nonchalance

> If you're already fat, you're pretty much fucked.

That's not true, and that's a mentality that justifies self-destructive behavior. I used to be overweight but turned it around a few years ago, and in my case it boiled down to fixing some incredibly unhealthy habits

1) better sleeping habits. I used to go to sleep at 3-4 AM, now I force myself off of electronics by midnight and read a book or write until I doze off. Nowadays, when I first get up in the morning, I roll out of bed and do some pushups to avoid the crawl back to bed.

2) better eating habits. Eating breakfast is probably the best thing you can do for your diet. I found that I was eating much more later in the night, so as I shifted my sleeping pattern I also shifted my eating pattern (eating much more at breakfast and lunch and much less at dinner).

3) better exercise. It started with simple things: going to the grocery store, rather than waiting for the closest parking spot, I would park at the far end of the lot and walk the extra N steps; after a few months, I purchased a collapsable cart and just walked the mile from my house to the store. And bit by bit I would try to increase activity.

Obviously everyone's experience is different, but please don't propagate the idea that overweight people can't lose weight

69% of statistics are made up on the spot :P

The quoted number is plausible insofar as many vendors offer free shipping with purchases over $X

The monthly fee makes it unappealing for small volume customers, and the per-transaction fee makes it unappealing for large volume customers. I'm guessing there's some intermediate range, when you are negotiating the final deal, where it's comforting to have that "flexibility".

Not sure why you were downvoted. A perfectly reasonable growth strategy would be to limit API requests for applications based on a free plan (and progressively increase the limit based on the plan chosen)

> In order to register for the developer program, you must be on a paid plan.

If they really did create two sets of disk images based on presence of Firefox, Dell could argue that the price is not for the software but for other differences between the disk images.

Note that I'm not arguing about the spirit of the actions, but merely about whether Mozilla actually has a case here

I think there's a different force at play here:

When the software comes with the computer, you can turn around and complain to Dell about the software. There is someone you can call, and generally it's rolled into the phone support contract.

When the software is installed afterwards, you don't have the same ease of complaining. Dell can argue that Firefox somehow messed up your computer.

That is a convenience many people are willing to pay for. Whether they would pay the 16£ is a different question

The problem is that Mozilla's policy applies to distribution but not necessarily to installation. Since this is a legal issue, the details are very important.

In this case, the process of ensuring that a functioning version of Firefox resides on the machine involves:

1. Transferring the Firefox software to the machine

2. Explicitly preparing the machine so that the Firefox software can be run (in this case, installing Firefox)

The Policy only applies to the first item. No part of the policy refers to the second action, and it's fair game for Dell to charge a fee for the labor associated with installing the software (they cannot, of course, charge a fee for the part of the process where the software is distributed to the machine).

If this sounds like nitpicking, welcome to the world of law

> Dell has responded saying that this practice is okay because the company is charging for the service and not the product.

It's about future likelihood, not prior probability, and the fact that an issue was discovered means that the likelihood is much higher than if it were some isolated incidents.

To put it differently, if it were entirely random, the premiums would not change, but if there were a systemic problem (which appears to be the case here) the premiums should change to reflect the risk