I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
If you think the US government only cares about this because of Hillary and the current administration, you are very naive. It doesn't matter who the next administration is, they don't want people leaking state secrets.
You can believe what you wish, but don't expect me to blindly follow your ideas any more than I follow the next person's.
I didn't expect you to blindly follow them. You claimed they were an NPO and parroted their claim that they need more money -- without any evidence. I correctly pointed out the for-profit arm that reaps in millions of dollars. If you still have faith in them, fine, but it's despite evidence to the contrary and a lack of transparency.
Even if they're the ones doing all of the work, and you're just some guy telling them they can't monetize their product because... reasons.
Actually, I'm not the only one. There were many people, their users which they claim to be holding front and center, who were upset with this move.
And yes, reasons. If Google wants to monetize their product, fine. Mozilla has roots in open source and benefited greatly from community involvement. If they are now treating their users as cash cows to be advertised to and feeding us bullshit propaganda while doing it, they deserve any backlash they get.
How is it clear? Because they want more? People always want more money.
They're an NPO
Already addressed upthread by me: "the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end"
In other words, all the money pouring into the for-profit corporation does not have to be publicly accounted for. They could be giving themselves million dollar salaries or bonuses and you wouldn't know about it.
If you have something useful to contribute then do so.
I did. I called them out on their propaganda. If you want to put your blind trust in people in charge of whopping piles of money, do so, but I'm not going to follow your lead.
This must surely be the first in a wave of repression meant to lull us into a false sense of security so that we'll get ads like Opera used to serve, or like Android/iOS spills everywhere!
Why not? First it started with sponsored search. Because that isn't somehow enough, they're now going with direct ads.
Seriously, if you're going to invoke 1984, at least try to not sound juvenile.
If the shoe fits, wear it. You've got to be a real asshole to start talking about putting the user "front and center" right before you soft sell how you're going to start putting ads into the browser.
You don't even seem to understand or care about this
Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:
We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain our first steps for putting it into practice.
That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!
That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler.
By "temporary filler", you mean advertising. If I want an ad-supported browser, why don't I just use Chrome? At least then I can do away with the phony veneer of a "non-profit" that's concerned about users and not making profit (the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end).
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
They were actually more trustworthy when it came to privacy than Google because they made so much money on their OS and other software that they played by old standards that software should not spy on what you do. They wouldn't want to jeopardize that by being sleazy. Times have changed and old standards have eroded. It's pretty much expected now that software is reporting back on you for advertising.
Yup. The story was that they hadn't gotten past the first game of the playoffs in a long time. The announcers were talking about it and how great Andy Reid was before the implosion.
When I think of EVE players I think of geeks sitting in their basements in front of a computer with Mountain Dew.
Kinda funny that the picture has somebody with that drink in the front.
When I think of people involved in football, with the exception of the small number of actual players and cheerleaders, I think of shirtless fat guys with painted faces and beer. They're different, but I'd be hard pressed to say one group is cooler than the other.
I tried being on unstable for a while, and it's actually pretty stable. In fact, I have no complaints at all besides the too-frequent updates, which was what eventually drove me back to testing.
I went in the opposite direction and moved from testing to unstable. The problem with testing is that fixed bugs were often held up for months for whatever reason (like some architecture I don't care about is broken). Then there's the freeze as stable is being prepared.
Also, you don't have to take the updates to unstable as they come out. I just update every now and then as required or when the mood strikes me.
Putin stuck Obama in the eye. He thinks Obama is an amateur, a lightweight, and he is correct. Putin is a KGB spymaster, Obama is a "community organizer."
This is a comic book version of a political discussion.
Mitt Romney was right. Corporations are made up of people. If you trample on a corporation, by proxy you are trampling on the people that make up that corporation.
It's a future where he's locked in and she's happily indulging her biological instincts.
It sounds like he's indulging in his, too.
When you are forced by law under threat of imprisonment to give up your money and your time, it's not a choice.
