The negativity was turning one product into an entirely brand new product. If you hate XFCE, then you also hate Gnome 2, which was largely the same. The hate as you'd put it was that they decide they didn't want to be an Apple anymore, instead they wanted to produce Oranges. They just assumed that everyone should be eating Oranges now because... why? They were perfectly in their right to build the best Orange they can, but assuming that they wouldn't piss off their entire existing userbase of Apple eaters is a little naive.
One could rightly argue that the 'artifiicial' comes from the fact that many of the fixed costs associated with the build were paid with taxpayers dollars and yet given almsot absolte control over by the providers. This is what you'd call artificial barriers. If said lines were offered access to equally based on subscriber %, you'd at least have an even (or at least much closer to) 'even playing field. I have no problems with a big provider investing $600 or whatever it is to provide service for a household, but I do have a problem with it when provider A pays $80, and provider B pays $200 and provider C pays $1000 based on... who knows. You could make the same argument about cell providers and spectrum, but whatev's.
I think the idea of hating government roots from an inherent fear of losing control. If you have no idea how to control (or even get involved) with your political process, how can you ever hope to control it? Hint, making the government smaller won't be the magic bullet that will bring happiness to all. It won't fix your disproportionate financial disparity, it won't help the cycle of violence that is now almost institutional in some parts of America.
Maybe instead of bitching about your government , you actually step up and do something about it. Only then will things actually get done to improve the lives of people. The government is only as good as those who participate in it (and watered down for 'politics'). If you don't like the fact that politicians are being bought by donators, then create grass root movements and actively hurt their chances of being re-elected. The internet makes this so cheap, how is this not a bigger thing from the country self-described as the upholder of democracy (you know something something for the people and all that)? Organize, focus, do SOMETHING. But please don't whine about a system you don't have any participation in.
The definition of Monopoly really comes from that 6th company attempting to enter the market:
1. No legal/physical means to provide service in said jusirdiction: Monopoly 2. Not financially feasible entering said market leaving a few dominant players to fight over market share: Ologopoly (this can happen with anything as long as competition exists, this should eventually reach saturation in price conscious markets) 3. Simple boundaries for entry, and good rate of return: Open competition mode, that should arguably not last exceedingly long as continually entering competitors race in and lower prices to entice more business
For Sweden, the stiff steep fixed costs of entry have been largely paid and continually subsidized by government maintainance, which gives a natural benefit to players entering the market in avoiding large capital outlays. This doesn't mean the system is 'bad' or inefficient, or even taking cash from tax payers. They -could- be revenue positive for all we know as many gov corps are, so don't give me that song that all government is somehow intrinsically wasteful (or a bunch of robbers). It just shows your political leanings, not your common sense.
Since the cost of entering the market requires comparitively little vs. an American incumbant, they can and most likely do discount their rates against one another to maintain their position. Its very possible but I couldn't be sure that the gov actually sets pricing guidelines, but for that I wouldn't know. So no, the Comcasts of Sweeden aren't making stupidly large profits, but I'm sure they're in the market because there's enough room to make a desired profit point. Think of it like the days of dial-up. In those days, anyone could be an ISP with a few lines and a bigger pipe paid to an ILEC (or some other provider) and you could get by. You would grow if you had a good service offering beyond just the physical medium (which was by and large the same besides over-saturation).
Maybe if you bothered to look at the relay logs in the header, you'd probably know they were sent from a fictional server pretending to be you (or totally legit from an exploit), but since said note was absent in your comment, I'm assuming you didn't know about spoofing email, which any script kiddie could do trivially.
Secondly, I can't say about Yahoo, but google has 2 factor auth to avoid said problems. Third, Google has account access history so that if 'bad people' were logged into the account, you'd at least be able to view a record of who/when. I'd be very surprised if Yahoo didn't offer a similar example.
Considering that most new phones are being released at 2 GB+ configurations, I care less and less about 'small embedded systems that are becoming more and more niche and obscure'. Sure memory optimization is good, but when resources are short GC's work harder and more often. If anything embedded systems are suited for GC language runtimes just fine, but they waste more CPU cyles for the privilage. The advantage with GC runtimes being that you don't get memory leaks (in the C sense of never being able to reclaim the allocated ram except for restarting the app, sure people can hold ram in allocated by forgotten places, but that's nothing specific to GC runtimes).
