While I generally agree with you, if they did that ALL the time, we wouldn't have stuff from them like the Xbox (and even though I am not a console gamer, I understand the value and contribution to gaming that Microsoft has given by providing an alternative to Sony's once-monopoly on the high-end console market). A lot of people were skeptical and predicted the XBOX would fail when they first announced it, and could have easily turned into a money-pit.
The XBox still has no place in Microsoft's core business. They somehow did, and still do, believe they were going to use it as a gateway to tie homes into the Microsoft Universe, in some way which would greatly benefit Microsoft. Ultimately they've done what they usually do, buy a lot of other properties which have kept it alive, but I can't stress this point enough Gamers have no loyalty to a platform The next big thing comes along and their old favourite is in the boot sale or being flogged on eBay.
If Microsoft would put the kind of effort into actually being innovative and trying to lead new markets they might do what Apple have done, instead they are the biggest technology follower.
We sure shouldn't underestimate the task of trying to live in space - we may live in artificial environments, but the atmosphere and tiny organisms around us often protect us from harm - everything will have to be considered, from dandruff to farts.
There's also the matter of whether experiments conducted in biodomes can successfully replicate in space. Getting there is one thing, staying there is another.
Then there's the matter of a safe living environment - respirated moisture has helped curious molds prosper in MIR and the ISS. It is possible some mutation of these spores could lead to health issues, so keeping a clean environment is not to be taken lightly. Waste would not be disposed of, but everything would need to be recycled - else the space community would continue to require supply runs from Earth.
Probably more realistic to consider colonizing the Moon or Mars.
The less roadblocks you have to development, the faster that cash comes in.
Apple are resting on their laurels. They've done good and have come out of nowhere to dominate the market... but Android is still outselling them. Wow. 4 million iPhone 4S sold.. who's willing to bet that will be a significant number of the total sales?
If Apple had complete faith in their product they wouldn't be trying to hamstring Samsung and Android. iPhones and iPads are cool and sexy today, that's no guarantee of future success. Ask Sony/Ericsson and Nokia, both headed for the bin heap of commodity mobile phone makers.
You have no clue. What developers care most about is how much profit is there to make.
RIM builds a failing platform, and an acquisition won't change that, nor does your 'openness' - the only thing who can change that are consumers, and they care about UX, not features.
But give it one thing that it does well, that people like and they remain with a seat in the big game. Otherwise they are as doomed as Nokia.
We should organise a class action to get a refund for the money we've spent on Chrome!
It's not about Chrome, but their attitude towards their users/customers. While I understand wanting to maintain their direction in product development, simply telling the user base their opinions do not matter is rude. Users often offer up great feedback, which I value. I weigh everything when someone discusses my apps, to bulldoze ahead without taking any pulse is to do what Microsoft have done. See how well it has worked for them?
This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue.
This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.
I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of celebrity stalkers are crying out in terror and suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible is happening.
I am a *search engine optimization* person and I'm NOT happy about it--this takes away about 90% of data used for SEO strategy.
You mean, like when I'm trying to look up some local bit of history and the first 5 pages of results are trying to sell me real estate, service, yelp reviews, etc?
The sparring over oil rights, right up to the Pole have been hotting up.
Russia, Iceland, Sweden, among others are looking at the prospect of drilling in the seas - which scares the heck out of me. One good chunk of ice and then what? I hope it proves too costly to attempt.
I tole 'em they shudna moved them faktrees outa tornader alley.
We have some lovely land available, on top of the Hayward Fault. It usually just creeps along, so if they build the factory on wheels it would be OK %)
If it takes this long to bring production back up to schedule after a couple weeks delay, I'd say we're looking at a marketplace price manipulation with a convenient excuse of flooding in Thailand.
The commodity markets use weather as an excuse to try to boink up prices all of the time. Hey Starbucks-- coffee is down 23%-- are you going to drop your recent price hike? Oh, I thought not.
Margins are so tight in the HDD market I don't think they'd get away with it, Seagate would happily take their customers.
Not so much a matter of the phone companies not knowing about it, but not knowing about it with the kind of vigor a dieter is aware of a big slice of chocolate cake, but is determined not to eat it. I wouldn't expect much help from them.
I won't do contracts again, myself, so I'm quite interested to see what pops up here. Mobile phone service companies are nearly as evil as the Nazgul as far as I'm concerned.
Once again we find that when there's a military application on the line, the money will be spent on R&D no matter how crazy it might sound at the outset. We need a civilian agency for this sort of thing.
