There are things that just cant be done decently in a console. Combat Flight Simulators for starters. And I mean SIMULATORS, not the crapy POSH they peddle nowdays in the PS3 or the xbox.
Yup. And I think this article is not at all wrong except maybe in the timeframe. Sooner or later networks will be reliable and very, very wide. The timeframe for the sustitution of local computing for remote "clouded" computing is directly proportional to the value of "sooner or later". The more networks take to get decent, the more time the PC has.
Now there is an interesting gridlock: network providers are idiot money whores that still want to get dough out of an investment that has already returned them many times over. They do not want to move to ipv6 and PC software makers like MS have no incentive to do so because, yes, this will cheapen networks and make them more reliable thus making them obsolete.
It is Interesting that yes, GNU, Linux and FOSS platforms in general will kill microsoft by being the dominant OS infrastructure of the new cloud which will be subsequently used to lock us in for the "service" of content providers and of just about anything else (applications and games)....
Now, in the future, if this happens my young padawan, an Open Net movement with the GNU ideal on its mind will make its own cloud and we (yes, you and me) will compete with the other fuckers on services combined with foss platforms, unlocked phones and "freePads" or LiberPads. You see, if what I forsee is coming, and ipv6 is implemented despite the gridlock, net neutrality more or less comes by default and killing it looses any justification from the net providers who should anyways compete in price per MBPS and that only.
Take all men off porn, and anarchy will ensue. Take all women off porn, and the sexual freedom advances weve seen so far, will die.
Porn is reality, after all. We may like it, we may not like it. We may find it appropriate or not that it is so available, or even that it exists. But it is, like any kind of content with a public, an expression of humans, and has been so since weve been able to depict desires in paint.
We give it this or that moral weight depending on our culture but the fact of the matter is since ancient grece, people bought sexy vases with people having sex for whatever purposes.
I thus argue porn interchange, as well as plain prostitution, are one of the most ancient economic activities we have had and no ammount of law will ever be able to, and for that reason we probably need not make any laws against (big word here) them, thwart or in any way diminish either buyers of sellers of real or depicted sex.
The ammount of the economy they make? Its not really that important: they have a market, a good one, of die hards. They cover a social and personal need. They are here because we (for diferent vaules of "we") need them.
Porn did not kill the economy, the SEC has way more than 30 employees. C'mon.... If porn was such a baaaad thing, no company would be doing anything and the economy wouldve.... oh wait!
"You don't have to be invisible from every method of detection, just the one being used to detect you."
Then the enemy figures it out and you go order a gogollion-dollar massive army project that will also fund your campaign if you pull the right strings at the pentagon and youre golden.
I think you are thinking about software in general. Not all software is profitable. Actually, most isnt. And the state of its license and source has little to do with that.
Marketing, actually solving a problem important enough for enough people, thats what brings in profitability. Its the same for any market...
Except in the office space, all of microsoft's products and i do mean ALL of them, lag far behind technology-wise and quality-wise bis-a-bis any other offer in the market.
No bro, I do not concur. You see, if they can get anyone to actively reject other formats, then they can make their docx shit a defacto standard, and from that position, secure their monopolistic power in the IT office space.
If they let governments choose standards they would HAVE to comply with, they only need to use them (it would cost them close to nil, it would be payed the first three days of any government contract), but the competition could then actually compete with them.
Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars. A government unfriendly, by mandate, to open source solutions, and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important, is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software.
They have RNA that attaches to cancerous and only cancerous cells. Of course, there are types of cancer that wont "bind" with this thingies, but supposedly, if I remeber correctly, they are the rarest.
"There's a reason why single-parent households are more likely to fail in raising children, and this is it."
Occam is swirling so fast in his grave that he puked twice already.
You wouldnt think, really, that the reason is that TWO people can provide more TIME AND MONEY for their kids than ONE person and not because some magical quality you cannot explain but is somehow related to the sex of the parents?
Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?
I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman. Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.
Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.
Slashdot Mirror
With the weight of current cellphones, its hard to break anyone's head. A gun, on the other hand, can kill people right out of the store.
Different things bro.
Although i would oppose this law and the background checks, your analogy does not stand.
There are things that just cant be done decently in a console. Combat Flight Simulators for starters. And I mean SIMULATORS, not the crapy POSH they peddle nowdays in the PS3 or the xbox.
Yup. And I think this article is not at all wrong except maybe in the timeframe. Sooner or later networks will be reliable and very, very wide. The timeframe for the sustitution of local computing for remote "clouded" computing is directly proportional to the value of "sooner or later". The more networks take to get decent, the more time the PC has.
Now there is an interesting gridlock: network providers are idiot money whores that still want to get dough out of an investment that has already returned them many times over. They do not want to move to ipv6 and PC software makers like MS have no incentive to do so because, yes, this will cheapen networks and make them more reliable thus making them obsolete.