The difference being that tech is VERY in demand and introducing anyone with a pulse (including those that aren't fond if it as a career) is a good at filling back-end need. Forgetting the argument that these people are less likely to be what we would call your typical programmers (people have said that for decades, so nothing new there), having targetted enticements for people to enter a given field that is under-served isn't a bad thing.
From an objective setting, all opinions are equal, though truth (objective truth) may be closer represented by one side or another. But, since we're all subjective beings, all opinions are intrinsically equal. One's opinion of will always be weighted higher than those given by others when considering an anonymous setting like internet chat boards suck as slashdot.
Specifically to my note, saying that candy crush isn't a game is like saying hop scotch or hoola hoop aren't games either. Why not say Call of Duty isn't a game, its a killing simulator. All these terms are subjectivly asserted by people, and the fact that multiple people differ in terms of their meaning is nothing new. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, and in a case like this, probably everyone is right (in their own mind).
As someone who's played games since the NES, blah blah blah and still invests hundreds of dollars every few years on updated gaming rigs, I could give a flying fuck about what someone says about anti-social troglodites who deserve all the bad press that they get. I'm not happy that I've been lumped in with 'all the crap' personalities that go along with it, but fuck it. Its an editorial and maybe not a specifically good one. I ignore them and read meaty articles. If a site doesn't have good meaty articles on things that I care about, I move on. I don't bitch and whine and force boycott ads so that others who may very well enjoy the site are deprived because they financially incentivise it.
I hate fox news, and I think they're a bunch of idiot blow hards. Do I go to their advertisers mass boycott style to have their 'right' to talk about idotic subnects pulled from the airs? No, let them have their platform, because if we start pulling down all the platforms, there won't be any left that you agree with either.
Or more relavantly, you're not utilizing any more performance out of your computer to improve your productivity (or enjoyment factor) and you are right now. Much of this is the shifting of complexity into online services. If you take away the internet, your computer becomes significantly worse than it was. Google Maps pretty much killed every desktop mapping software. Desktop mapping software could have been wasting those countless cycles running them, but instead Google does the heavy lifting for the benefit of allowing your PC to sit mostly idle. See countless other examples. Once you stop needing computing cycles locally, why would you upgrade your system (you being anyone/company/institution)?
That said as an avid gamer, I still upgrade my video card every couple years to the best mid-range option I can justify because I do enjoy my toys, but its a luxury and serves little productivity boost. As a company, the only significant justifications for upgrades are TCO, retention, and reducing drag on business process.
- TCO is obvious, cheaper is better. - Rentention is basically: If I upgrade this PC to "some better configuration", will my workforce be more likely to stay with the company. Its a concept that business planners basically never care about, and only begrudgingly accept when managers come to them crying about lost resources. - Business process drag is another sore spot which businesses often do care about, but can never justify cost wise (because it generally costs a small fortune to do). Getting better software / hardware services to better serve your changing business is great, but it also costs a lot of dollars. So much, that a VERY well presented business plan has to sell it. This is also why COBOL mainframes walk the earth to this day. Why upgrade when what we have now is 'good enough' and the upgrade costs at the very least several million dollars?
There's no reason why an OS needs to be any larger than it is. Let the market add value to a cornerstone product. There's no reason that the Linux kernel should ever take up a gig of ram because, hey lets throw more boiler plate into it.
Microsoft has one job with Windows, and that's to make the best application shell possible for almost every possible desktop need. I think they've done a pretty good job at it, though they've fucked their UI core so badly time and time again, it feels like they're just re-arranging chairs to justify the upgrade cost.
Crap, you mean a news outlet reported on tangentally related gaming news during a period of very low gaming relavant news? Say it isn't so!
Here's a rule of news: 1. Find stories to report on 2. Filter 'best' stories to the top 3. Report on 'best' stories 4. Goto 1
If there's a very low number of stories, it doesn't matter how many crap stories there are, they'll report them if there's nothing better.
