Because you're risking investing in a pseudonym that could be deleted at any time for violating the name policy. They're not going to go around banning Hispanic sounding sames because they'd get sued for discrimination when they inevitably banned somebody that was using their real name. And they aren't going to have any more of an idea that I'm not Steven P Franklin than Irwin R Smith or Benjamin Q Roosevelt. Those are probably the names of somebody out there, but it would be difficult to impossible to determine whether the individual using any of those names was using a pseudonym or not.
Bullshit, not being on social media has definite repercussions in terms of finding a job. Having a smartphone is a necessity for a substantial portion of the populace that needs that capability on the go. It's long past the point where it was acceptable to just not show up at a meeting if you got lost or the address was wrong, these days they expect you to call or look the information up yourself. Something which is getting to be quite challenging with all the pay phones being removed around town.
As far as eating and drinking, good luck doing that if you haven't got a job, at least not on a reliable basis.
Not really, it makes it a bit more challenging, but it doesn't make it impossible. What you do there is move to a reputation based system. Crackers tend to prefer to hijack accounts rather than create new accounts as it's much more likely to wind up being seen by the recipient.
In terms of Google+ or other social networking sites, you can crowd source it without too much trouble to get rid of at least the most egregious examples and have somebody do a double check that it's actually spam or trolling.
You're not going to get rid of astroturfing without seriously impacting the free exchange of ideas, but you can at least crack down on the most obvious folks or limit it to like minded individuals.
Stingy is relative, I'd love to have the disposable income to be able to afford $10, I don't so I gave what I could. The alternative would be me not paying anything at all, so in the light I think it's better to give what you can.
Just don't be a dick, give at least enough to cover the cost of the transaction.
I doubt it. The reason being that in order to use those machines you'd have to visit those stores. At any rate, I doubt this detracts from their rentals anymore than the Redbox option detracts from their DVD sales in store.
Only is somewhat subjective, they made Nirvana relabel "Rape Me" to "Waif Me" for the CD release they carried and they refuse to carry and discs which have a content warning label on them. So, groups don't have to do it, but they're pretty much the biggest retailer of music these days so refusing to issue an acceptably edited disc is throwing a huge portion of the potential market away.
Which is most folks because the streaming library is a joke. Right now the discs only option is comparably priced to Blockbuster if you get the Bluray upgrade to Netflix. Plus Blockbuster includes PS3, Wii and Xbox360 game rentals in that price.
Folks that were streaming only had an option for that already.
What about fake reviews that are posted by the competition. I have a hard time believing that anybody that is posting fake reviews of their products isn't doing that for their competition as well.
Ultimately, I tend to look for the reviews that are the most informative, things that look plausible and give me more information than what's in the listing. Usually those are fairly reliable as they're harder to fake. Not that it's a perfect system, but it is more time consuming to post a review like that since you really have to do different ones for different sites.
Those ideas spread the most slowly because they require the most education and consideration to accept. However, the idea that President Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya is very simple to grasp, even though it is completely wrong and pretty much only accepted by a small number of fringe bigots and xenophobes.
The operative word there is visible. I suspect what's going on there is that there's a period of development of a new idea when it's not publicly disclosed for fear of rejection or being ostracized for having an odd belief. But once it hits that roughly 10% threshold the risk from holding the view is greatly reduced because if the particular individual doesn't hold that view point chances are that they've at least come into contact with somebody else that does.
On top of that with a 10% distribution it's much more likely that people will see the idea spreading without knowing whom it is precisely that holds the view.
It's not an unfounded assertion, that's the marketing campaign that Apple's been running for at least a decade now. And in many cases the only difference between the Apple product and the competition is that Apple over charges for making it pretty. They have a history of making inferior products, the iPods were never as good as the competition failing to support the same DRM that everybody else supported and not including a user replaceable battery for instance.
No, it means that 35% are fanbois that care more about being seen as well off than with the quality of the product. And the remaining 65% are assorted fanbois of over platforms, critical thinkiers and people that don't want a smart phone at all.
The market is still too large to ignore. Even if it stalls out at a level similar to the number of desktops, that's still way too many to ignore. Plus some of the things that they're needing to work on for handsets are liable to work their way into the desktop release.
That's something that a lot of folks seem to be forgetting. The price has increased drastically and according to Netflix the money isn't going to pay licensing fees. The CEO had his salary doubled during a recession and in the mean time the cost to the consumer for absolutely nothing extra has skyrocketed.
Sure it is probably still a good deal at $16 a month, but the price is unlikely to stay there as the studios demand more money for licensing content. And folks like myself have totally lost any confidence in Netflix's ability to treat us fairly or respectfully.
