If so little water is being sold that the revenue does not cover the cost of maintaining the water works system, then you've got to increase sales price or increase sales volume to cover operating costs. Other options could be let it break down and close the city water works, or increase taxes to cover the operating costs not being covered by water sales.
I love my android phone but I disagree that Google will eventually take over the iPad market. I think that way because I really believe the entire tablet market is predicated on apple products being cool and trendy rather than actually useful or even better than a competing product. If and when the iPad product line stops being cool and trendy, I think the tablet market will die rather than some other tablet product becoming successful.
I doubt they will shut out skype on linux. More likely they will just not keep up with development and you'll have to use windoze based skype clients for some new features they add someday. That's been their M/O in the past.
Nail on the head. This is why rooting/jail breaking and third party software stores for the devices are important.
Things are a little better on the android front, but far from perfect with Google banning apps from the store because some cell phone companies don't like competition (for example).
Not that it's an excuse for Apple's deplorable policies, but what did this developer expect when they created something that competed directly with Apple on Apple's closed platform?
That may very well be the harshest review of a piece of electronics I have ever read. Kind of reminds me of that "American Idol" show where they have these 3 judges who berate the contestants until they cry sometimes when the contestant isn't good.
I got a PS3 and have enjoyed gaming online and offline. But it wasn't what it was hyped up to be, and just runs the same games as you get on an Xbox or PC (with the exception of a few titles). I mean games could have been 5 times larger on BluRay, so tonnes more data and gameplay, but that would have been too much effort and reduced profitability.
Yup, the desire for game manufacturers to port games to many systems kills any potential benefit a more powerful platform might have. That's why PC gaming isn't much better than console gaming (save higher res and better controllers on PC) while the hardware on a gaming pc is significantly more advanced than that of PS3 or X bocks 360.
Eventually a company will come along and make an innovative PC game that makes current games look stupid; but with even crytek jumping on the port bandwagon I don't think it will be an existing game company.
I bought a Sony Ericsson 8 years ago that had video call capabilities. I didn't even try it once, and it never took off anywhere in the world despite a huge number of phones and networks supporting it. Instead, people used the extra bandwidth to check their mail, surf the web and download ringtones and themes. Last year Apple tried with FaceTime (does anybody use that?) and now it's Google's turn. I don't see that it will pick up this time either.
Kind of funny to see that this feature, which for so long was believed to be the communication of the future, turned out to be a fiasco when the future finally arrived. Apparently we just don't want to see each other when talking on the phone.
I think a large part of the lack of popularity is that Apple doesn't allow you to run over 3g. Works a treat on 3g if you've jailbroken your iDevice, but otherwise afaik you cannot. According to this article, the anDROID version will not have that limitation.
I don't have a hard time believing they're real. If you look outside of the group of individuals who post on slashdot, Sony has quite a large number of relatively happy customers who want to use the ps3 they bought (or that their parents bought for them). I'm not trying to say anything for or against Sony here, but why in the world would someone who paid a large sum of money for a ps3 not want to be able to use one of the most important features?
Google has little to do with innovation or technology. They have crossed the line into cult, and cults often have super secret inner circle things to make them more cult-y.
At least they apparently WANT to start getting involved with innovation. That combined with Google's bank account balance could very well produce some interesting results. I think that there's a good chance they'll succeed. IBM is a behemoth, yet they regularly innovate through their fellowship program. Google could do the same.
How about facebook simply employ the appropriate number of individuals necessary to responsibly run their business? It may cost them 900M out of every billion to do it. Does it mean they shouldn't? No, it means they overestimated how lucrative running a social networking site is by cutting important corners. This sort of problem is what necessitates legislation and government oversight.
Geohot discovered a technique to pirate games and is trying to stay out of more trouble by saying "ohh that's just a side affect". Again, I don't have anything against piracy, but calling a club a spade isn't reality.
And they certainly used the evasive language so folks like you would assume that the hacker wanted names, addresses etc from users but out of the goodness of their heart decided to leave the money alone.
I cancelled my card the moment I saw the press release, and I'd gladly participate in a class action. When you give a company your details (especially credit card information) they generally try to assure you that your information is safe with them. That was the case with Sony. So what they said and what they did; two different things. Sony needs to be held accountable for the gross negligence that allowed this hack to be so wildly successful.
I think you've seen too many movies. People are motivated by money with VERY FEW exceptions. If the man wanted this guy, they could have probably picked him up pretty easily before it got into the news. Not to mention the fact that working for the US FBI comes with quite a bit of power. The second of the three major motivators for humans (religion being the third).
Sure, there's been 10 or 20 people in the last century who aren't motivated by money or power but I'm guessing geohat and Mother Theresa don't have a lot in common in that regard.
One more thing about your post that made me laugh. Geohat is not some human rights activist. He's a kid that wants to play free video games. Now, I don't have a problem with that myself, but to decide he's now a human rights activist because he got caught stealing games from sony? LOL.
Slashdot Mirror
If so little water is being sold that the revenue does not cover the cost of maintaining the water works system, then you've got to increase sales price or increase sales volume to cover operating costs. Other options could be let it break down and close the city water works, or increase taxes to cover the operating costs not being covered by water sales.
Doesn't really seem that confusing to me.
Apple is also raping your privacy, or did you miss the latest GPS scandal?
I love my android phone but I disagree that Google will eventually take over the iPad market. I think that way because I really believe the entire tablet market is predicated on apple products being cool and trendy rather than actually useful or even better than a competing product. If and when the iPad product line stops being cool and trendy, I think the tablet market will die rather than some other tablet product becoming successful.
