You've obviously never heard of Ben Underwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Underwood#Ben_Underwood), whom is often listed among the top ten contemporary inspirational people. Not only was he able to "see" using echolocation via clicking noises with his tongue, he excelled at tasks such as mountain biking. And he is not the last blind person able to do so.
Agreed."Fuck Google" gets a 5 Insightful? I thought moderation was supposed to grade the quality of content of a post objectively, not "LUL I AGREE". Bunch of fucking kids on this site now.
And how would this be an entitlement complex? It's not as though I'm some spoiled kid that wants as much as I can get my hands on - I work two jobs, 50+ hours a week, and could really use any extra money. It took enough time just to save up for the system, just for them to slash the price shortly thereafter. So if I do have an entitlement complex, as you're saying, I'd say it's well-earned.
I almost believed this story, then, with my superior intelligence (as shown by my browser, Opera) I realized that this story is probably pulled out someone's ass.
But is it hurting Nintendo's sales significantly? From what I can tell, the demographic that they have in common is marginal respective to what they market mostly to. More to the point (and this is more my opinion than anything else), I doubt there are many cases where someone has to decide to purchase either one or the other, which is how Apple would be hurting Nintendo's sales.
The title should read "Apple is Beating Nintendo at a Completely Different Game".
Honestly, it's not even comparable. People want iPhones because it consolidates multiple devices into one, eliminating the desire to carry a GameBoy around, and games from the app store hold an entirely different niche in the market than handheld console games. While yes, that niche is dominating the video game market, I don't think it's safe to call them "video games" as well.
But of course, naming the title this is a way to get more hits, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
Unless requiring people to wear nametags at social events is an "abuse of power" as well. They're providing a service and thereby dictate the terms upon which people use it. Don't like it? Don't use it.
It's sad how people feel entitled to dictate how others run their business. If that business has a requirement you don't like, suck it up or don't do business with them. It isn't rocket science.
Amazon used intentionally misleading and vague wording. They did not state definitively whether or not the devs would receive 20% of the earnings, but I can see where there was confusion. It's always good, especially when dealing with businesses, to err on the side of caution, due to situations such as these.
I'm fairly certain I won't "slip up" and post half nude pictures of myself while in a relationship and in a position of prestige. Actually, it's really not that hard.
Facts? There are no "facts" stated whatsoever in either this page or the article. I thought/. was relevant news without the hyped up media bullshit. I guess not.
I loathe Apple. There's been evidence time and again of their questionable (to put it mildly) business tactics. However, I fail to see why this matters in any way whatsoever. In the end, Apple still approved it. Sure, they took a while. Perhaps there was a reason? They could just pull a Facebook and try to impede G+ by not allowing it at all (though in the end it wouldn't do much)....or we can all be outraged in typical/. fashion at how evil this corporation is, regardless how pedantic the reason might be.
Before you start blaming the interface, perhaps you should first look inwards.
-There is no "someone else's wall". -Uploading a profile picture is stupidly easy and intuitive, as is managing photos and albums. -To see who can view your posts, click the text that says "Limited" right next to it. It shows every single person that can view your post.
What are the "dozens of other problems"? I'm sure they're extremely easy to address. Keep in mind though, that this is an alternative to Facebook, and as such, isn't required to function exactly like Facebook.
Additionally, G+ as it is now is the bare bones of what it will be. When it was first rolled out to Google employees only, the majority feedback was "simplify". Once it is out of trial, they'll show what it can really do. What it is now, in comparison, is practically nothing.
Funny, I got my invite (several, actually) by giving out an email on 4chan as well. Though G+ still is saying they're full and can't add me, and I've tried repeatedly the last few days.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously never heard of Ben Underwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Underwood#Ben_Underwood), whom is often listed among the top ten contemporary inspirational people. Not only was he able to "see" using echolocation via clicking noises with his tongue, he excelled at tasks such as mountain biking. And he is not the last blind person able to do so.
Agreed."Fuck Google" gets a 5 Insightful? I thought moderation was supposed to grade the quality of content of a post objectively, not "LUL I AGREE". Bunch of fucking kids on this site now.