The real money is going into developing Flash for it - I understand it requires developers who are clinically insane.
Well, these "exteme economic liberals" might have a point.
Sports are so broadly popular and such a part of public life and politics that I don't generally think of them as "private" business. But they are privately owned.
It seems a little unlikely that they'd make more money with exclusive licensing than with open competition, but I guess that's their business.
OK, I'm lost here - economic liberals? What what?
The tendency toward monopolies or collusion I mostly associate with conservatives, those in big business where the need to make huge wads of cash trump the rights of the masses. They've corrupted sports to the point the games have modified their schedules and how the game is played (TV time-outs) to best benefit revenue production.
Exclusive rights to a territory means the broadcaster can charge high advertising rates, stick the viewers with whatever pundits they feel like and rake in the money. Sadly, the Football Association of England (FA) have happily gone along with this because they get a cut of it, which they claim helps fund development of sports, etc.
Consider if you will: Two (or more) broadcasters carrying the same match to the same market and each making revenue based upon which delivers the best product - better pundits, better camera work, better replays, whatever. It's the business model they don't want to contemplate, because it means they'd have to work for the money, rather than have laws which guarantee them a market.
By definition a Conservative wants to preserve the Status Quo, while a Liberal wants to challenge it. So who is the Liberal and who is the Conservative?
Slashdot Mirror
How I love thee, let me cite[1],[2],[3] ways...
Somehow I just don't think that'll work, come Valentine's Day...
While I generally agree with you, if they did that ALL the time, we wouldn't have stuff from them like the Xbox (and even though I am not a console gamer, I understand the value and contribution to gaming that Microsoft has given by providing an alternative to Sony's once-monopoly on the high-end console market). A lot of people were skeptical and predicted the XBOX would fail when they first announced it, and could have easily turned into a money-pit.
The XBox still has no place in Microsoft's core business. They somehow did, and still do, believe they were going to use it as a gateway to tie homes into the Microsoft Universe, in some way which would greatly benefit Microsoft. Ultimately they've done what they usually do, buy a lot of other properties which have kept it alive, but I can't stress this point enough Gamers have no loyalty to a platform The next big thing comes along and their old favourite is in the boot sale or being flogged on eBay.
If Microsoft would put the kind of effort into actually being innovative and trying to lead new markets they might do what Apple have done, instead they are the biggest technology follower.
I think most of TV is below the 2 year-old mentality.
We sure shouldn't underestimate the task of trying to live in space - we may live in artificial environments, but the atmosphere and tiny organisms around us often protect us from harm - everything will have to be considered, from dandruff to farts.
... to switch to Dvorak.
Why? I can type up to 30 errors a minute!
There's also the matter of whether experiments conducted in biodomes can successfully replicate in space. Getting there is one thing, staying there is another.
Then there's the matter of a safe living environment - respirated moisture has helped curious molds prosper in MIR and the ISS. It is possible some mutation of these spores could lead to health issues, so keeping a clean environment is not to be taken lightly. Waste would not be disposed of, but everything would need to be recycled - else the space community would continue to require supply runs from Earth.
Probably more realistic to consider colonizing the Moon or Mars.
Space is dark
It's hard to find
A place to park
Burma Shave
The less roadblocks you have to development, the faster that cash comes in.
Apple are resting on their laurels. They've done good and have come out of nowhere to dominate the market ... but Android is still outselling them. Wow. 4 million iPhone 4S sold .. who's willing to bet that will be a significant number of the total sales?
If Apple had complete faith in their product they wouldn't be trying to hamstring Samsung and Android. iPhones and iPads are cool and sexy today, that's no guarantee of future success. Ask Sony/Ericsson and Nokia, both headed for the bin heap of commodity mobile phone makers.
You have no clue. What developers care most about is how much profit is there to make.
RIM builds a failing platform, and an acquisition won't change that, nor does your 'openness' - the only thing who can change that are consumers, and they care about UX, not features.
But give it one thing that it does well, that people like and they remain with a seat in the big game. Otherwise they are as doomed as Nokia.
Yea, this is shocking behaviour.
We should organise a class action to get a refund for the money we've spent on Chrome!
It's not about Chrome, but their attitude towards their users/customers. While I understand wanting to maintain their direction in product development, simply telling the user base their opinions do not matter is rude. Users often offer up great feedback, which I value. I weigh everything when someone discusses my apps, to bulldoze ahead without taking any pulse is to do what Microsoft have done. See how well it has worked for them?
