I also somewhat resent their business model. They're funding development of their product through donations, at no risk to themselves, and then demanding 30% of all sales. That's rent-seeking if I've ever seen it.
I find this model to be a lot better than most angel or VC investors who demand that the business make a profit even if it means fucking over those that helped make the business possible.
Last time I checked, all the methods for root on the Nexus 7 ended up wiping the device in the process. I'm happy enough with stock that even backing up what little I do have on there doesn't seem worth it.
Except no one has actually given me any pure facts (not political facts) as to how Romney will help me and fix my issues.
To be fair, by the time those facts and plans had gotten to you, Romney would have changed his position 3 times over.
What I know about obama is that he is anti-personal freedom, 'pro' gay marriage, wants to tax people richer than me and help people less fortunate than me, didn't really do anything except his healthcare bill, and was president at a time where politics are so polarized we are lucky they can agree on even holding a session of congress let alone passing a bill.
There's a number of other things he accomplished. If you are a college student, or have credit cards, he was able to help you massively by overhauling the federal student loan program, and by passing the "Don't Be a Dick" rules for credit card companies.
Which he signed the Executive Order closing his first day in office. Problem is, the President is not an almighty dictator (this is not really a problem, it's a good thing), and can't really do a whole lot without Congressional funding or approval. Congress refused to fund the closing of the prison or authorize the transfer of the prisoners to the US, or anywhere, really.
and both the wars.
No, he really didn't. He did end Iraq, but he had campaigned the whole time about escalating Afghanistan and actually finding Osama. He even said that he's be willing to go into Pakistan (not invasion style, but more like sending strike teams in with the consent of the Pakistani government) to do so.
Well, think of it this way: You have multiple choices, if you count 3rd parties. However, usually the closer you get to matching your ideas, the less appeal the candidate has to the general population. You can vote for someone who really matches your ideas, but then you run the risk of getting someone you really, really don't want in office winning. If you vote for someone who only mostly matches your ideas, or even only kinda, then in most cases that's still better than getting someone who opposes your ideas in office.
Which is honestly better: Getting someone who somewhat matches your ideas in office, or having someone who opposes your ideas in office?
And what have you done besides voting? Have you campaigned for libertarians? Have you tried to convince others to do so? Have you tried to influence one of the major parties, much like the Tea Party did in 2010?
Realize that most people vote for a major party out of PRACTICALITY. Sure, you can vote for someone who closely matches your ideas, but if they're not popular enough to win, then it's not going to do much good. And you run the risk of someone you really, really don't want in office getting in.
Or Romney and his changing of whether he was or was not in charge of Bain Capital depending on whether he needed to establish residency to become governor, or whether it would make him unpopular?
Depends on what the "offense" is. Is it just an unpopular opinion? Then yes, you are right. Is it a company flat out lying about their service or product? There damn well had better be some real consequences for that.
Bullshit. They were very fearful of the power of corporations. There's a reason why most corporations back then required their charters to be approved by the state legislature, required them to be very specific in their goals, and, most importantly, require them to only be chartered for a limited period of time, usually no more than 20 years.
Over the years, I've reported a number of bugs in various interpreted languages, almost all of which were either closed on a won't fix basis, or have been rotting in bug trackers for years. So I clearly wouldn't count them amongst good quality projects.
Without knowing what those bugs are, we can't care about your claim that they aren't good quality projects.
Businesses who stupidly buy into those fake accounts will lose money and eventually collapse, then the fake account sellers have nobody to sell to, and they'll go away (or find some other scheme to make money off stupid people)
Except that doesn't happen. And I'd really be surprised if any business other than those already on shaky ground would go under because of buying fake accounts. If they did, then they'd have other, larger problems that led to their collapse, not buying fake accounts.
I highly doubt that IBM would go under from buying fake accounts any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
That is generally what is referred to when someone asks about the "killer app".
Having that ability won't really mean anything to anyone if there aren't good games for it.
While I would like to support that, it'll only happen if there are actually good games for it. If there aren't, then I'm gonna stick with my Xbox.
Again, what's the "killer app"? None of the games that fit that criteria would be considered a killer app unless it was actually any good.
I also somewhat resent their business model. They're funding development of their product through donations, at no risk to themselves, and then demanding 30% of all sales. That's rent-seeking if I've ever seen it.
I find this model to be a lot better than most angel or VC investors who demand that the business make a profit even if it means fucking over those that helped make the business possible.
Last time I checked, all the methods for root on the Nexus 7 ended up wiping the device in the process. I'm happy enough with stock that even backing up what little I do have on there doesn't seem worth it.
Maybe that it can already run a wealth of Android software, but isn't locked down by the telcos?
Have they actually said they're going to allow sideloading of apps onto this?
People who plan to make games in genres that don't work well on a touch screen.
