Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment F(U) ^ 2 (Score -1) 27

Fabric is "a modular mobile platform" designed to help app developers improve the "stability, distribution, revenue and identity"

- what would Twitter know about improving revenue exactly? If they do know something about it how come they didn't do that for themselves?

the ability to natively embed tweets in other apps to signing in with your Twitter credentials were made possible by Fabric.

- I guess that's their definition of 'everything'.

You can sign in and you can tweet. The 2 things that Tweeter does.

"We quickly realized that our missions are the same -- helping mobile teams build better apps, understand their users, and grow their businesses," the Fabric team wrote in its announcement.

- right, the actual mission being tracking everything anybody does on their phone and using the phone platform to push advertising to users.

"Fabric and Firebase operate mobile platforms with unique strengths in the market today."

- the F U squared.

And if you're an existing Fabric customer, don't worry, the platform will continue to function.

- ooookaaaay, I guess if you are known for randomly shutting down projects you have to put out statements like that...

You'll just need to agree to the new terms of service, which will be available once the deal is completed.

- right, so if you are a developer who uses that stuff make sure to grow an extra kidney, because they are coming for yours.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score -1) 783

If i see somebody who looks like a female to me and I don't know anything else about that pwrson I will refer to that person as a she. If I see somebody who looks like a male and I don't know anything else about that person, that to me is a he.

A biological famous male I will refer to as a he regardless of what he wants or believes to be, that is just a fact. I an not forcing him to talk to me, I am not interested in talking to him, this is my right to thinkbas I do and I am not hurting anybody by it. Manning is a he to me regardless if anything else.

Comment Re: Tipping point (Score 0) 537

Trade deficits are only 'not necessarily a bad thing' for those cases where trade deficits really mean *borrowing to invest*.

USA *borrows to consume*, thus in case of USA trade deficits are deadly, both figuratively *and* literally deadly. Figuratively because an economy dying is not really the same thing as a human dying, it's more like an inanimate process that is stopping. Literally because a dying economy leads to actual human poverty, suffering and death for a large number of reasons.

You are actually half way correct that so far trade deficits worked well for the USA because the foreigners did all that work that subsidised the USA consumer, who did not have to work to pay for all that consumption. This is possible (or was possible) because so far US dollar is still a so called 'reserve currency', though it is not backed by anything other than 'faith' and probably some military presence.

People expect things to continue the same way as what they have been accustomed to and they do not expect any serious changes to their lives over their life spans. However people are very often wrong about that, big changes happen, they happen often, they happen suddenly (especially for the uninitiated into the reality of what is happening around them).

What you call a 'sound economic policy' I call 'suicidal economic policy'. I know from your words here that you actually think that government intervention is 'sound economic policy', however it was government intervention that created the situation that required more government intervention. More government intervention further leads to a situation that requires even more government intervention.

If you paid attention to what history shows you would know that government intervention has an accumulative effect and it is self destructing. Pumping fake liquidity into an economy that needs to restructure the debts is the wrong thing, not the right thing. What happened 8 years ago did not prevent a depression, it assured it. 1929 recession was created by government policy, specifically by money printing by the Fed and by buying bad UK debt from France. It was a gigantic bailout that inflated the stock market bubble that eventually burst. Hoover and FDR turned a normal process of deleveraging and debt restructuring into a depression by pumping more liquidity into the system.

They even bought good farming products and ploughed the products into the ground to avoid prices from falling, that's government in action: the market restructures bad ideas and debts but also brings prices down, making it easier to survive the restructuring by the most vulnerable in the system. Government steps in and says: you cannot have that benefit, the prices will stay up and the bad decisions will not be allowed to clear, instead they will be kept around and made bigger by more inflation (money printing) and actual welfare redistribution to those business that failed.

This does not guarantee good outcomes, this ensures accumulating and multiplying of bad outcomes. This is the same thing that happened a number of times in the last (and this) century and it is coming to the point where the impact of the next crisis will no longer be manageable by these usual tools that the government has (and it's always just one tool, often disguised under different names), it is theft, it is money printing and theft of existing purchasing and saving power of those, who have savings.

If you understood any of this, you wouldn't have written the statements that you did. Not understanding all of this so far very likely means further misunderstanding on your part and this also may mean that the coming crisis will hit you in a way that you cannot comprehend.

Comment Re:Conclusion: (Score 1) 373

I know what you mean, and the feeling of distrust that you describe.

I'm not sure it's a defect as such, it was probably quite beneficial in the olden days, when resources were scarce, the overall population of humans was tiny, and long-distance travel was impossible or at least extremely rare. You rarely met people from other tribes/cultures, and if you did, they would probably try to kill you and steal your shit.

Doesn't really work all that well today, though.

Comment Re:A slap in the wrist (Score 0) 159

Not because of the amount, no, but as a general principle of the matter I think Bezos will pay attention and do something useful with that money. I know I would not hesitate to spend a few billion bucks in his place to destroy the current Canadian government and would ensure that my selection of people get elected. The problem with the governments is that they exist but since they do they need to be used for good, not for evil. Companies need to ensure that individual freedoms are upheld by the governments and this to me means that the governments (the collective) must not be able with the private property rights and this 1000000 dollar theft is just that.

Comment Re: Conclusion: (Score 2) 373

And that's why we need BOTH rural and urban areas, and have to learn to respect and understand each other's qualities.

I feel lucky that I've lived just about everywhere from rural to city, and I like to hang out both with manual laborers and with intellectuals, depending on what I'm doing. As long as people don't act like they're superior or look down on people, we'll probably get along just fine. Hell, one of my favorite people in the world is a bit of a nutcase conspiracy theorist Trump-loving Infowars-quoting weirdo, which probably couldn't be further from my own personal views. But we hang out and have fun together anyway, maybe sometimes because we both enjoy a spirited discussion, I don't know.

Comment Re:Conclusion: (Score 2) 373

Counterpoint: I live in a city of ~1.2 million people, ~2 million in the greater metro area. It's not in the US, but I still think it's relevant. I've lived everywhere from rural areas with several kilometers to the nearest neighbor, to the city where I live now.

I grew up in a rural area, plenty of fresh air, areas to explore, places to go fish, all that good stuff. The nearest school had less than 100 students, we had a lot of trips to the nearby forests, we made viking age-style huts and cooked food over campfires at school every summer. We did all of the rural/small-town stuff, basically. I loved it, and I've got the scars to prove I had an active and exciting childhood.

Now I live in the city. I go to concerts, to the theater, to the cinema, to restaurants, to bars, to whisky/rum/wine/beer tastings. I work out at a local martial arts/crossfit gym. I'm on a music quiz team with a group of friends. I've been a volunteer track constructor at our historic motor race on the city streets every summer since 2010, I volunteer at a local rock/metal festival. I've lived here for almost 10 years, and I have yet to meet any psychotics, but I have met a lot of very interesting people from other cultures and viewpoints, and had some very interesting and enlightening discussions. And I love it here, because there are so many interesting things on offer, basically more life compressed into a smaller space. I get why some people don't like it, but I do.

My point is that both lifestyles can be great, I don't see why we should hate on people from a different area, just because they prefer something else. Why the hate?

Slashdot Top Deals

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Working...