...lots of people aged 12-50 are using it as their main texting and groupchat app. I have friends, family and colleagues in there and everybody I know on it uses it extensively. Also, anytime there is some event (be it sports, nights out, bachelor parties, holidays) or any type of real-life group is established (roommates, classmates, families, close friends, fraternities), WhatsApp is there to facilitate.
By the way, any comparison to traditional texting is ludicrous: with recorded voice, "I am here" GPS location with maps integration, multimedia sharing, etc. Just like most of its competitors, I'm sure.
Actually, not really, no. If it was this obvious, he wouldn't be the first guy to think of this in 30 years to think of it.
Think of it this way: a patent on practical nuclear fusion will not be denied because the stars came up with it first.
I never said that it runs on literally anything, nor should that be expected. It's like expecting every gas station to offer power to charge electric vehicles or expecting a grocery shop to sell every brand. Skype pays for software development, you can't support all the marginal (in terms of value to Skype) protocols. Skype runs on Windows, Linux, iPhones and Android. I think they're doing fine on the interoperability front.
That's just speculation, AFIK based on the Silverlight video that was posted to the Skype website the morning the news was made public. As if Flash isn't every bit as closed as Silverlight, or as if HTML5 video is now universally compatible. For the moment, the "Skype will dump Linux" argument is FUD.
How exactly does being interconnected and generally friendly to your adjacent systems require you to be open? Skype is perfectly interconnected (it runs on everything) without being open.
How on earth do you and your friends ever envision Linux to be [b]truly and actually good on the desktop[/b]? For years I have watched the Linux community, and it always begs for momentum. "Our product is great, let's get people to use it!" is the main credo. Meanwhile, [b]any[/b] party getting any kind of momentum gets kicked out in favor of a new this-time-its-different project, like Mint.
Pretty sick thought, even for Slashdot...judging from your liver remark while this was or still is pancreatic cancer, you are probably better left ignored.
It's all about 'unfortunate' stuff that keeps on strolling around the interweb 15 years later. It's about careers and marriages. Of course it will not prevent anyone from saving the images and keeping them for future reference, but how do you decide now who will be the president in 2030? This could prevent a lot of shame because we won't value a shameful picture of someone who has yet to become famous.
This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points:
#1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything. #2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math. #3: See #2. #4: See #1. #5: See #1. #6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know..
These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.
This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points:
#1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything.
#2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math.
#3: See #2.
#4: See #1.
#5: See #1.
#6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know..
These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.
I do agree that there are some differences between the lists (e.g. it's trivially easy nowadays to copy music, whereas copying a hairstyle requires more effort and a skilled craftsperson to do the work each time). But even in cases of very close analogy (photographers claim they need protection for prints of their work; meanwhile the fashion industry has found a way to stay relevant without protection, even though they are just selling a style/look/etc. that others can and to copy).
I understand your point. But the fashion industry is selling that carefully created style/look/etc. through clothing, fragrances, etc. So your observation (some things are copied more easily then others) still holds, and this fact explains the difference. Easy.
(one other thing that follows from the 'sell something by creating a style/look/image' is that one needs protection from somebody copying your stuff and using your marketing expenses to munch of off you. This protection against fake branded clothing/jewelry/fragrances is very real.
Ohw come on, if this technology comes through we will get many more miles out of our reserves. So yes, it is the future, although maybe not for very long before something better comes along.
I see that you have a hard time appreciating the future value of knowledge or information.
No, it's because I appreciate the future value of knowledge that I believe in public libraries and that speculators should stay away from library sales.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but what the heck. Future value means that if the book results in a higher education leading to higher income, it's OK to pay a bit more for it.
In the end, you want to intervene in a market, and I don't. I'll let this rest now, in the knowledge that arbitrage is legal and we will not have more market intervention in the near future in the Western world.
If there's one thing a lot of you should learn about economics, it's that an economy is meant to be practiced, not analyzed. Everywhere were there's profit, there will be an explanation thinkable that will blame someone for unethical behavior. If you want to be succesful in a market economy, it's best to just go ahead and exploit opportunities. All this blame (out of jealousy?) will get you nowhere.
Slashdot Mirror
...lots of people aged 12-50 are using it as their main texting and groupchat app. I have friends, family and colleagues in there and everybody I know on it uses it extensively. Also, anytime there is some event (be it sports, nights out, bachelor parties, holidays) or any type of real-life group is established (roommates, classmates, families, close friends, fraternities), WhatsApp is there to facilitate. By the way, any comparison to traditional texting is ludicrous: with recorded voice, "I am here" GPS location with maps integration, multimedia sharing, etc. Just like most of its competitors, I'm sure.
True, but is there a prior patent?
Actually, not really, no. If it was this obvious, he wouldn't be the first guy to think of this in 30 years to think of it. Think of it this way: a patent on practical nuclear fusion will not be denied because the stars came up with it first.