Netflix has competition, and the competition is largely free. Crackle and Hulu for instance.
Plus, the streaming library that Netflix has sucks, I mean seriously it does, it's got only a small fraction of the titles that Netflix and BB have available as DVDs and most of the ones they do offer for streaming are obscure or old and they cycle in and out relatively frequently without any sort of warning about when they're about to be removed.
BB throws in Blurays, PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 discs for that price and if you happen to live next to one of the last dozen BB stores you can exchange your discs there as often as you like.
On top of that the issue for most folks, myself included, wasn't the cost, it was that the cost was being increased for no particular reason and there wasn't even an attempt to placate the subscriber base. On top of that they made disrespectful comments about how it was only the cost of a couple lattes during a down economy and have so far completely refused to even acknowledge that they insulted their subscribers.
No, it's a BS excuse. Netflix chose to create a site that doesn't comply with known standards and as a result the site doesn't allow for streaming to Linux computers. The whole notion that one should have to use an approved OS is really just evidence that the DoJ hasn't been aggressive enough in punishing antitrust violations.
What shocks me is that it's taken this long. They've been known in the US to outright make up stories and be a mouth piece for conservatives for many years now and as a result nobody with two brain cells to rub together takes them seriously as a news outlet.
And if you read up on their history they've done some pretty rotten things over the years. Such as offering Newt Gingrich a huge sum of money as an advance on a book deal when Murdoch was trying to get the rules for media ownership relaxed. Could be a coincidence, but that's doubtful, the advance was a multiple of how much the previous book made.
The point is that if they're that close then it doesn't really matter. One can then choose the codec that delivers the desired quality in the fewest bits or possibly that costs the least amount of money.
Indeed, I rip to FLAC mainly for a back up, but I tend to listen to 196kbps VBR MP3s most of the time because I can't hear the difference. Well, when I'm not on the computer with my backups.
He didn't hurt the banks. The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates. Which is unfortunate because as long as banks can just buy their way out for cheap they aren't likely to invest in the kinds of security necessary to make things more challenging for crooks.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you're risking investing in a pseudonym that could be deleted at any time for violating the name policy. They're not going to go around banning Hispanic sounding sames because they'd get sued for discrimination when they inevitably banned somebody that was using their real name. And they aren't going to have any more of an idea that I'm not Steven P Franklin than Irwin R Smith or Benjamin Q Roosevelt. Those are probably the names of somebody out there, but it would be difficult to impossible to determine whether the individual using any of those names was using a pseudonym or not.
Bullshit, not being on social media has definite repercussions in terms of finding a job. Having a smartphone is a necessity for a substantial portion of the populace that needs that capability on the go. It's long past the point where it was acceptable to just not show up at a meeting if you got lost or the address was wrong, these days they expect you to call or look the information up yourself. Something which is getting to be quite challenging with all the pay phones being removed around town.
As far as eating and drinking, good luck doing that if you haven't got a job, at least not on a reliable basis.
Not really, it makes it a bit more challenging, but it doesn't make it impossible. What you do there is move to a reputation based system. Crackers tend to prefer to hijack accounts rather than create new accounts as it's much more likely to wind up being seen by the recipient.
In terms of Google+ or other social networking sites, you can crowd source it without too much trouble to get rid of at least the most egregious examples and have somebody do a double check that it's actually spam or trolling.
You're not going to get rid of astroturfing without seriously impacting the free exchange of ideas, but you can at least crack down on the most obvious folks or limit it to like minded individuals.
Stingy is relative, I'd love to have the disposable income to be able to afford $10, I don't so I gave what I could. The alternative would be me not paying anything at all, so in the light I think it's better to give what you can.
Just don't be a dick, give at least enough to cover the cost of the transaction.
Except that some of the reviewers receive free merchandise to review as a part of that program that Amazon has for their top reviewers.
I doubt it. The reason being that in order to use those machines you'd have to visit those stores. At any rate, I doubt this detracts from their rentals anymore than the Redbox option detracts from their DVD sales in store.
Only is somewhat subjective, they made Nirvana relabel "Rape Me" to "Waif Me" for the CD release they carried and they refuse to carry and discs which have a content warning label on them. So, groups don't have to do it, but they're pretty much the biggest retailer of music these days so refusing to issue an acceptably edited disc is throwing a huge portion of the potential market away.
Which is most folks because the streaming library is a joke. Right now the discs only option is comparably priced to Blockbuster if you get the Bluray upgrade to Netflix. Plus Blockbuster includes PS3, Wii and Xbox360 game rentals in that price.