I have no context on this whole gamergate thing, and quite frankly my belief as a gamer is that the 'slashot gamer' are about the most ridiculously defensive segment of slashdot there is; They're even more defensive than Apple appologists, which is saying A LOT. Just shut up and play games.
You are half right, but utterly delusional for the rest.
An increase in competent available programmers will surely drive down the salaries of developers. Look at game dev's. They're often payed significantly less and work them dry because game companies know there will always be the next great fool to jump into the deep and and work then next set of recruits dry. With greater supply comes less demand, and ultimately that's the start and end to the discussion. There's no need to over-describe your nefarious shitty code problem. If we had more talented people being channeled into our in-demand industry vs. another program that may already be in over-supply, then its a win for all.
From my personal experience in Canada, I'm seeing soo many kids churning through schools from grad programs that are essentially guaranteed to find no jobs at the end. These kids have been deluded or coerced into thinking that if I wanted to be a -whatever-, then that's the career path they take. Currently, about half of them end up in the service industry or other 'underemployed' positions and many will never leave it. Many, if not most could be perfectly employable in fields that are actually in demand (like IT/programming).
My friend is 30 and has jumped around careers. First he entered a chef's program (mostly because he had lousy high school grades and his family was poor) and was a professional cook for lets say 5 years? Then he decided that being the bottom end of a restaurant was not where he wanted to end his time, so he had an opportinuty to travel with some friends, and ended up being an English language teacher in China and Korea for a couple years. This was lousy money, but at least it allowed him to travel to interesting places. When he came home, he realized that cooking or teaching wasn't cutting it, so knowing a lot of nerds (but not really being one) he took non-university level technology development for hardware engineering and software development. It was something that really challenged him intellectually in a positive way, and he ended up getting top marks, finding a job the day he left, and loving a much more satisfying lifestyle than the had previously. Now imagine if my friend had -found- his drive for technology much earlier. His road to success could've been years shorter and it would be a net gain for the economy as a whole.
Blame is a poor choice of words, but there are definitely activities that cause your probability of being the victim of crime to improve dramatically. If I walked down Harlem yelling racial slurs, I'd have a better chance of getting shanked or shot than say the middle of Austria where'd they just think you're nuts and lock you in an assylum.
I'm not saying its right or not, but life choices can and do lead to consequences. Do we want to live in a better society where women don't feel afraid to walk down the street at night? Absolutely. Are we there yet now? Not for most of the world. So to -blame- a woman for doing what she should be entitled to do like any man can do is wrong, but surely she puts herself in greater jeopardy for creepers and assholes, absolutely.
When I had a choice in Linux desktop, it was always Fedora because I was sued to it, and even with its bleeding edge slant, it rarely fell over with updates even with some third party repos in my mix. That was from Fedora 1 though like 16? They're up to 20 now so I have some catching up to do!
I don't know if anyone's mentioned that Redhat owns JBoss and all the tools and technologies around that which are very popular in the enterprise development markets. When I think of Redhat, I see a company:
1. Does server-side well for everything except for microsoft centric computing needs 2. Struggling to get into cloud computing (not so well) 3. Token support for Linux desktops which is fine for the not-so-large revenue market that it entails
When the latest and greatest OS can dymanically update itself to the latest and greatest while still being 100% compatible with the giant hodge-podge of software and hardware required in a large company, then by all means 'business people' will flock to it. If it makes a company's life easier SURE. The problem is they aren't. No company remains as compatible with the exisitng corporate networks de-jour as Microsoft. Some of that is very very on purpose making their own tech hostile to others. That's not the point. The point is OSX, Linux, BSD, QNX, ChromeOS, etc.. are all LESS suitable for corporate operations, and unless you have an extreemely cavaleer IT VP, you won't be moving any time soon.
Its VERY costly to change processes and software mid-stream unless there's a good value proposition. Windows only dominates today because *NIX and Mainframe price points were just so significantly higher than PC commodity servers (with the benefit of integrating MUCH better with them). Like it or not, unless the TCO of alternatives drops significantly lower than Windows, don't expect the mass exodus.