You don't have a choice to not have children? Speaking of biological instincts, the natural instinct of a male is to spread his seed. Being able to do so while the state picks up the tab is even better.
Moderated "Flamebait" for stating the truth. Why is it that people don't say their "freedom" is being protected by having the ingredients listed in food sold? No counterargument.
In particular, not everyone agrees with his rather narrow definition of "freedom".
More accurately, redefinition. What RMS is advocating for is consumer protection laws for software. It's like being required to list the ingredients of food you sell. You may agree with these laws or not, but nobody in their right minds calls consumer protection laws "freedom". That's pure propaganda.
MS refers to Windows as Windows across its website, I can't find an instance of Microsoft and Windows combined. Google searches return "Microsoft Windows", but that is clarifying the company name (in case one is searching for house windows). My operating system is "Windows 7 Home Premium" with a Microsoft copyright notice below the name.
I believe the name was shortened to just "Windows" over time. Going back to the same Wikipedia page as last time, another image shows a disk with "Microsoft Windows" clearly on the label. That goes back to 1985. This article says they didn't even apply for Windows until 1990. It's obvious they started out with a company name + generic name as the product name, and then later on tried to appropriate the generic name.
Did you use 123, Lotus 123, or just Lotus?
I never used it, though the name "Lotus" was familiar. Whether it was fully titled "123" or "Lotus 123" is besides the point, as "123" was a novel use for accounting software (to my knowledge). "Windows" was completely generic in the software industry by the time Microsoft came out with their OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Assange's tactic is to outwait the current US administration and hope the next one doesn't give a shit about leaks that embarrassed Hillary (eg. the "get something on the diplomats so we can blackmail them" cable).
If you think the US government only cares about this because of Hillary and the current administration, you are very naive. It doesn't matter who the next administration is, they don't want people leaking state secrets.
You can believe what you wish, but don't expect me to blindly follow your ideas any more than I follow the next person's.
I didn't expect you to blindly follow them. You claimed they were an NPO and parroted their claim that they need more money -- without any evidence. I correctly pointed out the for-profit arm that reaps in millions of dollars. If you still have faith in them, fine, but it's despite evidence to the contrary and a lack of transparency.
Even if they're the ones doing all of the work, and you're just some guy telling them they can't monetize their product because... reasons.
Actually, I'm not the only one. There were many people, their users which they claim to be holding front and center, who were upset with this move.
And yes, reasons. If Google wants to monetize their product, fine. Mozilla has roots in open source and benefited greatly from community involvement. If they are now treating their users as cash cows to be advertised to and feeding us bullshit propaganda while doing it, they deserve any backlash they get.
Clearly it isn't [enough money].
How is it clear? Because they want more? People always want more money.
They're an NPO
Already addressed upthread by me: "the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end"
In other words, all the money pouring into the for-profit corporation does not have to be publicly accounted for. They could be giving themselves million dollar salaries or bonuses and you wouldn't know about it.
If you have something useful to contribute then do so.
I did. I called them out on their propaganda. If you want to put your blind trust in people in charge of whopping piles of money, do so, but I'm not going to follow your lead.
This must surely be the first in a wave of repression meant to lull us into a false sense of security so that we'll get ads like Opera used to serve, or like Android/iOS spills everywhere!
Why not? First it started with sponsored search. Because that isn't somehow enough, they're now going with direct ads.
Seriously, if you're going to invoke 1984, at least try to not sound juvenile.
If the shoe fits, wear it. You've got to be a real asshole to start talking about putting the user "front and center" right before you soft sell how you're going to start putting ads into the browser.
You don't even seem to understand or care about this
Enlighten me. What am I missing?
The bright headlamp race has to stop.
I've also been stuck behind some really awful (as in blinding) LED taillights. They were on a Prius.
Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:
We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain our first steps for putting it into practice.
That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!
That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler.
By "temporary filler", you mean advertising. If I want an ad-supported browser, why don't I just use Chrome? At least then I can do away with the phony veneer of a "non-profit" that's concerned about users and not making profit (the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end).