Folks that were streaming only had an option for that already.
What about fake reviews that are posted by the competition. I have a hard time believing that anybody that is posting fake reviews of their products isn't doing that for their competition as well.
Ultimately, I tend to look for the reviews that are the most informative, things that look plausible and give me more information than what's in the listing. Usually those are fairly reliable as they're harder to fake. Not that it's a perfect system, but it is more time consuming to post a review like that since you really have to do different ones for different sites.
Those ideas spread the most slowly because they require the most education and consideration to accept. However, the idea that President Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya is very simple to grasp, even though it is completely wrong and pretty much only accepted by a small number of fringe bigots and xenophobes.
The operative word there is visible. I suspect what's going on there is that there's a period of development of a new idea when it's not publicly disclosed for fear of rejection or being ostracized for having an odd belief. But once it hits that roughly 10% threshold the risk from holding the view is greatly reduced because if the particular individual doesn't hold that view point chances are that they've at least come into contact with somebody else that does.
On top of that with a 10% distribution it's much more likely that people will see the idea spreading without knowing whom it is precisely that holds the view.
Indeed, why don't they just use EMACS, it does have the appropriate function built in.
It's not an unfounded assertion, that's the marketing campaign that Apple's been running for at least a decade now. And in many cases the only difference between the Apple product and the competition is that Apple over charges for making it pretty. They have a history of making inferior products, the iPods were never as good as the competition failing to support the same DRM that everybody else supported and not including a user replaceable battery for instance.
No, it means that 35% are fanbois that care more about being seen as well off than with the quality of the product. And the remaining 65% are assorted fanbois of over platforms, critical thinkiers and people that don't want a smart phone at all.
The market is still too large to ignore. Even if it stalls out at a level similar to the number of desktops, that's still way too many to ignore. Plus some of the things that they're needing to work on for handsets are liable to work their way into the desktop release.
That's something that a lot of folks seem to be forgetting. The price has increased drastically and according to Netflix the money isn't going to pay licensing fees. The CEO had his salary doubled during a recession and in the mean time the cost to the consumer for absolutely nothing extra has skyrocketed.
Sure it is probably still a good deal at $16 a month, but the price is unlikely to stay there as the studios demand more money for licensing content. And folks like myself have totally lost any confidence in Netflix's ability to treat us fairly or respectfully.
Netflix has competition, and the competition is largely free. Crackle and Hulu for instance.
Plus, the streaming library that Netflix has sucks, I mean seriously it does, it's got only a small fraction of the titles that Netflix and BB have available as DVDs and most of the ones they do offer for streaming are obscure or old and they cycle in and out relatively frequently without any sort of warning about when they're about to be removed.
BB throws in Blurays, PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 discs for that price and if you happen to live next to one of the last dozen BB stores you can exchange your discs there as often as you like.
On top of that the issue for most folks, myself included, wasn't the cost, it was that the cost was being increased for no particular reason and there wasn't even an attempt to placate the subscriber base. On top of that they made disrespectful comments about how it was only the cost of a couple lattes during a down economy and have so far completely refused to even acknowledge that they insulted their subscribers.
No, it's a BS excuse. Netflix chose to create a site that doesn't comply with known standards and as a result the site doesn't allow for streaming to Linux computers. The whole notion that one should have to use an approved OS is really just evidence that the DoJ hasn't been aggressive enough in punishing antitrust violations.
Because Israel has them.
What shocks me is that it's taken this long. They've been known in the US to outright make up stories and be a mouth piece for conservatives for many years now and as a result nobody with two brain cells to rub together takes them seriously as a news outlet.
And if you read up on their history they've done some pretty rotten things over the years. Such as offering Newt Gingrich a huge sum of money as an advance on a book deal when Murdoch was trying to get the rules for media ownership relaxed. Could be a coincidence, but that's doubtful, the advance was a multiple of how much the previous book made.
The point is that if they're that close then it doesn't really matter. One can then choose the codec that delivers the desired quality in the fewest bits or possibly that costs the least amount of money.
Indeed, I rip to FLAC mainly for a back up, but I tend to listen to 196kbps VBR MP3s most of the time because I can't hear the difference. Well, when I'm not on the computer with my backups.
It wasn't $675k, it was 675k CC numbers that were stolen, so it's doubtful that he made only $675k.
He didn't hurt the banks. The banks will pass the loss on to the clients in the form of higher rates. Which is unfortunate because as long as banks can just buy their way out for cheap they aren't likely to invest in the kinds of security necessary to make things more challenging for crooks.