For those not familiar with Twitch, every stream contains a "Now Playing: (Game)" thing with it, and you can select which game you're playing from a pre-defined list of games.
Bets on how long until that become a link straight to Amazon to buy said game, and how long until streamers become Amazon affiliates and start getting money for driving people to buy their games off Amazon?
Because that's the only angle I can see Amazon having here: trying to get gamers to grab games off Amazon. (And they do sell digital game downloads, so they do compete with things like Steam.)
Maybe Amazon can fix some of Twitch's more recent problems like the horrendous stream lag that makes it impossible for streamers to communicate with the stream chat since the stream now has something like 30 seconds of latency between streamer and audience. Then there's Twitch's new weird anti-piracy thing where they mute audio if they detect that the audio contains a copyrighted song (hint: for video games, that's always) and whatever other issues people are complaining about Twitch these days since I never bother to use it.
Amazon has been smashing faces with Google for a long time, and although I'd hate this be be a spate move (since I actually enjoy Twitch streams a lot), I see this as a fuck you to Google. Of course this isn't Amazon's first foray into streaming video, but it certainly is potentially their biggest dollar spend to build it up.Youtube has all but locked up the mindshare for static video, but most know that Youtube's a relatively small player in Streaming video, and Twitch is the top of the heap of this very specific and popular niche of that market.
You could very well be right in all the above and I wouldn't be surprised to see that at some point, but frankly who cares? Twitch has always had ads and the tiny bit of integration with mother ship seems fine.
As for lag, there's no 'lag' between gamer and chat. The streamer can and will put on stream delays to prevent cheaters from attempting to use up to date information against them in-game (Stream cheating does happen alas). There is always a little bit of lag, but generally speaking it doesn't happen notably most of the time. I do want IRC integration with twitch chat, but oh well... The song thing sucks, but to be fair, they are generally playing real artists songs without permission so at least that's a fair argument. I hope streamers just ditch the stream music all together. Its generally annoying more often than not anyways.
Their innovation was that they invent something that people like. Their advantage is that they invented it first and should have both the buzz and the initial profits of said game. If you think that magically a clone game company can write the exact same game at a fraction of the cost, I'd say you're a liar, the original company did it horribly, or they stole the content assets from the original.
1. Yeah, most likely. Games are not trivial to write. They're incrementally easier if you know exactly what you want it to do, but a trivial to develop game being trivial to write will get cloned... a LOT. How many platformers that behave 99% like mario exist in the market? Oh yeah, a metric F-ton. 2. The 'early into market advantage' is ruined due to expensive development, oh well. Do better next time 3. Direct copy is easy to identify and Google / Apple / etc.. will honor DMCA takedowns like anything else
Yes officer, I just yelled fire because 'someone else' did. I didn't start a panic for nefarious purposes or anything. There's only ONE place to report the threat of a bomb, and that's to authorities, not to a general public who can often knee jerk a response to a potentially real emergency without any form of organized response.
Coming up with my own startup is just too hard to do. Instead, can one of you think of a cool technology I can half-assed write in the hopes of getting a huge payout from some monolithic corp decides that they-too want to jump into the hot market of the moment?
I used Lync for precisely one thing, and that was to redirect my handset to my personal cell. I never touched it again. Instead I plugged in Pidgin which has relatively ok IM support for Lync and never touched it again.
Desktop sharing is built into the OS, and frankly I never used. I try to use hangouts whenever I get the chance, but sometimes I'm forced to use gotomeeting with some customers when they use it. No customer has ever asked for RDP / Lync based demos, and frankly I'm not even sure if its possible externally (well RDP is, but its an even worse demoing tool).
Meetings/N-way calling/video conferences / etc.. all rely on you converting your entire PBX infrastructure over to the MS way of things as well. So yeah, if you're FULLY VESTED in MS technologies, then absolutely you're going to get lift.
