Because the language of the GPL is highly centered around "linking", a GPL operating system doesn't present the same kind of corporate use/acceptance/etc issues as a GPL app or library.
GPLV2: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library"
Consider that perhaps I'm not an idiot.
Regardless of pedantry, a GPL OS does not raise the same kinds of issues for a typical corporation that a GPL library or application does.
I see the downvotes. Funny, because this really is the part of the GPL that stirs up controversy at corporations.
Yes, it doesn't say "linking" exactly. It talks about "derivative works". Then, the FSF, separately, says that linking to a GPL library (or integrating into a GPL program) is a derivative work.
Or, have a look at the LGPL, created specifically to address this problem. Note that the FSF isn't thrilled about the LGPL.
That's the big driver behind why a GPL OS doesn't create the kind of stir in a corporation that a GPL app or library does. Not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out the difference.
I'm not sure there's a reasonable way past the "Napoleon Dynamite Problem". They mentioned, in the article, other movies where it's difficult to predict if someone would like them or not.
The list was “I Heart Huckabees,” “Lost in Translation,” “Fahrenheit 9/11,” “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou,” “Kill Bill: Volume 1” and “Sideways.”
Personally, the common thread I see across those is that the viewer would be more likely to enjoy the movie if they had the right context.
Kill Bill, for example, is far easier to enjoy if you've seen (not necessarily liked...but have seen) cheesy old Kung Fu / Karate movies.
Napoleon Dynamite is easier to appreciate if you were socially awkward yourself in high school. There's also some humor in there that's more relevant if you were a kid in the 80's, as well as some humor that might make more sense if you lived somewhere rural, or even more specifically, rural Idaho/Utah/Wisconsin.
All that to say that Netflix may not have enough data at their disposal to know if you have the right context to enjoy movies that almost require it.
Are there screenshots of the interface somewhere? I don't see any, and it's not clear if signing up without paying would let you see the interface.
Today, I use Anveo.com for this sort of thing. It also suffers from a relatively stodgy web presence, but the call flow builder, used to route incoming calls, is pretty much a full fledged IVR...really nice. Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png
>>How do they survive?
Churn and burn. So long as the cost to bring the site up on a new domain is lower than whatever the profit is (ads?), the DMCA is just playing "whack a mole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole#Colloquial_usage)
Ahh. I have a question. If I use Paypal, not in the traditional Paypal way, but strictly as a credit card processor (paypal pro), they provide discounts at relatively low volumes:
$0 to $3,000 month - 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction
$3,000 to $10,000 month - 2.5% + $0.30 per transaction
$10,000 to $100,000 month - 2.2% + $0.30 per transaction
But, Stripe sticks to it's guns at 2.9%, unless we're doing $1 million+ a month. Seems odd. Do you ever plan on discounts for volumes like shown above?
I view it as almost a commodity. Stripe does offer some unique value, like their Connect piece (https://stripe.com/docs/connect). Paypal pro has more flexible fraud controls, though many of them are extra cost.
Either is fairly easy to integrate, and if you're running an out of the box ecom package, likely already done for you.
I could probably get slightly better rates with an actual merchant account, but it's a confusing road to go down, with lots of intentionally overcomplicated models.
My biggest beef, as a seller, with cc processing, is the unfair nature of chargebacks. We don't get many, but the system is so biased towards the buyer that buyers can (and do) get away with straight up fraud. My second beef is the scam of rewards and miles cards. The "rewards" are funded entirely on the backs of the merchants.
AP now seems to be pretty confident about it being from a 777.
"The official says investigators — including a Boeing air safety investigator — have identified the component as a "flaperon" from the trailing edge of a 777 wing."
As a retailer myself, I wouldn't be thrilled with the model where the customer pays with their credit card on jet.com, then jet.com pays me with their own credit card and contact info. Not because I don't want the customer saving money, but because I am now not clear on who the customer actually is.
What happens if there are customer service issues, an out of stock situation, returns, refunds, chargebacks, etc? Is Jet.com prepared to deal with all of that in this middle-man setup?
"When a Jet customer buys items that aren’t in its inventory or available from partner merchants, a Jet employee buys the items from another website and has them shipped directly to the customer."
Edit: The context is that the article at the top of this thread is showing one way they are sort of "faking" partners. The concierge model I'm referencing is another. Hopefully, it's a temporary thing, because it's messy.
It might go lower, yes. But, the BOM is just the pile of parts. Doesn't include the board, assembly, etc.
It seems clear the actual cost per unit, even with significant volume, will be substantially higher than $9.
$5, for just the Allwinner chip, without the onboard memory and storage, IS competitive. Since they are using the SOM version with ram+storage, I wouldn't be terribly surprised that just the main chip would be more than $9.
The announcement seems deliberately vague. You're right in that it doesn't specifically address the EU concerns, but it creates a structure where that's easier to do.
It prepares you, in terms of financial visibility, experience, etc, if the most painful of anti-trust remedies (breakup) ever happens. AT&T, for example, would have likely proposed different terms for their breakup if they had better visibility into how Western Electric would have performed on its own.
It provides more public financial visibility into some areas of concern, early. For example, it looks like Google fiber isn't staying with Google. Google fiber is probably a concern for at least US anti-trust regulators.
The US prison/jail vendor ecosystem is a trap as well.
The phone system is a good example. Inmates have some scheduled time where they can make phone calls, provided someone on the outside has funded an account.
You, of course, expect it to be a little more expensive than normal phone service.
However, here's the reality.
You deposit $25, then:
- $7 service fee for the credit card processing
- $4.50 for the first minute of every call
- then $2.50 a minute for any subsequent minute
So, yes, a 2 minute phone call, within the same state, costs the family $14.
These are real numbers, from one of the big vendors in the space...Global Tel Link. Source: Have relative that was in jail...this is what I had to pay.
Just to note that phones are the tip of the iceberg. The jails and prisons are taking huge fees from commissary accounts, charging fees to see a doctor (even if you were assaulted), etc.
Also things like reducing to 2 meals a day to save money. Or worse. Search google for Sheriff Joe Arpaio's outdoor tents, in Phoenix, where the average high temp in July is 41C/106F.
Can also confirm, handover is smooth on republic. The 1GB plan is a little lower than Google Fi as well. 2GB is the same cost as Google, 3GB is slightly higher.
"from a privacy perspective, I trust Google more than T-Mobile or Sprint"
From a privacy perspective, I would not trust an advertising company (Google) more than a telecom. Google is perhaps better about disclosure to a Government entity, but they would be worse about exploiting your data for their own ends.
Not sure what you're trying to say. Launchd may not be a 100% function for function equivalent for init(8), but it does replace it, along with the rc subsystem.
The forms part is a great start. There's a pretty ripe market to grab current customers of Intuit's Quickbase product if you add the other online/rad database app features. Quickbase's pricing model is terrible.
DabbleDB, before they were bought out and shut down, was on their way to doing just that.
The leader in this space at the moment is Intuit, with their Quickbase product. You can get a rough idea of the customer base here: http://quickbase.intuit.com/customers
I can almost feel the awkward vibe that went into not directly comparing search results over the years. It would have made the demise of real organic search too obvious.
I suspect IT customers actually wanted something in between the two extremes. Your existing IT customers may feel okay about it now, but could change their minds if, for example, a fairly drastic UI change is pushed out.
I suspect there's also a bit of embellishment going on.