ARIN requires operators accept something called the Relying Party Agreement.
But the provider community . . . is choosing not to implement it
So ARIN apparently has no ability to enforce the 'requirement', making the 'requirement' meaningless.
"At the heart of the case is that Apple's use of DRM harmed customers by raising the price of the iPod"
A couple of years ago I received an iPod Classic as a gift. At the time, the price was $259, which I consider to be ridiculous. Does this meant they were even more expensive previously?
No one wants this but you so please give up.
Seriously, what don't you get... Unity was released in 2010. Here's a graph showing distro use:
http://royal.pingdom.com/wp-co...
See how your distro use tanked in 2010? And Mint Spiked? Your users have spoken... listen!
According to that chart, Ubuntu has been steadily declining since 2005 and didn't "tank" in 2010 any worse than it did in any other year.
Because you assume something easy like iTunes might have some sliver of intuitive design, but nope.. Took me a hour to try and get a CD onto my iPhone.
if you are trying to put a CD on your Phone, you're doing it wrong.
Certainly legal. There's nobody who can't hold your medial information.
Wrong.
HIPAA regulations are pretty strict about this. The company I work for does everything through a 3rd party because of this.
When I told my boss I had to have time off for surgery I was given the phone number for the 3rd party company and they handled everything. They contacted my doctor and obtained all the necessary medical information to verify that I was off work for a legitimate medical reason. When I was ready to return to work, I went to a doctor who examined me and then reported to the 3rd party company that I was OK. The third party company then notified my employer that I was OK to return to work. At no time was my employer ever given any medical information about me.
Another doomsday rubbish article.
We have yet to produce anything that even remotely resembles 'intelligence' by any stretch of the imagination. So far we have only managed to create artifical stupidity. We are in no danger of producing Skynet and automated factories churning out armies of Terminators. Hell, 99% of the businesses in the world can't secure their networks from script kiddies or write software that doesn't have more holes than a metric ton of swiss cheese. Those are the real problems that will harm us, long before we even get close to creating 'artificial intelligence'.
So from this information alone, I'm not sure I see the problem.
You have a very large website that I'm sure gets unimaginable amounts of traffic, operating for free and supported by voluntary donations, and their budget is increasing because they've hired engineers to keep the thing running. That all sounds reasonable enough.
So what's the complaint here? Do you think someone is embezzling money, or that they're just stockpiling money for no reason? Do you think that they're spending money in the wrong places, and if so, where you do think they're spending money, and where do you think they should be spending money? I think you need to give me something before I can figure out how to be outraged at all of this.
That's because this is Slashdot and you haven't bothered to actually read TFA.
Improving Wikipedia’s content is not really in the budget. Nearly $20 million goes toward salaries and wages, despite the fact that none of the staff edit Wikipedia as part of their job function. Almost $6 million was spent last year on awards and grants which certainly help produce some content for Wikipedia,but the writers are not typically compensated with anything more than pizza, sandwiches, and soft drinks.
Less than 6% of the WMF budget is spent on Internet hosting even though most people probably believe it’s their biggest expense. Meanwhile, they spend almost as much money (about $2 million) on travel and conferences. There is also a huge bucket for “other operating expenses” totaling nearly $12.5 million — some of which certainly pays for expensive downtown office space in San Francisco.
The WMF staff busy themselves on things that rarely have anything to do with writing, organizing, or exercising editorial discretion over the actual written product of Wikipedia. Instead, the WMF now considers itself a software and technology organization, but ends up doing more harm than good with its software "innovations". The last two software roll-outs — Visual Editor and Media Viewer — were loathed by a wide swath of users. The WMF responded to the community’s rejection of its software by literally forcing it back on the community with a tool called “superprotect”.
It appears that the Wikimedia Foundation has nearly run out of legitimate ways to spend the donors’ money, because much of it ends up in the organization’s savings accounts and bonds, or pays for software programmers who don't really seem to be doing anything worthwhile.
Most open source projects are
999 header files
355 directories
2345 code files
3 intermixed build systems
A python script or so just because
AND (&&)
There will be not a single line of documentation on how the source tree is laid out, and where to start understanding the project.
2). The response when asking where do I begin. RTFSC ? I'd rather pay for the software than be involved with that crap.
You' re being too kind.
Most are worse than that.
You're absolutely right. Hipsters are killing open source projects left and right with their fucking awful UI changes.
Just look at what happened to gedit. It's a text editor that comes with GNOME.
It's absolutely fucking moronic what they've done to gedit. They've managed to completely destroy the UI of a text editor, for crying out loud!
Why the fuck would I want to contribute anything but a total and complete reversion back to the old UI? Getting rid of this shit-for-brains UI is the best possible bugfix that gedit could undergo right now. But will it be accepted? Of course not! The hipsters can't possibly be wrong about the UI.
Substitute 'Firefox' or just about any other open source program in place of 'Gedit' and you have a perfect description of what is wrong with open source today.
But, how is that specific to open source?
Because closed source almost never has a publicly viewable bug tracker. At best, there's a forum where you can post bugs that most likely will be ignored and rarely acknowledged even if accepted and fixed..
Because closed source never has people from outside the company submitting patches By definition, people other than the developers can't see the source (hence 'closed'). For example. the vast majority of people who work at Microsoft are not allowed to see the Windows source code.
Because closed source rarely solicits or accepts work of any kind from people outside the company, except under NDA.
This. Open Source people tend to be fundamentalist in nature, which doesn't exactly make it easy to contribute. Compromise, agreement, pragmatism - these are all foreign concepts to them.
Exactly. I have tried almost all of the methods of contributing listed in the article and have either been ignored or rejected.
I thought stupidity was the most abundant material on earth.
I was really hoping that when Mozilla's contract with Google ran out the whole bloated business would collapse and they would go back to just making a browser that people actually want to use. But a new money truck just arrived in town and they can continue to add more and more useless 'features' while destroying all the things that made Firefox popular in the first place.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
How are online merchants offering free shipping without charging higher prices? UPS and FedEx don't deliver packages for free. The merchant eats the cost to get more business. Same with credit cards.
.(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
.They lose money on me but make it back 1000 times over on all the dumbasses who charge more than they can afford to pay back.
I'm sure the credit card company hates people like me, but fuck'em.
When they can charge merchants a 3% fee because you won't consider using cash, you can be sure your CC company fuckin' loves you.
(Where did you think that "free" money was coming from? Did you think merchants just eat that cost?)
(You didn't actually think your CC company was losing money on you, did you? Really!?)
Hey, guess what, I pay exactly the same price whether I use cash or credit card. The number of businesses that do not accept credit cards is extremely small and getting smaller every day. Yes, merchants *DO* eat the 3% CC fee. They have to. They have no choice thanks to good old fashioned competition. If you don't take credit cards you WILL lose business to competitors who do.
Back some time ago a bunch of merchants won a lawsuit challenging Visa/Mastercard rules, and as a result merchants are now allowed to charge people more for using a credit card instead of paying cash.. Well guess what, I have yet to encounter one single merchant doing that. They have no choice. Once again, good old fashioned competition. If they charge more for using a credit card, they will lose business to competitors who don't.
To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)