Slashdot Mirror
The negativity was turning one product into an entirely brand new product. If you hate XFCE, then you also hate Gnome 2, which was largely the same. The hate as you'd put it was that they decide they didn't want to be an Apple anymore, instead they wanted to produce Oranges. They just assumed that everyone should be eating Oranges now because... why? They were perfectly in their right to build the best Orange they can, but assuming that they wouldn't piss off their entire existing userbase of Apple eaters is a little naive.
One could rightly argue that the 'artifiicial' comes from the fact that many of the fixed costs associated with the build were paid with taxpayers dollars and yet given almsot absolte control over by the providers. This is what you'd call artificial barriers. If said lines were offered access to equally based on subscriber %, you'd at least have an even (or at least much closer to) 'even playing field. I have no problems with a big provider investing $600 or whatever it is to provide service for a household, but I do have a problem with it when provider A pays $80, and provider B pays $200 and provider C pays $1000 based on ... who knows. You could make the same argument about cell providers and spectrum, but whatev's.
I think the idea of hating government roots from an inherent fear of losing control. If you have no idea how to control (or even get involved) with your political process, how can you ever hope to control it? Hint, making the government smaller won't be the magic bullet that will bring happiness to all. It won't fix your disproportionate financial disparity, it won't help the cycle of violence that is now almost institutional in some parts of America.
Maybe instead of bitching about your government , you actually step up and do something about it. Only then will things actually get done to improve the lives of people. The government is only as good as those who participate in it (and watered down for 'politics'). If you don't like the fact that politicians are being bought by donators, then create grass root movements and actively hurt their chances of being re-elected. The internet makes this so cheap, how is this not a bigger thing from the country self-described as the upholder of democracy (you know something something for the people and all that)? Organize, focus, do SOMETHING. But please don't whine about a system you don't have any participation in.
The definition of Monopoly really comes from that 6th company attempting to enter the market:
1. No legal/physical means to provide service in said jusirdiction: Monopoly
2. Not financially feasible entering said market leaving a few dominant players to fight over market share: Ologopoly (this can happen with anything as long as competition exists, this should eventually reach saturation in price conscious markets)
3. Simple boundaries for entry, and good rate of return: Open competition mode, that should arguably not last exceedingly long as continually entering competitors race in and lower prices to entice more business
For Sweden, the stiff steep fixed costs of entry have been largely paid and continually subsidized by government maintainance, which gives a natural benefit to players entering the market in avoiding large capital outlays. This doesn't mean the system is 'bad' or inefficient, or even taking cash from tax payers. They -could- be revenue positive for all we know as many gov corps are, so don't give me that song that all government is somehow intrinsically wasteful (or a bunch of robbers). It just shows your political leanings, not your common sense.
Since the cost of entering the market requires comparitively little vs. an American incumbant, they can and most likely do discount their rates against one another to maintain their position. Its very possible but I couldn't be sure that the gov actually sets pricing guidelines, but for that I wouldn't know. So no, the Comcasts of Sweeden aren't making stupidly large profits, but I'm sure they're in the market because there's enough room to make a desired profit point. Think of it like the days of dial-up. In those days, anyone could be an ISP with a few lines and a bigger pipe paid to an ILEC (or some other provider) and you could get by. You would grow if you had a good service offering beyond just the physical medium (which was by and large the same besides over-saturation).
Maybe if you bothered to look at the relay logs in the header, you'd probably know they were sent from a fictional server pretending to be you (or totally legit from an exploit), but since said note was absent in your comment, I'm assuming you didn't know about spoofing email, which any script kiddie could do trivially.
Secondly, I can't say about Yahoo, but google has 2 factor auth to avoid said problems. Third, Google has account access history so that if 'bad people' were logged into the account, you'd at least be able to view a record of who/when. I'd be very surprised if Yahoo didn't offer a similar example.
Considering that most new phones are being released at 2 GB+ configurations, I care less and less about 'small embedded systems that are becoming more and more niche and obscure'. Sure memory optimization is good, but when resources are short GC's work harder and more often. If anything embedded systems are suited for GC language runtimes just fine, but they waste more CPU cyles for the privilage. The advantage with GC runtimes being that you don't get memory leaks (in the C sense of never being able to reclaim the allocated ram except for restarting the app, sure people can hold ram in allocated by forgotten places, but that's nothing specific to GC runtimes).
