The first slip would be, "Well we've been sued now, so yes, we're buying up patents now... but we swear it's only defensive posturing, we won't sue anyone.";)
Though seriously, Twitter doesn't DO a lot... so it's a lot less likely they'll end up in a patent war than a Google, who does EVERYTHING.
Careful throwing around silly statements like that... because contrary to popular opinion among people that don't know any better, ideas are worth even less. My 8 year old nephew has "super awesome website ideas" all the time. It doesn't mean they're worth me signing contracts over.
You want me to sign anything... I had better be compensated accordingly or have at least heard enough already to be interested.
I wouldn't be surprised. As it is, I pay Google for storage that's shared across all of their services. Picasa, Docs, Gmail, etc. all share the one 20GB I pay Google for at $5/yr.
Their current pricing for storage, in addition to the free storage quota:
20 GB ($5.00 USD per year) 80 GB ($20.00 USD per year) 200 GB ($50.00 USD per year) 400 GB ($100.00 USD per year) 1 TB ($256.00 USD per year) 2 TB ($512.00 USD per year) 4 TB ($1,024.00 USD per year) 8 TB ($2,048.00 USD per year) 16 TB ($4,096.00 USD per year)
Seems the relevant point is that your cable TV wouldn't normally be part of your data plan, even though it's all delivered digitally now anyways.
But I'd say they're obviously working this angle to ease us into accepting their view of how isp's networks should work... Netflix pays Comcast extra, behind the scenes, for the luxury of being able to deliver video to their customers.
That way your Netflix will cost you twice what it does or you'll be more likely to use comcast's video services... a win-win for them, and all-around bad for Netflix and the customers.
Maybe you're right, and that's something they should address separately. Or perhaps they could've just gotten permission from the family directly...? ianal, and all that.
But either way, it sounds like they had the good sense to avoid doing something stupid under bogus pretenses.
Maybe what they ought to be doing is correlating the threats with student class schedules.
I'd say there's a better-than-zero chance it's one or two seriously antisocial assholes running their own, semi-anonymous version of pulling the fire alarm before class. Just more frequently, because they think they're uncatchable.
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant more like, if you can't detonate, you probably can't do much in the way of developing new weaponry.
So for those of us that already have more-than-adequate nuclear weaponry, we'd get to sit on what we've got... which is plenty 'nuff to annihilate anything on earth if we wanted to. And assuming we can test by other means, without just detonating the same design over and over again, we're still gtg.
For additional clarity, I don't know much about the necessity for testing our nukes. If it is genuinely necessary, just to keep everything functional, then I can see why we'd want to avoid getting locked into a defacto disarmament treaty. If it's not, then I don't see why any nation would doubt our ability to deliver.
I'd guess the 3d bit is a convenient excuse for some people to see it again.
What I want to know is, how much are they going to make on an $18m investment? I'm sure it costs more than that when you figure in promotion and such, but still, it cost $200 million the first time around and grossed $1.8 billion.
I suspect we feel about the same on it. I'm aggravated by the situation as it is, but it seems like something that wouldn't be broken if you could count on the voters to act more rationally.
Though I agree, you can't. So I guess I'll concede that the system itself is broken, if only in that it relies on people making decisions that are in their own best interest.
Unfortunately, even that leaves us with, "What better alternative exists that wouldn't also rely on people making good decisions?" Assuming, of course, you don't believe "benevolent dictatorships" to be an appropriate solution.
Perhaps we can agree that voting works fine... it's the people doing the voting that are fucking broken.
"Oprah says you're a good person if you vote this way!", and "Glenn Beck says you're an enemy of the state unless you vote this way!", wouldn't matter much if people weren't so lazy and uninterested as to reduce national politics to a stupid sporting event.
Even if you hate Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot ignore the fact that for once there's a billionaire who has actually used his cash reserves for great good. Compare this to the Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who use their shady money got from selling your private information for buying 193-foot long yachts and marrying models (Lucinda Southworth) [dailymail.co.uk], similar to what MPAA/RIAA/record label executives do.
You obviously haven't seen Gates' yacht and primary residence.
I'm not saying he isn't "good guy Gates" for his contributions, just that maybe buying something extravagant doesn't preclude you from being a good, charitable person, too.
And let's not just completely ignore things like the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, et al.
I can see why that's aggravating, but it makes sense. Your CC company can follow up on fraud by deactivating the old card, issuing a new one, reversing certain charges as fraudulent and watching for activity on the stolen one. If Microsoft does it, it's just a reversed charge on a compromised account.
It's despicable, but the media has gleefully milked this story for far more than it's worth.
And it happens at the expense of us all, who sit here getting nasty with each other over conflicting stories, false information, unfounded accusations, etc. Objectively, we know very little of what we'd need to know to have good, rational opinions.
I think we're normally more reasonable than this, and we've been had. Again.
Slashdot Mirror
The first slip would be, "Well we've been sued now, so yes, we're buying up patents now... but we swear it's only defensive posturing, we won't sue anyone." ;)
Though seriously, Twitter doesn't DO a lot... so it's a lot less likely they'll end up in a patent war than a Google, who does EVERYTHING.
Careful throwing around silly statements like that... because contrary to popular opinion among people that don't know any better, ideas are worth even less. My 8 year old nephew has "super awesome website ideas" all the time. It doesn't mean they're worth me signing contracts over.
You want me to sign anything... I had better be compensated accordingly or have at least heard enough already to be interested.
Why? I see their hardware in checkout lanes everywhere. I assumed others have noticed too.