It's definitely not right, but nothing significant will be done until it gets the attention of the DOJ.
I doubt they will shut out skype on linux. More likely they will just not keep up with development and you'll have to use windoze based skype clients for some new features they add someday. That's been their M/O in the past.
Nail on the head. This is why rooting/jail breaking and third party software stores for the devices are important. Things are a little better on the android front, but far from perfect with Google banning apps from the store because some cell phone companies don't like competition (for example).
Not that it's an excuse for Apple's deplorable policies, but what did this developer expect when they created something that competed directly with Apple on Apple's closed platform?
That may very well be the harshest review of a piece of electronics I have ever read. Kind of reminds me of that "American Idol" show where they have these 3 judges who berate the contestants until they cry sometimes when the contestant isn't good.
Or perhaps they don't want to bring the same insecure system back online and are rewriting some of it instead of just doing a restore of the old crap?
Just because you have a device modeled after early 90's laptops with no built in network jack does not mean he's wrong.
It's easy to correct the situation where someone has "too much brain" and it's not even a new invention: lobotomy.
I got a PS3 and have enjoyed gaming online and offline. But it wasn't what it was hyped up to be, and just runs the same games as you get on an Xbox or PC (with the exception of a few titles). I mean games could have been 5 times larger on BluRay, so tonnes more data and gameplay, but that would have been too much effort and reduced profitability.
Yup, the desire for game manufacturers to port games to many systems kills any potential benefit a more powerful platform might have. That's why PC gaming isn't much better than console gaming (save higher res and better controllers on PC) while the hardware on a gaming pc is significantly more advanced than that of PS3 or X bocks 360. Eventually a company will come along and make an innovative PC game that makes current games look stupid; but with even crytek jumping on the port bandwagon I don't think it will be an existing game company.
That would not happen, they'd just contract with a third party to take payments.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SNE+Interactive#chart3:symbol=sne;range=3m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined This one makes it a little more obvious. I think tomorrow will be a good day for me to buy some Sony stock after the new news gets out everywhere ;)
I bought a Sony Ericsson 8 years ago that had video call capabilities. I didn't even try it once, and it never took off anywhere in the world despite a huge number of phones and networks supporting it. Instead, people used the extra bandwidth to check their mail, surf the web and download ringtones and themes. Last year Apple tried with FaceTime (does anybody use that?) and now it's Google's turn. I don't see that it will pick up this time either. Kind of funny to see that this feature, which for so long was believed to be the communication of the future, turned out to be a fiasco when the future finally arrived. Apparently we just don't want to see each other when talking on the phone.
I think a large part of the lack of popularity is that Apple doesn't allow you to run over 3g. Works a treat on 3g if you've jailbroken your iDevice, but otherwise afaik you cannot. According to this article, the anDROID version will not have that limitation.
For some "video chat" with the chick pictured in the article.
I don't have a hard time believing they're real. If you look outside of the group of individuals who post on slashdot, Sony has quite a large number of relatively happy customers who want to use the ps3 they bought (or that their parents bought for them). I'm not trying to say anything for or against Sony here, but why in the world would someone who paid a large sum of money for a ps3 not want to be able to use one of the most important features?
If you watch the video on the linked page, the narrator says it will be 40,000 years.
Google has little to do with innovation or technology. They have crossed the line into cult, and cults often have super secret inner circle things to make them more cult-y.
At least they apparently WANT to start getting involved with innovation. That combined with Google's bank account balance could very well produce some interesting results. I think that there's a good chance they'll succeed. IBM is a behemoth, yet they regularly innovate through their fellowship program. Google could do the same.
How about facebook simply employ the appropriate number of individuals necessary to responsibly run their business? It may cost them 900M out of every billion to do it. Does it mean they shouldn't? No, it means they overestimated how lucrative running a social networking site is by cutting important corners. This sort of problem is what necessitates legislation and government oversight.
Geohot discovered a technique to pirate games and is trying to stay out of more trouble by saying "ohh that's just a side affect". Again, I don't have anything against piracy, but calling a club a spade isn't reality.
And they certainly used the evasive language so folks like you would assume that the hacker wanted names, addresses etc from users but out of the goodness of their heart decided to leave the money alone.
I cancelled my card the moment I saw the press release, and I'd gladly participate in a class action. When you give a company your details (especially credit card information) they generally try to assure you that your information is safe with them. That was the case with Sony. So what they said and what they did; two different things. Sony needs to be held accountable for the gross negligence that allowed this hack to be so wildly successful.
More specifically, you need a system that uses uEFI firmware in place of BIOS.
Apple has decided this is unacceptable since it damages their iCrap branding and are preparing a lawsuit accordingly.
I think you've seen too many movies. People are motivated by money with VERY FEW exceptions. If the man wanted this guy, they could have probably picked him up pretty easily before it got into the news. Not to mention the fact that working for the US FBI comes with quite a bit of power. The second of the three major motivators for humans (religion being the third).
Sure, there's been 10 or 20 people in the last century who aren't motivated by money or power but I'm guessing geohat and Mother Theresa don't have a lot in common in that regard.
One more thing about your post that made me laugh. Geohat is not some human rights activist. He's a kid that wants to play free video games. Now, I don't have a problem with that myself, but to decide he's now a human rights activist because he got caught stealing games from sony? LOL.
Investigating slashdot posters. I guess the OP thought that would be obvious and therefore omitted the detail.