But why would they develop for this when there's XBLA and XBLIG, and Steam, which arguably have a much higher install base than this?
I'm not convinced that first party development is necessary at all.
Depending on the platform, it can be necessary to make sure that there actually is anything that can push the hardware at all.
It's all a lie and you should care
And how much should I care about all the lies that Romney has told?
Except no one has actually given me any pure facts (not political facts) as to how Romney will help me and fix my issues.
To be fair, by the time those facts and plans had gotten to you, Romney would have changed his position 3 times over.
What I know about obama is that he is anti-personal freedom, 'pro' gay marriage, wants to tax people richer than me and help people less fortunate than me, didn't really do anything except his healthcare bill, and was president at a time where politics are so polarized we are lucky they can agree on even holding a session of congress let alone passing a bill.
There's a number of other things he accomplished. If you are a college student, or have credit cards, he was able to help you massively by overhauling the federal student loan program, and by passing the "Don't Be a Dick" rules for credit card companies.
he also said he was going to end gitmo,
Which he signed the Executive Order closing his first day in office. Problem is, the President is not an almighty dictator (this is not really a problem, it's a good thing), and can't really do a whole lot without Congressional funding or approval. Congress refused to fund the closing of the prison or authorize the transfer of the prisoners to the US, or anywhere, really.
and both the wars.
No, he really didn't. He did end Iraq, but he had campaigned the whole time about escalating Afghanistan and actually finding Osama. He even said that he's be willing to go into Pakistan (not invasion style, but more like sending strike teams in with the consent of the Pakistani government) to do so.
that is money that the state has stolen
No, it hasn't. Taxes are not theft. They're the price of admission to live in civilized society.
Well, think of it this way: You have multiple choices, if you count 3rd parties. However, usually the closer you get to matching your ideas, the less appeal the candidate has to the general population. You can vote for someone who really matches your ideas, but then you run the risk of getting someone you really, really don't want in office winning. If you vote for someone who only mostly matches your ideas, or even only kinda, then in most cases that's still better than getting someone who opposes your ideas in office.
Which is honestly better: Getting someone who somewhat matches your ideas in office, or having someone who opposes your ideas in office?
Romney made his money in the market, there is nothing wrong with that.
Bullshit. Just because someone made their money in the market doesn't mean they didn't do sleazy, shitty, abhorrent things to get it.
You don't like the choices don't complain to me, the choices are what they are, Obama or Romney and one is worse than the other.
Yes, Romney is clearly much, much worse.
Honestly, my voting hasn't changed jack shit.
And what have you done besides voting? Have you campaigned for libertarians? Have you tried to convince others to do so? Have you tried to influence one of the major parties, much like the Tea Party did in 2010?
Realize that most people vote for a major party out of PRACTICALITY. Sure, you can vote for someone who closely matches your ideas, but if they're not popular enough to win, then it's not going to do much good. And you run the risk of someone you really, really don't want in office getting in.
Say whatever you want about them, they are still miles above what Romney & Co. are.
I would gladly have Obama in office 1000x over than give Romney power for one day.
Or Romney and his changing of whether he was or was not in charge of Bain Capital depending on whether he needed to establish residency to become governor, or whether it would make him unpopular?
Lying is part of freedom of speech.
I do not believe that for a second.
All Fox News has done is discredit themselves as a legitimate news source
And wow, that has really, really hurt them, hasn't it?
Depends on what the "offense" is. Is it just an unpopular opinion? Then yes, you are right. Is it a company flat out lying about their service or product? There damn well had better be some real consequences for that.
Free speech does not include deceptive speech or lies, however.
Bullshit. They were very fearful of the power of corporations. There's a reason why most corporations back then required their charters to be approved by the state legislature, required them to be very specific in their goals, and, most importantly, require them to only be chartered for a limited period of time, usually no more than 20 years.
But... but if you fine a corporation, then they'll just pass on the increase to customers! And it'll hurt the job creators!
In order to maintain a business-friendly climate, we can't hold a company responsible for any wrongdoing they do, ever!
Over the years, I've reported a number of bugs in various interpreted languages, almost all of which were either closed on a won't fix basis, or have been rotting in bug trackers for years. So I clearly wouldn't count them amongst good quality projects.
Without knowing what those bugs are, we can't care about your claim that they aren't good quality projects.
Businesses who stupidly buy into those fake accounts will lose money and eventually collapse, then the fake account sellers have nobody to sell to, and they'll go away (or find some other scheme to make money off stupid people)
Except that doesn't happen. And I'd really be surprised if any business other than those already on shaky ground would go under because of buying fake accounts. If they did, then they'd have other, larger problems that led to their collapse, not buying fake accounts.
I highly doubt that IBM would go under from buying fake accounts any time soon.
No, if you aren't the one with the money. Because if you have money, you can hire more guns, and bigger guns.