Might as well print dollar bank notes. It's easier to carry around and most shops will take them. Try to buy a latte with your $5,000,000,000,000.00 coin !
Can we also have a warning for *AA affiliates exec? It should be triggered everytime they approach a public statement, it should say "If you're about to talk about piracy, please consider the fact that you're about to make a fool of yourself. Again."
Given the choice, would you buy an Apple TV of a Logitech Revue?
* Price - same * Support - probably *very* short term for the revue. Apple TV wins. * Media Availability when not rooted - Apple wins in my view. Plenty of legit online content, plus the stuff you have at home. * Hackability - on par. You have to root the box in both cases. * Mmmmm, what else now?
The problem is that putting stuff in the hands of third parties is in my view the equivalent of saying "I don't care about it." The problem with that is that IT is at the heart of everything now. If you don't care about it, that's a problem. A big one.
More than standards: www.arnnet.com. I will never understand how greed can get someone to serve an ad to some random user instead of the article the user requested in the first place.
If I come to view an article and I don't, I deem the website broken and I leave. I will NEVER again click on a "skip this ad" button. This is just going way too far. If they don't want my eyeballs on their content, that's perfectly fine with me. But they won't have my eyeballs on their crappy advertisements either.
The thing is, copyright (and IP in general) gives power. And everyone knows power corrupts. So they lobby for more power. It's all a very natural thing.
While I agree that a reasonable copyright/patent system should exist, the current trend is complete and utter garbage. Software patents? ok. 1 or 2 years. Copyrights? ok. 10 years max. And so on...
Not copyright 753 years after the author's death for god's sake !!!!!!!!!
* 753 was a typo, but I felt like leaving it there.
It was like that in France when they opened up the local loop to competition. France Telecom would just break local loops that were running on other telcos. Then there was a bunch of lawsuits and FT lost them all. In the end the government told them that if they didn't want to play fair, they also would rent the local loop from the govt which would take over.
Now, they play fair. It's still a bit messy when something goes awry with your copper wire because there are two companies involved, but all in all, it works damn well.
Moreover, for a device catered to the mass market, it lacks many layers of polish. Android started also like that, and went from horribly unusable to great in a few years. Google TV will do the same, if given the opportunity. The problem is, far less people are likely to spend $$$ in a set top box than on a phone. The market is far less volatile (look at the number of vendors) and they are paying the price now of a rev 1 product unfinished and rushed to the market.
No need to get all verbal! Those greedy clueless companies will go belly up soon enough, and others with lower prices will replace them. The market will speak for itself. If anything, Rovio clearly showed that these guys don't get it at all. They raked up more money with their game than any other company trying higher prices. The change has begun.
The real point is: Are you better off selling 20 000 units of a $50 games or 2 000 000 units of a $0.5 games? The sheer visibility bonus of the second option alone makes me believe it's a better option.
The revenue is the same. Games requiring online servers need to be more beefed up, but as you pointed out, there is more content with 2M players than with 20K players... so it's for the game benefit.
Yes, but there are a whole lot more "gamers" on mobile phones than gamers in retails shops. So the 5% of gamers willing to pay $50 may very well be the same as the number of people actually paying for games in retail shops.
The views of both parties are radical. By definition, none are going to work without at least a bit of the other. By making the biggest revenues of the country paying no tax at all, there's no way you're going to repay the debt. That is, if you plan to.
To answer your question, when I run out of money before the end of the month, I have two plans to try and avoid the same problem next month: 1. Get a higher revenue. This can include asking for a raise, or getting another job on the side. 2. Spend less.
The best course of action is of course both. Now, if I can predict that action #2 will always be enough, sure, I can skip option #1.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I suggest you go read the definition then. Equivalent is not equal. Equal is the correct word here.
ok, so how do they collect their data if it is not through cookies?
I am the OP. As several people have posted, this approach is exactly equivalent to printing money.
Are you people sick? Are you saying that printing a coin is equivalent to printing money? It is not equivalent to, it IS printing money !
... until the Federal government spent more than $1.6 trillion.
But that's next month ! If they didn't need extra cash they wouldn't be where they are !
Might as well print dollar bank notes. It's easier to carry around and most shops will take them. Try to buy a latte with your $5,000,000,000,000.00 coin !
Exactly! The warning will have the exact same effect on them that it will have on all the pirates firing a BitTorrent client. Nobody will give a shit.
