Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 104

by lsllll (#45767183) Attached to: Why Snapchat and Its Ilk Face a Revenue Conundrum
Which is why I don't understand them not taking the 3 billion. It's just an app. It's not like it's a comprehensive social web site. I can't imaging FB having offered 3B for a simple app. You can't build a social experience around one app, so sell the app and use the money to come up with something entirely different, without the need for VC.

Comment: Re:I'm curious to see how many retailers actually (Score 1) 732

by lsllll (#42704433) Attached to: Credit Card Swipe Fees Begin Sunday In USA
Because most retailers who'll choose to exercise this method will not drop their current prices by 4 percent. The prices will stay where they are right now (because everyone's used to already paying those prices) and the CC users will instead get shafted an extra 4 percent. The sad thing is that the cash payers will CONTINUE to get shafted because the price they're paying for is the same price as before even though it no longer includes the increase attributed to CC users.

Comment: Re:Makes no sense. (Score 1) 207

by lsllll (#42635651) Attached to: French Telecom Claims To Have Forced Google To Pay For Traffic

Of course nobody can tell what future holds, or he'd be a millionaire. However I stand by what I said. Just check out these snippets from the article and tell me how any of these could be good for the consumer:

Google has also been faced with demands for compensation from content providers such as newspapers, who charge the search giant makes lots of advertising revenue from referencing their material.

Is it fair use or not? If it is, then they should STFU and come up with a business model that works better for them and gets them what they want. If it's not, then take Google to court.

France and Germany are considering imposing compensation schemes on Google as the company has refused to reach any deal with media outlets.

Who do you think will pay for these "compensation schemes"? You and I. We're the only ones who have untapped money. True that we're already paying an arm and a leg for Internet connectivity and Satellite audio/video, but where there's more, greedy bastards will follow.

French President Francois Hollande warned Google on Wednesday that his government would legislate a so-called Google tax if the company doesn't reach a deal with French media companies.

Ditto above.

Of course the other side of the coin is that it's in nobody's interest for newspapers or media companies to go out of business, but enough is enough. Newspapers can definitely reach a sustainable model. It just means they'll have to change. Look at Newsweek. They just issued their last print edition. They figured they'd make out better financially. Media companies are the whores of this planet, loving to charge for both ends as someone else already put it very elegantly in this thread. For them, the more holes they have the better off they are.

I'm not saying we have all the facts of the case and obviously more information is always good. I'm just saying that a network provider who is (highly) likely already getting paid for traffic going across their wires getting paid twice CANNOT end up being good for us consumers. If Google pays for the double traffic, then the least it'll cost us is in terms of innovation coming out of Google.

Comment: Re:Makes no sense. (Score 1) 207

by lsllll (#42635215) Attached to: French Telecom Claims To Have Forced Google To Pay For Traffic
I'm sure the "other" providers using Orange's connectivity are already paying based on whatever agreement they signed up with Orange, thus they look like another "customer" to Orange. You can throw more information at the issue, but it just stinks of a business model not good for us end users, since it'll just make content providers more greedy for money if they have to pay network providers.

Comment: Re:can someone please explain to me (Score 1) 505

by lsllll (#42564685) Attached to: How Verizon's 'Six Strikes' Plan Works

You know, that's the fucking problem. I have plenty of money to pay for good, on-demand video and the selection I want. However, because my time is literally worth money, I don't want to have to sit through commercials and ads. I subscribed to Hulu plus for a week before I discontinued it, and it wasn't because I didn't want to pay the $9/month fee. I would have gladly paid $20/month if I could watch the content ad-free.

Face it, as another poster said already above, downloading offers a whole bunch of incentives, such as DRM fee, Ad free, and great selection. If I had that combination, heck, I'd even pay $30/month for it. Not that I download shit, cough cough, but I'm already paying $119/month for my satellite TV with HBO, Show Time, Starz, Encore, and lots of other programming. Obviously it's not the money that's the issue.

Comment: Re:sounds like a reasonable point (Score 0) 453

by lsllll (#42526727) Attached to: The Problem With Internet Dating's Frictionless Market

I know this is flamebait, but you'd have to wonder what an educated girl would want to do with you. Let me turn on the grammar police.

Dating sites come with a bunch of filters. Find me a well educated, intelligent, white Catholic girl (Hey, I'm an atheist, but Catholic girls' schools seem to produce my sort of woman) who's a good cook, likes to dance, can put up with four hours of computer gaming on non-dance nights and has a slim or athletic build.

Or skip the dating site and find yourself with an interesting person that has few of those attributes, but is great to spend time with. Bonus if it's a girl and she fancies you.

That said, I'm still reluctant to ask out the intelligent female dancer that's about my age and fancies me, purely because we have the same dress size. Sadly I appear to be sufficiently superficial to want someone slimmer than I am.

Bad English turns a lot of folks off. I only hit on the punctuation, but there's a lot of room for improvement in sentence structure. Let me also say that I agree with what you've stated.

I fully expect the higher ups in the grammar department to correct some of my bad English as well, but truth be known, English is my second language.

Comment: Re:In Illinois? (Score 1) 225

by lsllll (#42102509) Attached to: Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police
True, in that it does not apply to the whole country (even in Illinois it applies to Cook County only), but this literally affirms the lower court's ruling. Pay attention: The lower court was a federal appeals court, thus its jurisdiction is the whole U.S. By the Supreme Court letting stand the federal appeals court's ruling in that the law against eavesdropping is unconstitutional, any other state will think twice (or three times) before bringing a charge against a citizen recording police in the course of performing their duties.

Comment: Re:Number (Score 1) 305

You joke about this, but that is, in a way, the exact thing they're doing. They're starting bullshit like this at an early age, so that by the time you get to critical thinking (late high school early college) you've been used to it, looking at it as a matter of fact and not questioning it.

+ - Man arrested at airport for wearing ornate watch. -> 2

Submitted by whoever57
whoever57 (658626) writes "A man was arrested at Oakland airport and charged with having bomb-making materials. The materials? An ornate watch and extra insoles in his boots. Despite the bomb squad determining that there was no bomb, the spokesman for the Alameda county sherriff's department claimed that he was carrying "potentially dangerous materials and appeared to have made alterations to his boots, which were unusually large and stuffed with layers of insoles". Linked in has a profile for a person with a matching name that (Geoffrey McGann) who is the owner and creative director of a media production company called Generator Conten"
Link to Original Source

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.