I guess it's the same for Janet "Superbowl" Jackson, nobody could have known that this family-oriented event would contain nudity until she decided to "hack" the program.
Apple switched because Intel offers a better deal right now. When IBM offers a better deal, Apple can pretty well switch to (note: switch to, not switch back) this new chip.
Apple would be silly sticking to an inferior product for 2 more years.
You should get together with this guy and start a company which does programming-intensive and patent-free works.
I find that this is a common greener-grass syndrome where one doesn't realize how lucky one is, however this is a good syndrome because that is what got us human-beings to where we are today. Imagine what would the world be if we didn't invent TV and we had to sit on an empty couch all day?
My advice is to try out some part-time works that utilize your talents, this will give you time to understand what your talents and interests are without risking what you have right now.
Bram said he suspects that some developer has gotten rate limited by his ISP, and is more interested in trying to hack around his ISP's limitations than in the performance of the internet as a whole.
Isn't this what Open Source is about? The ability to make changes to a software to suit one's need? And if there are enough users, followers, developers and contributors (see Ubuntu from Debian), the new branch because a thing of its own.
So the day Bram opened his code, BT is subject to the same kind of treatment and only users can decide which way it will go.
Aren't there cases where someone compiled a BT client to act like a seeder with high ratio but is an ultimate leecher?
I think most of us work because it provides income to fulfill our needs.
If you think Patents are evil, and you don't like to do evil, but this job is a great job and you don't feel like going back to the job market, then the answer is clear -- Keep the job and accept that a little evil is harmless.
What's I'm trying to say is, when the amount is irrelevant (that is to say even $0.0000001 is worth something), 2000 visits for $0.01 on Slashdot might start to look acceptable, or maybe 10,000 visits for $0.01?
Maybe it's time to create the Othernet where the rest of the world is networked.
I'm quite surprised that out of so many competitions, like GPS, satellite, Space program etc., which cost huge amount of money, no country is yet to create another internet.
On the other hand, if all service providers band together, we might finally see the feasibility of micropayment, so that a penny is charged to your broadband bill every time you access Slashdot.
It should be a no brainer that financial information (not just credit cards) can only be access by the finance department, and any waste paper in the finance department must be disposed of by professional data destruction companies.
The article explained the mistakes, which were caused by aborted print jobs, only those printed documents were in the bin for recycling!
At least the the newspapers have now added a safeguard to the computer system so only the last four numbers of credit and debit cards can be printed.
I guess the article would not have been published a day later, as the sky is falling down as we speak.
The scary part is -- "Google Disappoints With 86% Higher Fourth Quarter Revenue", I think an "Even" between "Disappoints" and "With" would be appropriate. That's the problem, everyone has high expectation on Google now that even one slight mistake will be scrutinized and punished.
A year ago, people were finding (or creating) reasons to buy Google shares, now people are finding excuses to sell those shares.
Microsoft also has a nasty tendency to say one thing and do another
Is it more risky to deal with a company that is known to say one thing and do another -- like Microsoft, or to deal with a company that is never expected to say one thing and do another, but still do -- like Google?
There's nothing wrong with Google's compliance to the Chinese censorship, the problem is Google had been telling the whole world it will do no evil, had gathered a good following of fanboys, and now suddenly did a U-Turn.
Law is made by the government of the time, and a government is usually formed by the most powerful (be it belief or gun) party in the country, and this party bands together for a reason.
So to assume that all law-biding citizens automatically qualify as good citizens is a big assumption.
Law has nothing to do with good and evil.
Google had a choice of breaking the law and be good, or abiding the law and be evil.
I think it's more a case of more new PC purchases during the Christmas/New Year periods, that's why IE (preinstalled with most new PCs) "gained" some market share.
I can't imagine anyone would actively download and install IE, so unlike Firefox, IE's gain is not a real gain, but a side effect of its parent -- Windows.
It's absolutely nothing wrong with taking the money instead of moral/ethics, but the fact that Google had been doing no evil and suddenly pulled a U-Turn because of a lucrative market reflects how Google has changed.
There's no plans to acquire Napster, nor to develop a music store at this time, but no one is denying Google is talking with Napster, and there are still two possibilities left:
1. Alliance as speculated 2. Investment, like Baidu.com
3. Confirmation will be made after Google employees have acquired enough of Napster's shares.
It's commonly agreed that a mobile friendly website takes additional resources to create.
Given the fact that most websites have problem asking money from traditional site visitors, I find it hard to believe any additional spending can be justified by most websites.
Having said that, some niche websites, which either [1] are built primarily for mobile users (that is, mobile friendly website is in the initial budget) or [2] offer valuable content which mobile users are willing to pay for.
Slashdot Mirror
Letter sent to Google bosses? They'll probably be thoroughly filtered and censored for their reading pleasure.
Constantly reminding the users that their government is censoring information
Yes, but how long until the Chinese government demands Google to remove that notice if they still want to continue doing business in China?
Once you displayed your willingness to bend over, there will never be and end to it.
Wow, public shaming is as severe as hitting those offenders with a wet bus ticket or a tap on the knuckles.
Wake me up when there's a public stoning.
I guess it's the same for Janet "Superbowl" Jackson, nobody could have known that this family-oriented event would contain nudity until she decided to "hack" the program.