Meh, they shoulda jumped to Microsoft versions.
Gimp 2009 ..etc.
Gimp 2009 (sp1)
Gimp 2013
I wouldn't be surprised. As it is, I pay Google for storage that's shared across all of their services. Picasa, Docs, Gmail, etc. all share the one 20GB I pay Google for at $5/yr.
Their current pricing for storage, in addition to the free storage quota:
20 GB ($5.00 USD per year)
80 GB ($20.00 USD per year)
200 GB ($50.00 USD per year)
400 GB ($100.00 USD per year)
1 TB ($256.00 USD per year)
2 TB ($512.00 USD per year)
4 TB ($1,024.00 USD per year)
8 TB ($2,048.00 USD per year)
16 TB ($4,096.00 USD per year)
once the sony-bashing boulder has started going, there's no stopping it
True enough, but Sony built the hill.
Seems the relevant point is that your cable TV wouldn't normally be part of your data plan, even though it's all delivered digitally now anyways.
But I'd say they're obviously working this angle to ease us into accepting their view of how isp's networks should work... Netflix pays Comcast extra, behind the scenes, for the luxury of being able to deliver video to their customers.
That way your Netflix will cost you twice what it does or you'll be more likely to use comcast's video services... a win-win for them, and all-around bad for Netflix and the customers.
There's an excellent TED talk about this.
I believe this is it... my apologies if someone already brought it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEZrAGdZ1i8
Maybe you're right, and that's something they should address separately. Or perhaps they could've just gotten permission from the family directly...? ianal, and all that.
But either way, it sounds like they had the good sense to avoid doing something stupid under bogus pretenses.
Maybe what they ought to be doing is correlating the threats with student class schedules.
I'd say there's a better-than-zero chance it's one or two seriously antisocial assholes running their own, semi-anonymous version of pulling the fire alarm before class. Just more frequently, because they think they're uncatchable.
Too much politics here creeping on this site.
Preach brother.
I'm not sure adding previously frozen beer to your beer is better than a little water, which is most of what every beer is to begin with.
Maybe worth a shot though.
These are implant devices that respond to radio for diagnostic info, updates, etc. Much like a pacemaker.
My test restores are somewhat less intrusive than a nuclear detonation. ;)
I guess I wasn't clear. I meant more like, if you can't detonate, you probably can't do much in the way of developing new weaponry.
So for those of us that already have more-than-adequate nuclear weaponry, we'd get to sit on what we've got... which is plenty 'nuff to annihilate anything on earth if we wanted to. And assuming we can test by other means, without just detonating the same design over and over again, we're still gtg.
For additional clarity, I don't know much about the necessity for testing our nukes. If it is genuinely necessary, just to keep everything functional, then I can see why we'd want to avoid getting locked into a defacto disarmament treaty. If it's not, then I don't see why any nation would doubt our ability to deliver.
I'd think we could maintain a working stockpile based on modeling and existing test results.
A test ban seems more like a non-proliferation strategy... which I'd think we would want.
I'd guess the 3d bit is a convenient excuse for some people to see it again.
What I want to know is, how much are they going to make on an $18m investment? I'm sure it costs more than that when you figure in promotion and such, but still, it cost $200 million the first time around and grossed $1.8 billion.
I'm going to guess they make a killing on this.
Again, that sounds like a deficiency with the voters, not the voting bit of checks and balances.
I suspect we feel about the same on it. I'm aggravated by the situation as it is, but it seems like something that wouldn't be broken if you could count on the voters to act more rationally.
Though I agree, you can't. So I guess I'll concede that the system itself is broken, if only in that it relies on people making decisions that are in their own best interest.
Unfortunately, even that leaves us with, "What better alternative exists that wouldn't also rely on people making good decisions?" Assuming, of course, you don't believe "benevolent dictatorships" to be an appropriate solution.
Perhaps we can agree that voting works fine... it's the people doing the voting that are fucking broken.
"Oprah says you're a good person if you vote this way!", and "Glenn Beck says you're an enemy of the state unless you vote this way!", wouldn't matter much if people weren't so lazy and uninterested as to reduce national politics to a stupid sporting event.
I'd say it's interesting because I haven't seen it done like this before, inside an online game.
will be interesting to see [...] what npc content will be put in, if any.
So long as I get a proximity, heads-up groan... I'm sure it'll be fine.
Even if you hate Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot ignore the fact that for once there's a billionaire who has actually used his cash reserves for great good. Compare this to the Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who use their shady money got from selling your private information for buying 193-foot long yachts and marrying models (Lucinda Southworth) [dailymail.co.uk], similar to what MPAA/RIAA/record label executives do.
You obviously haven't seen Gates' yacht and primary residence.
I'm not saying he isn't "good guy Gates" for his contributions, just that maybe buying something extravagant doesn't preclude you from being a good, charitable person, too.
And let's not just completely ignore things like the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, et al.
I can see why that's aggravating, but it makes sense. Your CC company can follow up on fraud by deactivating the old card, issuing a new one, reversing certain charges as fraudulent and watching for activity on the stolen one. If Microsoft does it, it's just a reversed charge on a compromised account.
Controversy sells.
It's despicable, but the media has gleefully milked this story for far more than it's worth.
And it happens at the expense of us all, who sit here getting nasty with each other over conflicting stories, false information, unfounded accusations, etc. Objectively, we know very little of what we'd need to know to have good, rational opinions.
I think we're normally more reasonable than this, and we've been had. Again.