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
They were actually more trustworthy when it came to privacy than Google because they made so much money on their OS and other software that they played by old standards that software should not spy on what you do. They wouldn't want to jeopardize that by being sleazy. Times have changed and old standards have eroded. It's pretty much expected now that software is reporting back on you for advertising.
Slashdot is dying. Diceholdings Inc. confirms it.
No it isn't.
As I understand it, GOG.com fixes the game and those fixes should be entitled to copyright protection for a suitable length of time
As I understand it, GOG applies patches that the community has already implemented and freely given away.
If you count reserve troops North Korea has the largest army in the world.
Does that include China's army? That's their fallback source of power.
Either way, their online game not supporting offline multiplayer hardly makes them the Metallica of video games.
But their lawsuit against bnetd did.
Dijkstra was a cranky old bastard, intolerant of a great many things the older he got.
Yup. The story was that they hadn't gotten past the first game of the playoffs in a long time. The announcers were talking about it and how great Andy Reid was before the implosion.
When I think of EVE players I think of geeks sitting in their basements in front of a computer with Mountain Dew.
Kinda funny that the picture has somebody with that drink in the front.
When I think of people involved in football, with the exception of the small number of actual players and cheerleaders, I think of shirtless fat guys with painted faces and beer. They're different, but I'd be hard pressed to say one group is cooler than the other.
True enough.
The fact is that UCD is completely indefensible.
What's your problem with urine collection devices? They are very useful in certain situations.
I tried being on unstable for a while, and it's actually pretty stable. In fact, I have no complaints at all besides the too-frequent updates, which was what eventually drove me back to testing.
I went in the opposite direction and moved from testing to unstable. The problem with testing is that fixed bugs were often held up for months for whatever reason (like some architecture I don't care about is broken). Then there's the freeze as stable is being prepared.
Also, you don't have to take the updates to unstable as they come out. I just update every now and then as required or when the mood strikes me.
It's pure fluff.
Putin stuck Obama in the eye. He thinks Obama is an amateur, a lightweight, and he is correct. Putin is a KGB spymaster, Obama is a "community organizer."
This is a comic book version of a political discussion.
Mitt Romney was right. Corporations are made up of people. If you trample on a corporation, by proxy you are trampling on the people that make up that corporation.
It's a future where he's locked in and she's happily indulging her biological instincts.
It sounds like he's indulging in his, too.
When you are forced by law under threat of imprisonment to give up your money and your time, it's not a choice.
You don't have a choice to not have children? Speaking of biological instincts, the natural instinct of a male is to spread his seed. Being able to do so while the state picks up the tab is even better.
Moderated "Flamebait" for stating the truth. Why is it that people don't say their "freedom" is being protected by having the ingredients listed in food sold? No counterargument.
In particular, not everyone agrees with his rather narrow definition of "freedom".
More accurately, redefinition. What RMS is advocating for is consumer protection laws for software. It's like being required to list the ingredients of food you sell. You may agree with these laws or not, but nobody in their right minds calls consumer protection laws "freedom". That's pure propaganda.
MS refers to Windows as Windows across its website, I can't find an instance of Microsoft and Windows combined. Google searches return "Microsoft Windows", but that is clarifying the company name (in case one is searching for house windows). My operating system is "Windows 7 Home Premium" with a Microsoft copyright notice below the name.
I believe the name was shortened to just "Windows" over time. Going back to the same Wikipedia page as last time, another image shows a disk with "Microsoft Windows" clearly on the label. That goes back to 1985. This article says they didn't even apply for Windows until 1990. It's obvious they started out with a company name + generic name as the product name, and then later on tried to appropriate the generic name.
Did you use 123, Lotus 123, or just Lotus?
I never used it, though the name "Lotus" was familiar. Whether it was fully titled "123" or "Lotus 123" is besides the point, as "123" was a novel use for accounting software (to my knowledge). "Windows" was completely generic in the software industry by the time Microsoft came out with their OS.