes in $10,000 a Day
iFart vs. Pull My Finger: The Battle for iPhone Fart App Supremacy
That's why there's no market for expensive bottled water since everyone can get free water at a drinking fountain. Oh wait...
First of all, that's not true. There are some iPhone apps (like turn-by-turn navigation apps) that cost $50-$70 and sell surprisingly well. Secondly, app pricing is based on supply and demand. Any first-year CS student can write a fart-app or flashlight-app in 10 minutes, and thus there are hundreds of them in the app store and the price is driven down to $0.99 (or even free). Who would pay $30 for such an app? If the creator thinks he can sell 100,000 copies at $0.99 or 1,000 copies at $30, which price should he choose?
Most would assume "fair and balanced" referred to their own reporting, not "our bias counter-acts the opposing bias of the other mainstream media outlets so that, taken in total, the average is fair and balanced".
But now that we know it's a placebo effect, it won't work anymore. Thanks for nothing science.
What part of the Fox News motto "Fair and Balanced" do you believe is not a claim to be unbiased?
No, he's saying that copyright law and the fugitive slave law were both laws designed to protect property owners from having their property seized by others. In one case, our definition of what can constitute "property" has changed since the law was made. In the other case, it needs to.
And I call BS on your free market democracy ("your dollars are your vote"). You're right about one thing though; we don't need new laws to prevent this. We need the old laws that allow companies to lock down devices that their customers own (DMCA, etc) removed so that we have a real Free market.
I wonder where roaming phones are on that list (for example a tourist with an T-Mobile or AT&T phone)?