Who the fuck still pays for porn?
I never said that it runs on literally anything, nor should that be expected. It's like expecting every gas station to offer power to charge electric vehicles or expecting a grocery shop to sell every brand. Skype pays for software development, you can't support all the marginal (in terms of value to Skype) protocols. Skype runs on Windows, Linux, iPhones and Android. I think they're doing fine on the interoperability front.
That's just speculation, AFIK based on the Silverlight video that was posted to the Skype website the morning the news was made public. As if Flash isn't every bit as closed as Silverlight, or as if HTML5 video is now universally compatible. For the moment, the "Skype will dump Linux" argument is FUD.
How exactly does being interconnected and generally friendly to your adjacent systems require you to be open? Skype is perfectly interconnected (it runs on everything) without being open.
Is that sarcasm or do you actually have that much success in business that you needn't think of a move like that?
Yeah, and they reach so much more people. Isn't it great?
How on earth do you and your friends ever envision Linux to be [b]truly and actually good on the desktop[/b]? For years I have watched the Linux community, and it always begs for momentum. "Our product is great, let's get people to use it!" is the main credo. Meanwhile, [b]any[/b] party getting any kind of momentum gets kicked out in favor of a new this-time-its-different project, like Mint.
It's the Foreign Department. Think about it.
Pretty sick thought, even for Slashdot...judging from your liver remark while this was or still is pancreatic cancer, you are probably better left ignored.
I can use that an interpreted script to code some awesome app and then go home. And I sleep like a baby, never knowing any C.
Is there software to do that?
It's all about 'unfortunate' stuff that keeps on strolling around the interweb 15 years later. It's about careers and marriages. Of course it will not prevent anyone from saving the images and keeping them for future reference, but how do you decide now who will be the president in 2030? This could prevent a lot of shame because we won't value a shameful picture of someone who has yet to become famous.
This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points:
#1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything.
#2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math.
#3: See #2.
#4: See #1.
#5: See #1.
#6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know..
These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.
This list contains many flaws. The single biggest one being its source. Its conclusion is clearly subjective. Most of the items in your list are meant to scare econonoobs/laymen, just taking a look at the first five points: #1: Absolute values don't have any meaning by themselves. This number could mean anything. #2: The repay rate is arbitrary and meaningles, there is no realistic case here, just scary-sounding math. #3: See #2. #4: See #1. #5: See #1. #6: This one ignores inflation and more importantly, the expansion of the US economy, which is the collateral that this borrowing is based on. This is like saying "my 1980 mortgage was 150,000 and now it's over 500,000". Yeah, the house is different too you know.. These kind of collapse blogs just try to scare the shit out of people using their ignorance to sell them complete crap. Trouble with nerds is that while they are very knowledgeable about computing, they sometimes get convinced that it's the same in other areas as well.
QE = Quantitative easing, not "qualitative".
I do agree that there are some differences between the lists (e.g. it's trivially easy nowadays to copy music, whereas copying a hairstyle requires more effort and a skilled craftsperson to do the work each time). But even in cases of very close analogy (photographers claim they need protection for prints of their work; meanwhile the fashion industry has found a way to stay relevant without protection, even though they are just selling a style/look/etc. that others can and to copy).
I understand your point. But the fashion industry is selling that carefully created style/look/etc. through clothing, fragrances, etc. So your observation (some things are copied more easily then others) still holds, and this fact explains the difference. Easy. (one other thing that follows from the 'sell something by creating a style/look/image' is that one needs protection from somebody copying your stuff and using your marketing expenses to munch of off you. This protection against fake branded clothing/jewelry/fragrances is very real.
http://green.autoblog.com/2008/04/13/new-record-at-shell-eco-marathon-2-843-mpg/
Does that look like a car to you?
Ohw come on, if this technology comes through we will get many more miles out of our reserves. So yes, it is the future, although maybe not for very long before something better comes along.
If [...] was a good solution it would already be in use.
Now hold on...no wait, never mind my work here is done.
No, it's because I appreciate the future value of knowledge that I believe in public libraries and that speculators should stay away from library sales.
I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but what the heck. Future value means that if the book results in a higher education leading to higher income, it's OK to pay a bit more for it. In the end, you want to intervene in a market, and I don't. I'll let this rest now, in the knowledge that arbitrage is legal and we will not have more market intervention in the near future in the Western world.
I see that you have a hard time appreciating the future value of knowledge or information.
If there's one thing a lot of you should learn about economics, it's that an economy is meant to be practiced, not analyzed. Everywhere were there's profit, there will be an explanation thinkable that will blame someone for unethical behavior. If you want to be succesful in a market economy, it's best to just go ahead and exploit opportunities. All this blame (out of jealousy?) will get you nowhere.