Wow, entitlement complex much?
And how would this be an entitlement complex? It's not as though I'm some spoiled kid that wants as much as I can get my hands on - I work two jobs, 50+ hours a week, and could really use any extra money. It took enough time just to save up for the system, just for them to slash the price shortly thereafter. So if I do have an entitlement complex, as you're saying, I'd say it's well-earned.
But will I be compensated in some way for having purchased it at full price (two months ago), as 3DS owners were?
Or will Sony customer support be once again nonexistent?
If I knew how to embed links in posts, I would have done so in mine. :l
I almost believed this story, then, with my superior intelligence (as shown by my browser, Opera) I realized that this story is probably pulled out someone's ass.
The idiom is "Moot point", not mute point.
The idiom is "Dog eat dog", not doggy dog.
Except Google doesn't use them offensively to stifle other companies.
Do the devices have a low self-esteem?
Or do you mean UNSECURED?
But is it hurting Nintendo's sales significantly? From what I can tell, the demographic that they have in common is marginal respective to what they market mostly to. More to the point (and this is more my opinion than anything else), I doubt there are many cases where someone has to decide to purchase either one or the other, which is how Apple would be hurting Nintendo's sales.
To use the article's lingo, bringing Angry Birds to an E3 convention is akin to bringing a salmon to a knife fight.
The title should read "Apple is Beating Nintendo at a Completely Different Game".
Honestly, it's not even comparable. People want iPhones because it consolidates multiple devices into one, eliminating the desire to carry a GameBoy around, and games from the app store hold an entirely different niche in the market than handheld console games. While yes, that niche is dominating the video game market, I don't think it's safe to call them "video games" as well.
But of course, naming the title this is a way to get more hits, so I really shouldn't be surprised.
Try as I might, I simply can't get your signature.
Was Sony present to accept the award from the Bronies?
Unless requiring people to wear nametags at social events is an "abuse of power" as well. They're providing a service and thereby dictate the terms upon which people use it. Don't like it? Don't use it.
It's sad how people feel entitled to dictate how others run their business. If that business has a requirement you don't like, suck it up or don't do business with them. It isn't rocket science.
How could NASA have run out of funding with projects such as these?!
Amazon used intentionally misleading and vague wording. They did not state definitively whether or not the devs would receive 20% of the earnings, but I can see where there was confusion. It's always good, especially when dealing with businesses, to err on the side of caution, due to situations such as these.
I believe you dropped your tin foil hat.
I'm fairly certain I won't "slip up" and post half nude pictures of myself while in a relationship and in a position of prestige. Actually, it's really not that hard.
Facts? There are no "facts" stated whatsoever in either this page or the article. I thought /. was relevant news without the hyped up media bullshit. I guess not.
I loathe Apple. There's been evidence time and again of their questionable (to put it mildly) business tactics. However, I fail to see why this matters in any way whatsoever. In the end, Apple still approved it. Sure, they took a while. Perhaps there was a reason? They could just pull a Facebook and try to impede G+ by not allowing it at all (though in the end it wouldn't do much). ...or we can all be outraged in typical /. fashion at how evil this corporation is, regardless how pedantic the reason might be.
Yeah, let's go with that.
Before you start blaming the interface, perhaps you should first look inwards.
-There is no "someone else's wall".
-Uploading a profile picture is stupidly easy and intuitive, as is managing photos and albums.
-To see who can view your posts, click the text that says "Limited" right next to it. It shows every single person that can view your post.
What are the "dozens of other problems"? I'm sure they're extremely easy to address. Keep in mind though, that this is an alternative to Facebook, and as such, isn't required to function exactly like Facebook.
Additionally, G+ as it is now is the bare bones of what it will be. When it was first rolled out to Google employees only, the majority feedback was "simplify". Once it is out of trial, they'll show what it can really do. What it is now, in comparison, is practically nothing.
Funny, I got my invite (several, actually) by giving out an email on 4chan as well. Though G+ still is saying they're full and can't add me, and I've tried repeatedly the last few days.
You mean "pussies".