And if they're not careful they can wind up on the wrong side of an antitrust suit. Remember, that Google bought the number two ad network and at this point, there's relatively little competition between the ad networks because Google doesn't really need to compete. They've got so many eyeballs that there's little reason to go with the #2 network.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but in this case it doesn't appear that they're banning those sites from having ads, just restricting what kinds of ads they can have.
Unfortunately, the policy seems to be a bit vague, which makes it hard to know what types of sites they mean when they say adult sites. Presumably, you could have ads that Google has already screened without trouble, but using other ad networks or having your own banner ads would put you at risk for having your site deleted.
But, really Google needs to be a bit more open about what people can do to avoid having their site deleted, as it doesn't appear to bar people from having adult sites or advertising, just from advertising adult sites on those sites.
They can still have advertisement, they just can't have ad links to adult sites.
I'm guessing that the goal of this is in part to clamp down on human trafficking, illegal porn sites and related crimes.
From what I can tell, the real problem here is that the policy is somewhat vague. A company selling sex toys would arguably be an adult site, but is probably not what Google is intending to bar from those ads. But, without a clearer policy it's hard to say for sure.
That's my thought, the devices they used were pretty low powered compared with some devices that have been used in the past. The ultimate death toll from the bombings was what, 3 people killed? Not to mention a few hundred injured, not to disrespect the casualties, but that's a very broad definition of "mass destruction."
I ultimately take this as a positive sign that the American people are getting more and more jaded about the idea of massive plots and requiring the government to go with smaller and smaller ones to ensure that people are worried about terrorists. They could probably have killed and wounded more people with just legally acquired firearms.
This time around isn't the same as last time around, and considering the abuse of their proprietary DRM during the rise of the iPod, the DoJ should have been watching very closely to ensure that Apple wasn't up to the same shenanigans.
In this case the only reason that there's any competition is that Google decided to get into the business of selling applications on their own platform before Apple solidified their base the way they did with the iPod.
He's not a scum bag, the game wasn't going to be funded through publishers, so he gave the fans a chance to fund development.
I'm getting quite a bit of swag for the risk, time will tell if it was worth it, but I just have to download and play to find out. I'm guessing it's worth it.
Plus, he never claimed that he wasn't going to sell the copies. There was no fraud or lieing about it. He didn't personally have the funds to finance it out of pocket, so he asked for fans to take a small risk on the project. The alternative being that there would be no game.
Plus, most of the fans pirated the game the first time around, I know I did, and paying for a small portion of the development is the least I could do.
One can also argue that the sky is green and that the GOP cares about poor people.
Doesn't make it true.
The money they're making on this game is in part how they're going to fund the rest of the LSL games they want to do. Hopefully including completely new games.
I'd mod you up if I had points and you weren't already at 5.
It's deeply concerning that somebody representing the W3C is in favor of adding something that artificially restricts portions of the web to supported OSes so as to avoid having a walled garden that's restricted to certain browsers.
The web is supposed to be open and with minimal restrictions on what can and can't connect. It's one thing for Youtube and Netflix to not support Lynx, and quite another for some website to not support a browser/OS version that's not supported by DRM.
That's not how that works, the hardest working folks are the kitchen staff and janitors in many buildings and similarly the hardest working people are usually not the best paid.
I'm not trivializing it, I'm just pointing out that it wasn't his industrious nature, it was his money that permitted him to get the result. Not to mention the fact that he has relevant training.
The headline and the summary trivialize the impact that money and training had in it and convey the same anti-poor attitude that you see all over the place. It wasn't the work that got the result, it was the work + training + money, without any one of those ingredients he wouldn't have gotten the result he did.
That's the thing, getting skilled in musical composition and performance takes a great deal of effort, and expecting people to just give it away for free, is unrealistic. That's time that they could spend on other tasks, that would pay. Now, they might write and play anyways, but it's not likely that the quality would be as good, as they'd likely have to bump that for other things like chores and work.
And not working hard is likely to get one skilled?
Because that's what you're implying here and that's complete horseshit. Sure, working hard isn't what makes a person skilled, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that's become skilled without working hard. Usually when it appears not to be the case, it's because you're not noticing the hard work involved, or they have the audacity to enjoy the work.
Most of the time when there's work going in and skill not coming out, it's because they're working at it the wrong way or they're working on something that they're not suited for in the first place. I have a hard time believing that there's a large number of people out there that couldn't become highly skilled at something given sufficient hard work. Now, it might not be something that's generally recognized, but it would be something.
