Of course more girl gamers are going to be more "hardcore" than male gamers. Why? Because its not as socially acceptable to casually play hardcore games as a girl. For example, if a guy says "I play WoW" most people would shrug it off, whereas it could be a lot more damaging socially for a girl to say that they played WoW. Because of this only girls who really like WoW and similar games will really play them and for males most of the time they aren't as "hardcore" because there is a lot more males who play and some are casual and some are hardcore. Females would almost all be hardcore gamers.
Exactly, and also they completely left out the midwest. Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.
They also failed to give a price to service ratio, that would have made things a lot more fair. Yeah, you might get a faster network but if the price difference is $15 a month, many people might reconsider.
This test the way it is, is akin to someone comparing an Intel Atom to a Pentium 4 to a Core i7 based on pure speed and saying that the Core i7 is the better bet, all the while ignoring the fact that a Pentium 4 box is much cheaper and an Intel Atom CPU is going to give you better battery life.
What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices, speed and quality and looked at it that way. Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling. Yeah, AT&T might have a faster network for browsing, but it has other flaws, namely high price, throttling and the fact 3G is scarce. If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look.
How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.
For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously.
Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Exactly. And people wonder how viruses spread so fast... Really, OSes need to check the file type and then auto-assign a unique file extension for file browsers, at least on those easily exploitable (Windows and perhaps OS X). So even though the file may be called song.mp3 , but the actual file type is an.exe, it would be called song.exe in the file browser. Things with multiple extensions would also be changed in the browser for example song.mp3.txt that is really a.exe file would be called songmp3.exe in the browser. Now, the same file would be referenced as song.mp3.txt everywhere else as to not break compatibility with other programs, but in the file browser it would be called songmp3.exe. This could help reduce the amount of trojans and other files that are like cute_cat.jpg.exe that people -still- click on thinking its just a picture.
Your conjecture is based on the premise that a monopoly wouldn't have formed anyways.
A monopoly may have formed, but a monopoly was formed in 1934, it would have surely would have broken up before the 1980s had it been a truly natural monopoly. Changing technologies and the shortcomings of AT&T would have forced at least local competition in high-density metropolitan areas almost certainly.
Unregulated markets tend towards consolidation, cartels & oligopolies.
Depends. Purely unregulated markets usually tend towards lots of individual companies. In unregulated markets, it is easy to make a company, leaving with lots of companies. Many will die out soon, but the sheer number of them prevents a large company from absorbing every single startup. Monopolies rarely form in unregulated markets. Simi-regulated markets though, are breeding grounds for monopolies. The cost to start a business is usually too high to allow many different companies and the weak rarely fail enough to weed out unprofitable companies, especially once they get too big (look at all the bailouts). In the US, we have too little regulation to prevent destructive monopolies and too much regulation to allow the natural market to take its course.
Yeah, but the difference seems to be between usability and the total lack of. While I would like an open device, I would also like something reliable. For example, the last time I checked OpenMoko, calls still wouldn't work all the time. Its kinda important for me that my OS doesn't randomly not answer calls or receive text messages.
Really, even though its closed, Android is a nice alternative. It is stable, has lots of application support, lots of phones and most are easily rooted to do whatever with. Yeah, mid 2006 OpenMoko had promise, now I don't see the point. They really failed to deliver.
It isn't capitalism. If it was true capitalism there would be competition because there wouldn't be government regulations/payouts that helped Verizon and MS in the first place. If it wasn't for the government intentionally creating monopolies with the first AT&T then breaking up the artificial monopoly, we wouldn't have had Verizion in the first place. The mobile phone market != Capitalism.
Citation needed. Plus, its really unlikely that someone would die because if need be people will yank their tongue off the pole even if its painful if it will save them.
How is this insightful? Really, if you have your tongue stuck to anything, be it a popsicle or a metal pole you can just pour some warm water over it and it comes off just fine.
Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited. Because of this, even if they started a botnet today and a year from now were gone, those range of IP addresses still might be blocked by various places.
I agree with your general feelings that you shouldn't need investigating to get a block of IP addresses, but it reduces a scares commodity and is in the best interests of those giving out blocks of IP addresses to check out the companies a bit more.
I thought the entire reason why botnets were so hard to stop is because they could be on a huge range of IP addresses. With this isn't it trivial to see that Evilnet ISP is a botnet and has the IP addresses xxx.xxx.x.xxx- xxx.xxx.x.yyy and just block those? I mean, yeah, if they had enough bandwidth they could still flood you with requests that slow down the servers because they all need to be blocked, but shouldn't it make blocking them easier?