The difference being that tech is VERY in demand and introducing anyone with a pulse (including those that aren't fond if it as a career) is a good at filling back-end need. Forgetting the argument that these people are less likely to be what we would call your typical programmers (people have said that for decades, so nothing new there), having targetted enticements for people to enter a given field that is under-served isn't a bad thing.
From an objective setting, all opinions are equal, though truth (objective truth) may be closer represented by one side or another. But, since we're all subjective beings, all opinions are intrinsically equal. One's opinion of will always be weighted higher than those given by others when considering an anonymous setting like internet chat boards suck as slashdot.
Specifically to my note, saying that candy crush isn't a game is like saying hop scotch or hoola hoop aren't games either. Why not say Call of Duty isn't a game, its a killing simulator. All these terms are subjectivly asserted by people, and the fact that multiple people differ in terms of their meaning is nothing new. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, and in a case like this, probably everyone is right (in their own mind).
As someone who's played games since the NES, blah blah blah and still invests hundreds of dollars every few years on updated gaming rigs, I could give a flying fuck about what someone says about anti-social troglodites who deserve all the bad press that they get. I'm not happy that I've been lumped in with 'all the crap' personalities that go along with it, but fuck it. Its an editorial and maybe not a specifically good one. I ignore them and read meaty articles. If a site doesn't have good meaty articles on things that I care about, I move on. I don't bitch and whine and force boycott ads so that others who may very well enjoy the site are deprived because they financially incentivise it.
I hate fox news, and I think they're a bunch of idiot blow hards. Do I go to their advertisers mass boycott style to have their 'right' to talk about idotic subnects pulled from the airs? No, let them have their platform, because if we start pulling down all the platforms, there won't be any left that you agree with either.
Or more relavantly, you're not utilizing any more performance out of your computer to improve your productivity (or enjoyment factor) and you are right now. Much of this is the shifting of complexity into online services. If you take away the internet, your computer becomes significantly worse than it was. Google Maps pretty much killed every desktop mapping software. Desktop mapping software could have been wasting those countless cycles running them, but instead Google does the heavy lifting for the benefit of allowing your PC to sit mostly idle. See countless other examples. Once you stop needing computing cycles locally, why would you upgrade your system (you being anyone/company/institution)?
That said as an avid gamer, I still upgrade my video card every couple years to the best mid-range option I can justify because I do enjoy my toys, but its a luxury and serves little productivity boost. As a company, the only significant justifications for upgrades are TCO, retention, and reducing drag on business process.
- TCO is obvious, cheaper is better.
- Rentention is basically: If I upgrade this PC to "some better configuration", will my workforce be more likely to stay with the company. Its a concept that business planners basically never care about, and only begrudgingly accept when managers come to them crying about lost resources.
- Business process drag is another sore spot which businesses often do care about, but can never justify cost wise (because it generally costs a small fortune to do). Getting better software / hardware services to better serve your changing business is great, but it also costs a lot of dollars. So much, that a VERY well presented business plan has to sell it. This is also why COBOL mainframes walk the earth to this day. Why upgrade when what we have now is 'good enough' and the upgrade costs at the very least several million dollars?
There's no reason why an OS needs to be any larger than it is. Let the market add value to a cornerstone product. There's no reason that the Linux kernel should ever take up a gig of ram because, hey lets throw more boiler plate into it.
Microsoft has one job with Windows, and that's to make the best application shell possible for almost every possible desktop need. I think they've done a pretty good job at it, though they've fucked their UI core so badly time and time again, it feels like they're just re-arranging chairs to justify the upgrade cost.
That is what you would call your opinion. You're as welcome to it as those you disagree with.
Crap, you mean a news outlet reported on tangentally related gaming news during a period of very low gaming relavant news? Say it isn't so!
Here's a rule of news:
1. Find stories to report on
2. Filter 'best' stories to the top
3. Report on 'best' stories
4. Goto 1
If there's a very low number of stories, it doesn't matter how many crap stories there are, they'll report them if there's nothing better.