Also, age 6 is way too early to be making those sorts of determinations. It's not until at least age 8 that you can reliably tell the difference between a minor learning disorder and somebody that's just a late bloomer. And even then it's questionable as to how much of that is the student and how much of it is an inappropriate learning environment.
Another way of looking at it is that he had the opportunity to do this because he has a ton of money. Think of all the children with various rare conditions for whom there isn't any answer at all because their parents aren't well off.
Yes he was industrious, but the head line and summary would do well to note that he also has boatloads of money compared with most other dads.
The artwork is not part of the code base and only interacts with the code base in the most technical of ways.
The javascript is arguably supposed to be included, but that would be dangerous as it would mean that you couldn't link against GPL libraries without turning that code into GPL code, regardless of whether or not you're changing the GPL code.
Which is probably not what most people really want.
Bach was paid to perform several music related jobs during his lifetime. The work he did composing his works was ultimately related to that.
It's unrealistic to expect people to provide work for free, and then expect them to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for things like food and shelter. On the bright side, if they're any good, there are probably plenty of lusty ladies that come with the territory.
If not for years of judicial abuse by the right wing of the court, I'd be shocked that they ignored that aspect of things. Marriage certificates have always been recognized throughout the country when valid, regardless of where in the US it was issued. But because of this ruling, apparently bigamy laws aren't really going to apply to gays and lesbians as the marriage certificates aren't automatically recognized out of state.
Sigh, I realize that it's become trendy to complain about generalizations, but in this case it's apt.
Walmarts tend to be located outside of urban centers, which means that unless they're driving a huge percentage of those hardware stores out of business, the reality is that usually there is some place that's closer to go.
There are places where that isn't the case, but you're really stretching it if you're suggesting that it isn't usual for there to be something closer than a Walmart.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they're not careful they can wind up on the wrong side of an antitrust suit. Remember, that Google bought the number two ad network and at this point, there's relatively little competition between the ad networks because Google doesn't really need to compete. They've got so many eyeballs that there's little reason to go with the #2 network.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but in this case it doesn't appear that they're banning those sites from having ads, just restricting what kinds of ads they can have.
Unfortunately, the policy seems to be a bit vague, which makes it hard to know what types of sites they mean when they say adult sites. Presumably, you could have ads that Google has already screened without trouble, but using other ad networks or having your own banner ads would put you at risk for having your site deleted.
But, really Google needs to be a bit more open about what people can do to avoid having their site deleted, as it doesn't appear to bar people from having adult sites or advertising, just from advertising adult sites on those sites.
They can still have advertisement, they just can't have ad links to adult sites.
I'm guessing that the goal of this is in part to clamp down on human trafficking, illegal porn sites and related crimes.
From what I can tell, the real problem here is that the policy is somewhat vague. A company selling sex toys would arguably be an adult site, but is probably not what Google is intending to bar from those ads. But, without a clearer policy it's hard to say for sure.
That's my thought, the devices they used were pretty low powered compared with some devices that have been used in the past. The ultimate death toll from the bombings was what, 3 people killed? Not to mention a few hundred injured, not to disrespect the casualties, but that's a very broad definition of "mass destruction."
I ultimately take this as a positive sign that the American people are getting more and more jaded about the idea of massive plots and requiring the government to go with smaller and smaller ones to ensure that people are worried about terrorists. They could probably have killed and wounded more people with just legally acquired firearms.
Especially at that venue.
This time around isn't the same as last time around, and considering the abuse of their proprietary DRM during the rise of the iPod, the DoJ should have been watching very closely to ensure that Apple wasn't up to the same shenanigans.
In this case the only reason that there's any competition is that Google decided to get into the business of selling applications on their own platform before Apple solidified their base the way they did with the iPod.
I see somebody with mod points doesn't have a sense of humor.
Yes, but that took millions of years to develop the simplest versions.
It's astonishing that it took humans only a few millenia to get to that point on our own.
He's not a scum bag, the game wasn't going to be funded through publishers, so he gave the fans a chance to fund development.
I'm getting quite a bit of swag for the risk, time will tell if it was worth it, but I just have to download and play to find out. I'm guessing it's worth it.
Plus, he never claimed that he wasn't going to sell the copies. There was no fraud or lieing about it. He didn't personally have the funds to finance it out of pocket, so he asked for fans to take a small risk on the project. The alternative being that there would be no game.
Plus, most of the fans pirated the game the first time around, I know I did, and paying for a small portion of the development is the least I could do.