Can we also have a warning for *AA affiliates exec? It should be triggered everytime they approach a public statement, it should say "If you're about to talk about piracy, please consider the fact that you're about to make a fool of yourself. Again."
I believe that's what hairyfeet wrote. So?
Given the choice, would you buy an Apple TV of a Logitech Revue?
* Price - same
* Support - probably *very* short term for the revue. Apple TV wins.
* Media Availability when not rooted - Apple wins in my view. Plenty of legit online content, plus the stuff you have at home.
* Hackability - on par. You have to root the box in both cases.
* Mmmmm, what else now?
The problem is that putting stuff in the hands of third parties is in my view the equivalent of saying "I don't care about it." The problem with that is that IT is at the heart of everything now. If you don't care about it, that's a problem. A big one.
Of course, that's not just true for government.
This is expected, did MS write anything well-structured in their history?
I'm fairly sure their legal dept. is well-structured. I could be wrong though.
More than standards: www.arnnet.com. I will never understand how greed can get someone to serve an ad to some random user instead of the article the user requested in the first place.
If I come to view an article and I don't, I deem the website broken and I leave. I will NEVER again click on a "skip this ad" button. This is just going way too far. If they don't want my eyeballs on their content, that's perfectly fine with me. But they won't have my eyeballs on their crappy advertisements either.
The thing is, copyright (and IP in general) gives power. And everyone knows power corrupts. So they lobby for more power. It's all a very natural thing.
While I agree that a reasonable copyright/patent system should exist, the current trend is complete and utter garbage. Software patents? ok. 1 or 2 years. Copyrights? ok. 10 years max. And so on...
Not copyright 753 years after the author's death for god's sake !!!!!!!!!
* 753 was a typo, but I felt like leaving it there.
... because someone has patented the gas tank lid.
Just a minute... Aaaaaaaand, that's done. Thanks for the tip.
See ya in 10 years when my patent on the tank lid is granted. I'll start spending right away. Looks like the sensible thing to do right now.
It was like that in France when they opened up the local loop to competition. France Telecom would just break local loops that were running on other telcos. Then there was a bunch of lawsuits and FT lost them all. In the end the government told them that if they didn't want to play fair, they also would rent the local loop from the govt which would take over.
Now, they play fair. It's still a bit messy when something goes awry with your copper wire because there are two companies involved, but all in all, it works damn well.
Moreover, for a device catered to the mass market, it lacks many layers of polish. Android started also like that, and went from horribly unusable to great in a few years. Google TV will do the same, if given the opportunity. The problem is, far less people are likely to spend $$$ in a set top box than on a phone. The market is far less volatile (look at the number of vendors) and they are paying the price now of a rev 1 product unfinished and rushed to the market.
Ahahahahahahh! Made my day. This is the PERFECT answer !
Shitty products are not a crime.
Either you're joking, or you just have no idea what you're talking about.
Well no. There is still a lot more feature phones sold than smartphones, and by a wide margin. Most of them have JVMs to play Freecell.
More importantly, is going from 93k to 50k a growth ? It seems like a recess to me, or a typo ;-)
No need to get all verbal! Those greedy clueless companies will go belly up soon enough, and others with lower prices will replace them. The market will speak for itself.
If anything, Rovio clearly showed that these guys don't get it at all. They raked up more money with their game than any other company trying higher prices. The change has begun.
The real point is: Are you better off selling 20 000 units of a $50 games or 2 000 000 units of a $0.5 games? The sheer visibility bonus of the second option alone makes me believe it's a better option.
The revenue is the same. Games requiring online servers need to be more beefed up, but as you pointed out, there is more content with 2M players than with 20K players... so it's for the game benefit.
*Apple* on the other hand might try to take a cut for in-App Store(tm) purchases.
They don't try anything. They DO get 30% of all in-app purchases, which is a lot less than the cut in traditional distribution channels.
Yes, but there are a whole lot more "gamers" on mobile phones than gamers in retails shops. So the 5% of gamers willing to pay $50 may very well be the same as the number of people actually paying for games in retail shops.
The views of both parties are radical. By definition, none are going to work without at least a bit of the other. By making the biggest revenues of the country paying no tax at all, there's no way you're going to repay the debt. That is, if you plan to.
To answer your question, when I run out of money before the end of the month, I have two plans to try and avoid the same problem next month:
1. Get a higher revenue. This can include asking for a raise, or getting another job on the side.
2. Spend less.
The best course of action is of course both. Now, if I can predict that action #2 will always be enough, sure, I can skip option #1.