Should FCC fine Jackson or the TV network?
Apple switched because Intel offers a better deal right now. When IBM offers a better deal, Apple can pretty well switch to (note: switch to, not switch back) this new chip.
Apple would be silly sticking to an inferior product for 2 more years.
You should get together with this guy and start a company which does programming-intensive and patent-free works.
I find that this is a common greener-grass syndrome where one doesn't realize how lucky one is, however this is a good syndrome because that is what got us human-beings to where we are today. Imagine what would the world be if we didn't invent TV and we had to sit on an empty couch all day?
My advice is to try out some part-time works that utilize your talents, this will give you time to understand what your talents and interests are without risking what you have right now.
Bram said he suspects that some developer has gotten rate limited by his ISP, and is more interested in trying to hack around his ISP's limitations than in the performance of the internet as a whole.
Isn't this what Open Source is about? The ability to make changes to a software to suit one's need? And if there are enough users, followers, developers and contributors (see Ubuntu from Debian), the new branch because a thing of its own.
So the day Bram opened his code, BT is subject to the same kind of treatment and only users can decide which way it will go.
Aren't there cases where someone compiled a BT client to act like a seeder with high ratio but is an ultimate leecher?
King Tut's left index finger is pointing at his wound.
I think most of us work because it provides income to fulfill our needs.
If you think Patents are evil, and you don't like to do evil, but this job is a great job and you don't feel like going back to the job market, then the answer is clear -- Keep the job and accept that a little evil is harmless.
I should have used nano-penny or something.
What's I'm trying to say is, when the amount is irrelevant (that is to say even $0.0000001 is worth something), 2000 visits for $0.01 on Slashdot might start to look acceptable, or maybe 10,000 visits for $0.01?
Maybe it's time to create the Othernet where the rest of the world is networked.
I'm quite surprised that out of so many competitions, like GPS, satellite, Space program etc., which cost huge amount of money, no country is yet to create another internet.
On the other hand, if all service providers band together, we might finally see the feasibility of micropayment, so that a penny is charged to your broadband bill every time you access Slashdot.
It should be a no brainer that financial information (not just credit cards) can only be access by the finance department, and any waste paper in the finance department must be disposed of by professional data destruction companies.
The article explained the mistakes, which were caused by aborted print jobs, only those printed documents were in the bin for recycling!
At least the the newspapers have now added a safeguard to the computer system so only the last four numbers of credit and debit cards can be printed.
I guess the article would not have been published a day later, as the sky is falling down as we speak.
The scary part is -- "Google Disappoints With 86% Higher Fourth Quarter Revenue", I think an "Even" between "Disappoints" and "With" would be appropriate. That's the problem, everyone has high expectation on Google now that even one slight mistake will be scrutinized and punished.
A year ago, people were finding (or creating) reasons to buy Google shares, now people are finding excuses to sell those shares.
But possibly not the first.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing that one is too pain-tolerant.
I would rather feel pain and cry like a little girl than subjecting to potential injuries without fear.
Maybe if users are made aware of the censorship, censoring search results becomes okay.
That's why foreplay is so important so that one can sustain prolonged poking.
Dry == Painful.
I'll probably be modded off topic since no one here would understand what I'm saying.
Microsoft also has a nasty tendency to say one thing and do another
Is it more risky to deal with a company that is known to say one thing and do another -- like Microsoft, or to deal with a company that is never expected to say one thing and do another, but still do -- like Google?
There's nothing wrong with Google's compliance to the Chinese censorship, the problem is Google had been telling the whole world it will do no evil, had gathered a good following of fanboys, and now suddenly did a U-Turn.
Law is made by the government of the time , and a government is usually formed by the most powerful (be it belief or gun) party in the country, and this party bands together for a reason.
So to assume that all law-biding citizens automatically qualify as good citizens is a big assumption.
Law has nothing to do with good and evil.
Google had a choice of breaking the law and be good, or abiding the law and be evil.
I think it's more a case of more new PC purchases during the Christmas/New Year periods, that's why IE (preinstalled with most new PCs) "gained" some market share.
I can't imagine anyone would actively download and install IE, so unlike Firefox, IE's gain is not a real gain, but a side effect of its parent -- Windows.
It's absolutely nothing wrong with taking the money instead of moral/ethics, but the fact that Google had been doing no evil and suddenly pulled a U-Turn because of a lucrative market reflects how Google has changed.
And check out the "Google In Damage Control" story here, everything's changing.
There's no plans to acquire Napster, nor to develop a music store at this time, but no one is denying Google is talking with Napster, and there are still two possibilities left:
1. Alliance as speculated
2. Investment, like Baidu.com
3. Confirmation will be made after Google employees have acquired enough of Napster's shares.
In this lawsuit-happy corporate world, this guy is only threatening to sue? I don't think he has a toe to stand on.
I guess if you the money to spend $4 million on storage, you wouldn't have to worry about $350 per day anymore.
It's commonly agreed that a mobile friendly website takes additional resources to create.
Given the fact that most websites have problem asking money from traditional site visitors, I find it hard to believe any additional spending can be justified by most websites.
Having said that, some niche websites, which either [1] are built primarily for mobile users (that is, mobile friendly website is in the initial budget) or [2] offer valuable content which mobile users are willing to pay for.