Its not really that surprising. You have some users who saw what "upgrading" to Vista did to XP, and won't upgrade any software, especially if it switches to a totally different look. You have lots of corporate users, you also have people on pre-XP systems which IE 6 is the latest version of IE for them. Even Windows 2000 only has IE 6 as the most recent version of IE.
And while IE 6 may be archaic, if you have an intranet based on people using IE 6 that IE 7+, Firefox or another browser breaks, you either have to upgrade the entire intranet or keep IE 6 around.
Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate? Since the DMCA, how many fewer movies have been pirated? My guess is none. What about music? Nope. However, how many purchasers of content really wanted to strip out DRM and other nonsense from the things they bought but can't legally? My guess is just about everyone who has purchased DRM-ed content and wants to use it in some way.
The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?
The thing that this article fails to see, is that some languages aren't for everyone. A PHP programmer who turns out good PHP code isn't going to magically make the same level of code for C++. It also doesn't see that Facebook can't be down for longer than an hour at most, otherwise risk user outrage. After all, they have many, many, many users and for it to go down for a day would be akin to Google going down for a day or so. The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc. to search. Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.
Ok, there is a big difference between a C64 "emulator" that lets you run 5 games, disables BASIC and such. And an emulator that lets you run any ROM, patches, mods, and homebrew.
At this point there are very few classes of desirable apps that aren't able to be on the app store.
There are a lot of apps though that are rejected for little to no reason. Such apps would be good for jailbroken phones. Things that "were too similar to iTunes", had "objectionable content" or used "undocumented APIs".
The problem is, even the best commercial spacecraft can't even go to the moon, let alone further. The best thing that could be done is donating money to a college or university that develops the technology that is used by NASA or the ESA that would allow them to do it. Any money put into non profits would quickly go to waste, theres just no way you can send something to Titan without governmental assistance.
Look at all the people will ing to jailbreak iPhones
The main reason why people jailbreak is to get decent apps that will never be approved (such as emulators) on their phone. With a lack of a central authority forbidding such things, most people are less likely to root their Android device unless they are geeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course more girl gamers are going to be more "hardcore" than male gamers. Why? Because its not as socially acceptable to casually play hardcore games as a girl. For example, if a guy says "I play WoW" most people would shrug it off, whereas it could be a lot more damaging socially for a girl to say that they played WoW. Because of this only girls who really like WoW and similar games will really play them and for males most of the time they aren't as "hardcore" because there is a lot more males who play and some are casual and some are hardcore. Females would almost all be hardcore gamers.
Yeah, because everyone lives on Maui....
Exactly, and also they completely left out the midwest. Well, thanks Gizmodo, if I move to the coasts I'll know what service to get, but since there weren't any tests done even close to where I live the data is totally useless.
They also failed to give a price to service ratio, that would have made things a lot more fair. Yeah, you might get a faster network but if the price difference is $15 a month, many people might reconsider.
This test the way it is, is akin to someone comparing an Intel Atom to a Pentium 4 to a Core i7 based on pure speed and saying that the Core i7 is the better bet, all the while ignoring the fact that a Pentium 4 box is much cheaper and an Intel Atom CPU is going to give you better battery life.
What would make this more useful is if Gizmodo took the prices, speed and quality and looked at it that way. Also missing are bandwidth caps and if there is throttling. Yeah, AT&T might have a faster network for browsing, but it has other flaws, namely high price, throttling and the fact 3G is scarce. If they added in all these things it would be a much better and fairer look.
Well, we can't expect Windows to ever implement anything better than half-baked security now can we? ;)
How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.
For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously.
Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.
Exactly. And people wonder how viruses spread so fast... Really, OSes need to check the file type and then auto-assign a unique file extension for file browsers, at least on those easily exploitable (Windows and perhaps OS X). So even though the file may be called song.mp3 , but the actual file type is an .exe, it would be called song.exe in the file browser. Things with multiple extensions would also be changed in the browser for example song.mp3.txt that is really a .exe file would be called songmp3.exe in the browser. Now, the same file would be referenced as song.mp3.txt everywhere else as to not break compatibility with other programs, but in the file browser it would be called songmp3.exe. This could help reduce the amount of trojans and other files that are like cute_cat.jpg.exe that people -still- click on thinking its just a picture.
And once again... an XKCD reference comes in handy. http://xkcd.com/322/
Yeah, they were doing just fine with cannibalism, genocidal wars, civil wars, and general instability.
Your conjecture is based on the premise that a monopoly wouldn't have formed anyways.
A monopoly may have formed, but a monopoly was formed in 1934, it would have surely would have broken up before the 1980s had it been a truly natural monopoly. Changing technologies and the shortcomings of AT&T would have forced at least local competition in high-density metropolitan areas almost certainly.
