I agree that women should have the freedom to use their appearance and sexuality how they please, and I wouldn't go up to a model and tell her she's doing something wrong. However, I still think it's fair to call for the tech industry to stop hiring models to advertise their products
Why? Who can advertise the product then? Only users? Only people who created the products? Dogs? Or maybe a pet sock?
Do you know what models do? Their main job? THEY ADVERTISE PRODUCTS. Some of those products are for the tech industry, some of those products are for other industries.
You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes.
Probably more than you think. While they may not choose "booth babes," it isn't for the reason you would think. Booth babes is a long boring job, standing on your feet all day. Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that, but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time. Some girls like to show off their body.
What braindead users are praising Google over the "intuitivness" of the idiotic new image design? It is awful. I have to click multiple times now to get to the website. First click brings me to some other google page, with one small url that links to the site. How is this intuitive at all?
When I click on the photo I expect to get taken to the website, much like when I click on the search result in the text searches.
Copyright works the other way around. Copyright is not an opt in, it is an opt out. So if you really want to implement the way you are suggesting google needs to see if it has a "public domain flag" And if its there link to the photo
Dear "Webmaster", nobody cares about your shitty website packed full of annoying ads. Get over it already.
Apparently a LOT of people cared enough about the webmasters "shitty" website, to want the photo the webmaster was offering. It wasn't free for the webmaster to offer the photo.
You forgot the more common scenario 3, a page with a thumbnail. Google used to link to the page, user goes to the page, click on thumbnail, see high res image. Now users go to google, see high res image.
Not everyone views the high res photo, they might just look at the thumbnail.
Now the site gets almost no traffic, but to just the photo itself. Which doesn't really do the site much good.
You probably already pay for internet service. For a little bit more money/month, you can get away with as much piracy as you want. If you don't understand all the terms/lingo I'm about to use, hit the google. Here's what you can do:
"Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they?"
Yeah, you are right. Guerrilla warfare has been proven easy to put down. So why bother.
Can you? More and more education resources are on the internet. Most universities require you to have a computer. More government resources or online.
Some people believed that the libraries were important to provide them free to everyone.
And yeah, right now you won't starve if you don't have internet access, that won't necessarily be true in a few years.
"In a simultaneous voice and data communication system" So what does this have to do with WIFI? Is someone somehow attaching a "voice signal" to the wifi traffic?
I don't think attending the school and working on a school project is considered "work for hire." So, I guess the school system can say whatever it wants. It can claim PI is 3, but it doesn't make it so
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hate for kickstarter? Some projects succeed, some projects fail. Whether or not they are funded by kickstarter.
I agree that women should have the freedom to use their appearance and sexuality how they please, and I wouldn't go up to a model and tell her she's doing something wrong. However, I still think it's fair to call for the tech industry to stop hiring models to advertise their products
Why? Who can advertise the product then? Only users? Only people who created the products? Dogs? Or maybe a pet sock?
Do you know what models do? Their main job? THEY ADVERTISE PRODUCTS. Some of those products are for the tech industry, some of those products are for other industries.
You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes.
Probably more than you think. While they may not choose "booth babes," it isn't for the reason you would think. Booth babes is a long boring job, standing on your feet all day. Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that, but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time. Some girls like to show off their body.
You know, some women enjoying doing just that.
What braindead users are praising Google over the "intuitivness" of the idiotic new image design? It is awful. I have to click multiple times now to get to the website. First click brings me to some other google page, with one small url that links to the site. How is this intuitive at all?
When I click on the photo I expect to get taken to the website, much like when I click on the search result in the text searches.
Copyright works the other way around. Copyright is not an opt in, it is an opt out. So if you really want to implement the way you are suggesting google needs to see if it has a "public domain flag" And if its there link to the photo
Dear "Webmaster", nobody cares about your shitty website packed full of annoying ads. Get over it already.
Apparently a LOT of people cared enough about the webmasters "shitty" website, to want the photo the webmaster was offering. It wasn't free for the webmaster to offer the photo.
You forgot the more common scenario 3, a page with a thumbnail. Google used to link to the page, user goes to the page, click on thumbnail, see high res image. Now users go to google, see high res image.
Not everyone views the high res photo, they might just look at the thumbnail.
Now the site gets almost no traffic, but to just the photo itself. Which doesn't really do the site much good.
You probably already pay for internet service. For a little bit more money/month, you can get away with as much piracy as you want. If you don't understand all the terms/lingo I'm about to use, hit the google. Here's what you can do:
Here is a novel idea... PAY for your content!
None. Their ISP will just slow their internet connection
Multiply two by itself, and you get four
2*2 = 4 Yep, Sounds good
Multiply by itself for the second time, you get 16
Ok, 2 * 2 = 4... How do you get 16?
Our country is theoretically "at war" with Al Quada as an organization (whether that makes any sense is a whole other tangent).
While it may be "theoretically 'at way'..." it isn't ACTUALLY at war. So yes, this is as evil as it everyone is making it out to be.
"Nobody at this point actually thinks their pathetic handgun is going to protect them against tyranny by a government armed with SWAT teams, drones, and nuclear missiles, do they?"
Yeah, you are right. Guerrilla warfare has been proven easy to put down. So why bother.
What "need" do they have an exclusive right over?
If you need to ask the question "do I need a lawyer" then the answer is probably yes.
the Sausage Master is right. Single provider = single point of control, and that's not a good thing. Competition breeds innovation and lower costs.
While that is all true, when was the last time there was a heated debate about how poor our sewage system is, or our water system?
You can get by just fine without it.
Can you? More and more education resources are on the internet. Most universities require you to have a computer. More government resources or online.
Some people believed that the libraries were important to provide them free to everyone.
And yeah, right now you won't starve if you don't have internet access, that won't necessarily be true in a few years.
The "subsidies" on his phone ran out like 4 years ago.
There is no contract.
Why would AT&T want a customer that doesn't use data?
Because they make money. They are just saying, either use a phone that doesn't use data, or pay for the data plan
It is only illegal if the phone has been purchased since Jan 2013 AND if you don't own the software on the phone.
Who says it already isn't unlocked? What does that have to do with ATT charging him for a service he isn't using.
"In a simultaneous voice and data communication system" So what does this have to do with WIFI? Is someone somehow attaching a "voice signal" to the wifi traffic?
I don't think attending the school and working on a school project is considered "work for hire." So, I guess the school system can say whatever it wants. It can claim PI is 3, but it doesn't make it so