This issue has had overwhelming feedback from users with no notable dissent. But Google revealed their view on the community, saying that feedback and comments aren't considered, and today moved to silence dissent and lock comments on the issue.
This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.
Getting too big for their britches.
Beats the hell out of copying Google's results.
Soon to be followed by a patent on searching for LOLCat pix. Clearly Microsoft are scraping at the bottom of the barrel with bloody fingers.
I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of celebrity stalkers are crying out in terror and suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible is happening.
I am a *search engine optimization* person and I'm NOT happy about it--this takes away about 90% of data used for SEO strategy.
You mean, like when I'm trying to look up some local bit of history and the first 5 pages of results are trying to sell me real estate, service, yelp reviews, etc?
Find homes near Hanging Trees!!!
That should be good enough, right?
Is this a good for Google, doing the right thing story, or is there more to it than meets the eye?
Good or bad, doesn't matter. Microsoft will try to roll out the same thing in about 18 months to much ballyhoo and fanfare.
The sparring over oil rights, right up to the Pole have been hotting up.
Russia, Iceland, Sweden, among others are looking at the prospect of drilling in the seas - which scares the heck out of me. One good chunk of ice and then what? I hope it proves too costly to attempt.
I tole 'em they shudna moved them faktrees outa tornader alley.
We have some lovely land available, on top of the Hayward Fault. It usually just creeps along, so if they build the factory on wheels it would be OK %)
If it takes this long to bring production back up to schedule after a couple weeks delay, I'd say we're looking at a marketplace price manipulation with a convenient excuse of flooding in Thailand.
The commodity markets use weather as an excuse to try to boink up prices all of the time. Hey Starbucks-- coffee is down 23%-- are you going to drop your recent price hike? Oh, I thought not.
Margins are so tight in the HDD market I don't think they'd get away with it, Seagate would happily take their customers.
Mobile phone service companies are nearly as evil as the Nazgul as far as I'm concerned.
You can say that with a straight face?
Well, I know the Nazgul try, but they just can't get up to that level of evil.
Not so much a matter of the phone companies not knowing about it, but not knowing about it with the kind of vigor a dieter is aware of a big slice of chocolate cake, but is determined not to eat it. I wouldn't expect much help from them.
I won't do contracts again, myself, so I'm quite interested to see what pops up here. Mobile phone service companies are nearly as evil as the Nazgul as far as I'm concerned.
Glad to see the judge did his job, and glad to see that the fed at least appears to be following his ruling.
The IRS could still get transaction information from eBay or Amazon ...
"Mr. Cowznowfski, you earned a salary of $35,378.77 for the year 2010."
"Yes..."
"Perhaps you could explain your purchase of this 1930 Duesenberg on eBay..."
"Um.. it was used."
The FBI will have to get the goods on people from Mark Zuckerberg, he's got the dirt on everyone.
Once again we find that when there's a military application on the line, the money will be spent on R&D no matter how crazy it might sound at the outset. We need a civilian agency for this sort of thing.
The real money is going into developing Flash for it - I understand it requires developers who are clinically insane.
But I want to play chess with it, like they did in Star Wars: ANH
Well, these "exteme economic liberals" might have a point.
Sports are so broadly popular and such a part of public life and politics that I don't generally think of them as "private" business. But they are privately owned.
It seems a little unlikely that they'd make more money with exclusive licensing than with open competition, but I guess that's their business.
OK, I'm lost here - economic liberals? What what?
The tendency toward monopolies or collusion I mostly associate with conservatives, those in big business where the need to make huge wads of cash trump the rights of the masses. They've corrupted sports to the point the games have modified their schedules and how the game is played (TV time-outs) to best benefit revenue production.
Exclusive rights to a territory means the broadcaster can charge high advertising rates, stick the viewers with whatever pundits they feel like and rake in the money. Sadly, the Football Association of England (FA) have happily gone along with this because they get a cut of it, which they claim helps fund development of sports, etc.
Consider if you will: Two (or more) broadcasters carrying the same match to the same market and each making revenue based upon which delivers the best product - better pundits, better camera work, better replays, whatever. It's the business model they don't want to contemplate, because it means they'd have to work for the money, rather than have laws which guarantee them a market.
By definition a Conservative wants to preserve the Status Quo, while a Liberal wants to challenge it. So who is the Liberal and who is the Conservative?