Unregulated markets tend towards consolidation, cartels & oligopolies.
Depends. Purely unregulated markets usually tend towards lots of individual companies. In unregulated markets, it is easy to make a company, leaving with lots of companies. Many will die out soon, but the sheer number of them prevents a large company from absorbing every single startup. Monopolies rarely form in unregulated markets. Simi-regulated markets though, are breeding grounds for monopolies. The cost to start a business is usually too high to allow many different companies and the weak rarely fail enough to weed out unprofitable companies, especially once they get too big (look at all the bailouts). In the US, we have too little regulation to prevent destructive monopolies and too much regulation to allow the natural market to take its course.
Yeah, but the difference seems to be between usability and the total lack of. While I would like an open device, I would also like something reliable. For example, the last time I checked OpenMoko, calls still wouldn't work all the time. Its kinda important for me that my OS doesn't randomly not answer calls or receive text messages.
Really, even though its closed, Android is a nice alternative. It is stable, has lots of application support, lots of phones and most are easily rooted to do whatever with. Yeah, mid 2006 OpenMoko had promise, now I don't see the point. They really failed to deliver.
It isn't capitalism. If it was true capitalism there would be competition because there wouldn't be government regulations/payouts that helped Verizon and MS in the first place. If it wasn't for the government intentionally creating monopolies with the first AT&T then breaking up the artificial monopoly, we wouldn't have had Verizion in the first place. The mobile phone market != Capitalism.
Was that the best you could do? I would have at least mocked him by saying "Ford now allows time travel?".
Citation needed. Plus, its really unlikely that someone would die because if need be people will yank their tongue off the pole even if its painful if it will save them.
How is this insightful? Really, if you have your tongue stuck to anything, be it a popsicle or a metal pole you can just pour some warm water over it and it comes off just fine.
Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited. Because of this, even if they started a botnet today and a year from now were gone, those range of IP addresses still might be blocked by various places.
I agree with your general feelings that you shouldn't need investigating to get a block of IP addresses, but it reduces a scares commodity and is in the best interests of those giving out blocks of IP addresses to check out the companies a bit more.
I thought the entire reason why botnets were so hard to stop is because they could be on a huge range of IP addresses. With this isn't it trivial to see that Evilnet ISP is a botnet and has the IP addresses xxx.xxx.x.xxx- xxx.xxx.x.yyy and just block those? I mean, yeah, if they had enough bandwidth they could still flood you with requests that slow down the servers because they all need to be blocked, but shouldn't it make blocking them easier?
But can you run Pico in it?
Its not really that surprising. You have some users who saw what "upgrading" to Vista did to XP, and won't upgrade any software, especially if it switches to a totally different look. You have lots of corporate users, you also have people on pre-XP systems which IE 6 is the latest version of IE for them. Even Windows 2000 only has IE 6 as the most recent version of IE.
And while IE 6 may be archaic, if you have an intranet based on people using IE 6 that IE 7+, Firefox or another browser breaks, you either have to upgrade the entire intranet or keep IE 6 around.
Ok, now that we've had over a decade with the DMCA, haven't lawmakers seen that it doesn't work and ends up being a pain to the purchaser more than the pirate? Since the DMCA, how many fewer movies have been pirated? My guess is none. What about music? Nope. However, how many purchasers of content really wanted to strip out DRM and other nonsense from the things they bought but can't legally? My guess is just about everyone who has purchased DRM-ed content and wants to use it in some way.
The internet is overwhelmingly against the DMCA, why keep it?
I don't really get how this is a troll, it has some pretty good points.
The thing that this article fails to see, is that some languages aren't for everyone. A PHP programmer who turns out good PHP code isn't going to magically make the same level of code for C++. It also doesn't see that Facebook can't be down for longer than an hour at most, otherwise risk user outrage. After all, they have many, many, many users and for it to go down for a day would be akin to Google going down for a day or so. The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc. to search. Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.
At this point there are very few classes of desirable apps that aren't able to be on the app store.
There are a lot of apps though that are rejected for little to no reason. Such apps would be good for jailbroken phones. Things that "were too similar to iTunes", had "objectionable content" or used "undocumented APIs".
The problem is, even the best commercial spacecraft can't even go to the moon, let alone further. The best thing that could be done is donating money to a college or university that develops the technology that is used by NASA or the ESA that would allow them to do it. Any money put into non profits would quickly go to waste, theres just no way you can send something to Titan without governmental assistance.
Look at all the people will ing to jailbreak iPhones
The main reason why people jailbreak is to get decent apps that will never be approved (such as emulators) on their phone. With a lack of a central authority forbidding such things, most people are less likely to root their Android device unless they are geeks.