It is Interesting that yes, GNU, Linux and FOSS platforms in general will kill microsoft by being the dominant OS infrastructure of the new cloud which will be subsequently used to lock us in for the "service" of content providers and of just about anything else (applications and games)....
Now, in the future, if this happens my young padawan, an Open Net movement with the GNU ideal on its mind will make its own cloud and we (yes, you and me) will compete with the other fuckers on services combined with foss platforms, unlocked phones and "freePads" or LiberPads. You see, if what I forsee is coming, and ipv6 is implemented despite the gridlock, net neutrality more or less comes by default and killing it looses any justification from the net providers who should anyways compete in price per MBPS and that only.
And on and on....
Im just saying it doesnt make sense to pay 1.2 billion for a company that cannot pull its own weight which is even less than that.
Where is the sense in that?
Too soon to tell if sun will be ruined. Mysql though, thats another story.....
sigh.
It makes no sense. The price makes no sense, the OS makes no sense for HP/CQ, moving into pervasive computing through palmos makes no freaking sense.
New appartment in dubai, now that makes sense.
(This is just an opinion, not an acusation)
Take all men off porn, and anarchy will ensue. Take all women off porn, and the sexual freedom advances weve seen so far, will die.
Porn is reality, after all. We may like it, we may not like it. We may find it appropriate or not that it is so available, or even that it exists. But it is, like any kind of content with a public, an expression of humans, and has been so since weve been able to depict desires in paint.
We give it this or that moral weight depending on our culture but the fact of the matter is since ancient grece, people bought sexy vases with people having sex for whatever purposes.
I thus argue porn interchange, as well as plain prostitution, are one of the most ancient economic activities we have had and no ammount of law will ever be able to, and for that reason we probably need not make any laws against (big word here) them, thwart or in any way diminish either buyers of sellers of real or depicted sex.
The ammount of the economy they make? Its not really that important: they have a market, a good one, of die hards. They cover a social and personal need. They are here because we (for diferent vaules of "we") need them.
Course not. The odds are in the roundabouts of 1+5.978652E , its OBVIOUS you twerp!
Sheeze, doesnt anyone understand statistics anymore?
This puritan interpretation is just dumb.
Porn did not kill the economy, the SEC has way more than 30 employees. C'mon.... If porn was such a baaaad thing, no company would be doing anything and the economy wouldve.... oh wait!
It makes sense bots would use the mobile interface. Its lighter so it uses less bandwidth, so more spam-per-bots == profit.
"You don't have to be invisible from every method of detection, just the one being used to detect you."
Then the enemy figures it out and you go order a gogollion-dollar massive army project that will also fund your campaign if you pull the right strings at the pentagon and youre golden.
Man, I love politics.
You upload it to youtube, duh.
I think you are thinking about software in general. Not all software is profitable. Actually, most isnt. And the state of its license and source has little to do with that.
Marketing, actually solving a problem important enough for enough people, thats what brings in profitability. Its the same for any market...
Yes, yes and yes.
Are you sure you dont need a joint to calm down and think it over?
Except in the office space, all of microsoft's products and i do mean ALL of them, lag far behind technology-wise and quality-wise bis-a-bis any other offer in the market.
It FLOPS fast as hell if you've got the dough.
No bro, I do not concur. You see, if they can get anyone to actively reject other formats, then they can make their docx shit a defacto standard, and from that position, secure their monopolistic power in the IT office space.
If they let governments choose standards they would HAVE to comply with, they only need to use them (it would cost them close to nil, it would be payed the first three days of any government contract), but the competition could then actually compete with them.
And THATS what they are afraid of.
Yeah? So why do they want to pressure governments into rejecting open standards as the base line for building IT infrastructure?
... fuck sakes, somebody stop them!
Even europeans can be bought this easily?
Governments make up for MOST of the IT market if you meassure it in dollars. A government unfriendly, by mandate, to open source solutions, and obvlivious as to why precisely in that market is Open Source so important, is a danger to the comercial viability of open source software.
BTW, targeted painkillers do not have a funky RNA that attaches to a cell. This babies do.
No, I didn't read the article.
You should bro.... they tested the tissue of the attacked melanoma and if you inject more bots, more turn up in the tumor and they kill it.
This thing rocks. Combination therapy will probably mean complete healing of until now absolutely deadly cancers (or I hope so).
They have RNA that attaches to cancerous and only cancerous cells. Of course, there are types of cancer that wont "bind" with this thingies, but supposedly, if I remeber correctly, they are the rarest.
"There's a reason why single-parent households are more likely to fail in raising children, and this is it."
Occam is swirling so fast in his grave that he puked twice already.
You wouldnt think, really, that the reason is that TWO people can provide more TIME AND MONEY for their kids than ONE person and not because some magical quality you cannot explain but is somehow related to the sex of the parents?
Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?
I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman. Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.
Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.