I have no context on this whole gamergate thing, and quite frankly my belief as a gamer is that the 'slashot gamer' are about the most ridiculously defensive segment of slashdot there is; They're even more defensive than Apple appologists, which is saying A LOT. Just shut up and play games.
You are half right, but utterly delusional for the rest.
An increase in competent available programmers will surely drive down the salaries of developers. Look at game dev's. They're often payed significantly less and work them dry because game companies know there will always be the next great fool to jump into the deep and and work then next set of recruits dry. With greater supply comes less demand, and ultimately that's the start and end to the discussion. There's no need to over-describe your nefarious shitty code problem. If we had more talented people being channeled into our in-demand industry vs. another program that may already be in over-supply, then its a win for all.
From my personal experience in Canada, I'm seeing soo many kids churning through schools from grad programs that are essentially guaranteed to find no jobs at the end. These kids have been deluded or coerced into thinking that if I wanted to be a -whatever-, then that's the career path they take. Currently, about half of them end up in the service industry or other 'underemployed' positions and many will never leave it. Many, if not most could be perfectly employable in fields that are actually in demand (like IT/programming).
My friend is 30 and has jumped around careers. First he entered a chef's program (mostly because he had lousy high school grades and his family was poor) and was a professional cook for lets say 5 years? Then he decided that being the bottom end of a restaurant was not where he wanted to end his time, so he had an opportinuty to travel with some friends, and ended up being an English language teacher in China and Korea for a couple years. This was lousy money, but at least it allowed him to travel to interesting places. When he came home, he realized that cooking or teaching wasn't cutting it, so knowing a lot of nerds (but not really being one) he took non-university level technology development for hardware engineering and software development. It was something that really challenged him intellectually in a positive way, and he ended up getting top marks, finding a job the day he left, and loving a much more satisfying lifestyle than the had previously. Now imagine if my friend had -found- his drive for technology much earlier. His road to success could've been years shorter and it would be a net gain for the economy as a whole.
Blame is a poor choice of words, but there are definitely activities that cause your probability of being the victim of crime to improve dramatically. If I walked down Harlem yelling racial slurs, I'd have a better chance of getting shanked or shot than say the middle of Austria where'd they just think you're nuts and lock you in an assylum.
I'm not saying its right or not, but life choices can and do lead to consequences. Do we want to live in a better society where women don't feel afraid to walk down the street at night? Absolutely. Are we there yet now? Not for most of the world. So to -blame- a woman for doing what she should be entitled to do like any man can do is wrong, but surely she puts herself in greater jeopardy for creepers and assholes, absolutely.
When I had a choice in Linux desktop, it was always Fedora because I was sued to it, and even with its bleeding edge slant, it rarely fell over with updates even with some third party repos in my mix. That was from Fedora 1 though like 16? They're up to 20 now so I have some catching up to do!
I don't know if anyone's mentioned that Redhat owns JBoss and all the tools and technologies around that which are very popular in the enterprise development markets. When I think of Redhat, I see a company:
1. Does server-side well for everything except for microsoft centric computing needs
2. Struggling to get into cloud computing (not so well)
3. Token support for Linux desktops which is fine for the not-so-large revenue market that it entails
When the latest and greatest OS can dymanically update itself to the latest and greatest while still being 100% compatible with the giant hodge-podge of software and hardware required in a large company, then by all means 'business people' will flock to it. If it makes a company's life easier SURE. The problem is they aren't. No company remains as compatible with the exisitng corporate networks de-jour as Microsoft. Some of that is very very on purpose making their own tech hostile to others. That's not the point. The point is OSX, Linux, BSD, QNX, ChromeOS, etc.. are all LESS suitable for corporate operations, and unless you have an extreemely cavaleer IT VP, you won't be moving any time soon.
Its VERY costly to change processes and software mid-stream unless there's a good value proposition. Windows only dominates today because *NIX and Mainframe price points were just so significantly higher than PC commodity servers (with the benefit of integrating MUCH better with them). Like it or not, unless the TCO of alternatives drops significantly lower than Windows, don't expect the mass exodus.