One can also argue that the sky is green and that the GOP cares about poor people.
Doesn't make it true.
The money they're making on this game is in part how they're going to fund the rest of the LSL games they want to do. Hopefully including completely new games.
Star Wars doesn't run DRM free on Linux.
Sort of, Apple just wants their DRM to only work with Apple devices until they have a monopoly over that particular area.
And unfortunately, seeing as the DoJ looked the other way with respect to the ITMS they don't have any reason not to try again in the future.
I'd mod you up if I had points and you weren't already at 5.
It's deeply concerning that somebody representing the W3C is in favor of adding something that artificially restricts portions of the web to supported OSes so as to avoid having a walled garden that's restricted to certain browsers.
The web is supposed to be open and with minimal restrictions on what can and can't connect. It's one thing for Youtube and Netflix to not support Lynx, and quite another for some website to not support a browser/OS version that's not supported by DRM.
That's not how that works, the hardest working folks are the kitchen staff and janitors in many buildings and similarly the hardest working people are usually not the best paid.
I'm not trivializing it, I'm just pointing out that it wasn't his industrious nature, it was his money that permitted him to get the result. Not to mention the fact that he has relevant training.
The headline and the summary trivialize the impact that money and training had in it and convey the same anti-poor attitude that you see all over the place. It wasn't the work that got the result, it was the work + training + money, without any one of those ingredients he wouldn't have gotten the result he did.
Then you should provide works for free.
That's the thing, getting skilled in musical composition and performance takes a great deal of effort, and expecting people to just give it away for free, is unrealistic. That's time that they could spend on other tasks, that would pay. Now, they might write and play anyways, but it's not likely that the quality would be as good, as they'd likely have to bump that for other things like chores and work.
And not working hard is likely to get one skilled?
Because that's what you're implying here and that's complete horseshit. Sure, working hard isn't what makes a person skilled, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that's become skilled without working hard. Usually when it appears not to be the case, it's because you're not noticing the hard work involved, or they have the audacity to enjoy the work.
Most of the time when there's work going in and skill not coming out, it's because they're working at it the wrong way or they're working on something that they're not suited for in the first place. I have a hard time believing that there's a large number of people out there that couldn't become highly skilled at something given sufficient hard work. Now, it might not be something that's generally recognized, but it would be something.
Also, age 6 is way too early to be making those sorts of determinations. It's not until at least age 8 that you can reliably tell the difference between a minor learning disorder and somebody that's just a late bloomer. And even then it's questionable as to how much of that is the student and how much of it is an inappropriate learning environment.
That's one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is that he had the opportunity to do this because he has a ton of money. Think of all the children with various rare conditions for whom there isn't any answer at all because their parents aren't well off.
Yes he was industrious, but the head line and summary would do well to note that he also has boatloads of money compared with most other dads.
Depends, do you have a hand turkey?
They provide access to the data, what more do you expect them to do? Now, if there were no 3rd party tools available, then I would be worried.
Your point being? Unskilled workers don't work 2 or 3 jobs to give away something for free.
Also, I have never been unskilled because I busted my butt to get skilled. I wasn't born like that.
How do you make a living through music if you refuse to sell any or even attempt to sell any?
The artwork is not part of the code base and only interacts with the code base in the most technical of ways.
The javascript is arguably supposed to be included, but that would be dangerous as it would mean that you couldn't link against GPL libraries without turning that code into GPL code, regardless of whether or not you're changing the GPL code.
Which is probably not what most people really want.
Bach was paid to perform several music related jobs during his lifetime. The work he did composing his works was ultimately related to that.
It's unrealistic to expect people to provide work for free, and then expect them to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for things like food and shelter. On the bright side, if they're any good, there are probably plenty of lusty ladies that come with the territory.
That would be the "full faith and credit" clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_faith_and_credit
If not for years of judicial abuse by the right wing of the court, I'd be shocked that they ignored that aspect of things. Marriage certificates have always been recognized throughout the country when valid, regardless of where in the US it was issued. But because of this ruling, apparently bigamy laws aren't really going to apply to gays and lesbians as the marriage certificates aren't automatically recognized out of state.
Sigh, I realize that it's become trendy to complain about generalizations, but in this case it's apt.
Walmarts tend to be located outside of urban centers, which means that unless they're driving a huge percentage of those hardware stores out of business, the reality is that usually there is some place that's closer to go.
There are places where that isn't the case, but you're really stretching it if you're suggesting that it isn't usual for there to be something closer than a Walmart.