Comment Re:£429? ... Ouch (Score 1) 248
That might be the best iPad parody yet! I mod you fun.
Google Error
Server Error
The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request. Please try again in 30 seconds.
How am I going to get rid of the obnoxious ads written in HTML5?
Simple really. Either those ads will be recognizable on the block level...
<someblock id=annoyingad>...</someblock>
...and they can be filtered out that way or the next generation of ad blockers will work like the current crop of spam blockers by comparing block signatures in pages to known ads. If the block matches the ad is blocked or hidden or delayed or greyed or silenced or... whatever the user wants.
This race has been run and the ad blockers have won. As long as computers remain freely programmable there will be ways to make them filter out crud.
As long as they remain freely programmable... so make sure you don't lose that freedom!
Well, no: if "those in power" are not protecting those who are less powerful -- making sure that they are as protected by the rule of law as everyone else -- then the rule of law is not being followed. That is the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.
Well that was kind of my point. The only thing that makes the rule of law work is the good will of those in power. That said, there is nothing inherent about the rule of law that protects anyone. The burden of protection of the society still falls upon those in power. All I am trying to get at is that the rule of law is a great theory and, when followed, is just. However, there is nothing inherent to it that keeps a society that is following the rule of law, from breaking down into a society that follows the rule of men. It may seem like a semantic quibble, but I thought it was an interesting observation.
The context here is something like what the FCC did: going around the law, outside of the law, violating the law. You, to my mind, expressed approval of this, so long as it's for a good reason. This is hatred of the rule of law.
Regarding this, it was not my intention to express approval of what the FCC did. I was more just interested in the language you were using and speaking from a general point of view. Like I said, the whole thing was off topic on my part so I can understand why you would make the assumption that I was speaking in the context of the FCC case, but that was not my intention. That said, I was simply looking to get a feel for your thoughts regarding some of the things we discussed. So, thank you for your time and the dialogue. It was quite an interesting read for me.
You still assume that using more bandwidth actually costs more. It doesn't.
Yes, there's a fixed cost involved for expanding your network, but it's a FIXED cost. Using 1% or 100% of that network brings almost no additional costs, certainly not on the order of $1/GB. There's no degradation, overproduction or dwindling supply, like other utilities can experience.
Other metered services, like water, natural gas and electricity actually have some REAL costs per unit of product they deliver. Not so for the internet. Other countries (where there's ample competition and the network is open to all) prove that there's almost 0 cost in using up more bandwidth as they all simply offer unlimited plans... at a fixed monthly price lower than Canadian ISP's apparently.
If you buy into their garbage, you'll only end up padding the profit margins of these companies and kill any incentive to provide better service because of lack of competitors.
I had a GPGPU example running on a web page in Safari (for giggles) about four years ago. If you can get full GPGPU access through a web page writing a little video decoder shouldn't be a big deal.
While true, it may not matter.
Why ?
Users dont buy Flash, they buy iPhones. Obviously most users dont care about iPhone being proprietary, and in the end, Apple will do anything to please the majority users enough so that they will buy more phones. That include keeping a tight control on the platform.
Users want to buy iPhones and Apps. They dont really care about how the way the apps were programmed, or if its open. They may care about the price and the quality.
Apple will occasionally switch their stance when they think its ultimately beneficial for them. For example, see how they want from only webapps to native apps. They saw how it would benefits the users, and allow them to sell more phones. They gave the users want they want.
For sure they will not make things easy for developers. Their strategy is please the users first, the developers will come. They will only encourage the developers if it eventually make it better for the user.
Microsoft in the past and Android now have the other strategy: please the developers (Who said: "developers! developers! developers!"), they will create great apps and the users will come for the apps, not the phone.
At the start of the PC era, Microsoft picked the right strategy and won against the Apple. Things have changed, PC and Smartphone users are not just geeks anymore, so Apple strategy might work better now....
Time will tell.... But the DOJ might be the wild card here....
More websites that look like ransom notes.
I've heard there are some branches of science that aren't quite like this, but I've never actually seen one first hand, and most such reports are from dubious sources.
you mean, like Global Warming (renames to Climate Change when they decided they needed to cover their butts in case the climate didn't warm).
If you dare to question Global Warming, expect to be excommunicated, and sent to the dungeon for an extended torture session. The leaders of GW don't really believe in it, just look at Al Gores house, which alone uses more energy than 10 regular houses. He doesn't believe in conservation, but expects to make tons of money selling carbon offsets.
GW doesn't permit serious discussion about it. You're either pro-GW, or you're out of here.
In computing, the mean time to failure keeps getting shorter.