You sir are a sad example of just how completely morally broken your society has become.
For those not familiar with Twitch, every stream contains a "Now Playing: (Game)" thing with it, and you can select which game you're playing from a pre-defined list of games.
Bets on how long until that become a link straight to Amazon to buy said game, and how long until streamers become Amazon affiliates and start getting money for driving people to buy their games off Amazon?
Because that's the only angle I can see Amazon having here: trying to get gamers to grab games off Amazon. (And they do sell digital game downloads, so they do compete with things like Steam.)
Maybe Amazon can fix some of Twitch's more recent problems like the horrendous stream lag that makes it impossible for streamers to communicate with the stream chat since the stream now has something like 30 seconds of latency between streamer and audience. Then there's Twitch's new weird anti-piracy thing where they mute audio if they detect that the audio contains a copyrighted song (hint: for video games, that's always) and whatever other issues people are complaining about Twitch these days since I never bother to use it.
Amazon has been smashing faces with Google for a long time, and although I'd hate this be be a spate move (since I actually enjoy Twitch streams a lot), I see this as a fuck you to Google. Of course this isn't Amazon's first foray into streaming video, but it certainly is potentially their biggest dollar spend to build it up.Youtube has all but locked up the mindshare for static video, but most know that Youtube's a relatively small player in Streaming video, and Twitch is the top of the heap of this very specific and popular niche of that market.
You could very well be right in all the above and I wouldn't be surprised to see that at some point, but frankly who cares? Twitch has always had ads and the tiny bit of integration with mother ship seems fine.
As for lag, there's no 'lag' between gamer and chat. The streamer can and will put on stream delays to prevent cheaters from attempting to use up to date information against them in-game (Stream cheating does happen alas). There is always a little bit of lag, but generally speaking it doesn't happen notably most of the time. I do want IRC integration with twitch chat, but oh well... The song thing sucks, but to be fair, they are generally playing real artists songs without permission so at least that's a fair argument. I hope streamers just ditch the stream music all together. Its generally annoying more often than not anyways.
Their innovation was that they invent something that people like. Their advantage is that they invented it first and should have both the buzz and the initial profits of said game. If you think that magically a clone game company can write the exact same game at a fraction of the cost, I'd say you're a liar, the original company did it horribly, or they stole the content assets from the original.
1. Yeah, most likely. Games are not trivial to write. They're incrementally easier if you know exactly what you want it to do, but a trivial to develop game being trivial to write will get cloned... a LOT. How many platformers that behave 99% like mario exist in the market? Oh yeah, a metric F-ton.
2. The 'early into market advantage' is ruined due to expensive development, oh well. Do better next time
3. Direct copy is easy to identify and Google / Apple / etc.. will honor DMCA takedowns like anything else
Yes officer, I just yelled fire because 'someone else' did. I didn't start a panic for nefarious purposes or anything. There's only ONE place to report the threat of a bomb, and that's to authorities, not to a general public who can often knee jerk a response to a potentially real emergency without any form of organized response.
Coming up with my own startup is just too hard to do. Instead, can one of you think of a cool technology I can half-assed write in the hopes of getting a huge payout from some monolithic corp decides that they-too want to jump into the hot market of the moment?
e-books are less weight meaning they travel more often, and I am reading on average twice what I did on dead trees. Single data point entered.
I used Lync for precisely one thing, and that was to redirect my handset to my personal cell. I never touched it again. Instead I plugged in Pidgin which has relatively ok IM support for Lync and never touched it again.
Desktop sharing is built into the OS, and frankly I never used. I try to use hangouts whenever I get the chance, but sometimes I'm forced to use gotomeeting with some customers when they use it. No customer has ever asked for RDP / Lync based demos, and frankly I'm not even sure if its possible externally (well RDP is, but its an even worse demoing tool).
Meetings/N-way calling/video conferences / etc.. all rely on you converting your entire PBX infrastructure over to the MS way of things as well. So yeah, if you're FULLY VESTED in MS technologies, then absolutely you're going to get lift.
But I took an arrow to the knee.