This is why I like HTC. Their hardware is comparable, if not better, than most others on the market. They don't take c@rp from other companies. Add this to the mix, and it's why I have them at the top of my list when looking at phones. I'll take "not quite as sparkly" as phones from Apple and Samsung. I want durable, solid, functioning equipment, and HTC continues to deliver on that.
More likely something like this...
"Your gene is in my body, and it made me sick. You're going to pay me for having it, for my medical treatment, and my pain and suffering."
The first time the courts rule in favor of a cancer patient that way, you'll see every company out there abandoning their gene patents. They want to protect their right to make money, then they have to assume the liability for their "product".
Since Google admitted they do that, Microsoft is pointing at that and saying how Google is bad for it. What Microsoft isn't telling anyone is that they are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING (well, may not exactly, but darn near close to it), but isn't telling you they are. Thus, their results are "better" because they are sneaky about it.
No, the drivers lose in the cost of gas to go out. They lose tips for non-existent deliveries. They lose income from people being angry and petty. Remember, the people working in the stores aren't the ones who sent the spam, but they will be the ones to bear the worst of the punishment for such actions. Best response is to just not buy from them anymore. I've stopped ordering a long time ago when I found out he was a heavy political backer of the "nut-job right" (not to be confused with actual Conservatives).
I loved the series too. There was a lot to like. It was a well-made game, even if it was incredibly hard at times. Lots of fun, and great to play with friends. Considering how this predates the MarioKart games, with a lot of similar concepts, RESPECT YER ELDERS!
One of the things I liked about the WipEout games for Playstation was that all the music was on the game disks. There was some good stuff, and I started listening to more music from some of the artists. I'm glad I've kept the games all this time. Think I know what I'll be listening to on the drive home from work today.
It's not becoming.
Meanwhile, I'm laughing over here at how this really is funny, and how Google won the day by not only having a sense of humor, but using that instead of lawyers. This could have been ignored. This could have been answered by a terse e-mail about how inaccurate Inman's portrayal of G+ is compared to actual numbers. But no, the brains at Google decided to just prove the guy wrong, at least in his own case, and everyone involved has a good-natured laugh.
I think, instead of suits, lawyers should have to dress up as clowns to go to court. If we all laughed a little more, society would be a better place.
That would, IMO, depend on the startup, and what you contribution to that startup will get you. If all you get for your money is a great big "Thank you" e-mail and that's it, then I'd say go to the video game store and rummage through the discount bin, you'll do better. Find out just how involved you'll be able to be, and what the project promises in the way of communication, updates, and other "stuff". Many people have stated the "when it works, it works really well" idea, and I hold to that as well. But like anything else, a project can fail, even with funding. Kickstarter is not the place for skeptics and cynics, though a good dose of critical thinking is needed before backing a project.
Add to the the fact that we live in a world where, if you do pull something like the above scam concept, people will know AND make sure everyone else they can tell knows. Information is too quickly spread all over the internet now to hide for long. This kind of Kickstarter scam idea is pretty much a one-shot for someone. Once your name is associated with one, you're pretty much done trying to get anyone to back anything you might try to do.
Some days I miss my old Atari 800 computer, with the 32MB ram, 2 5 1/4" disk drives, and blasting Star Raiders out my stereo speakers in the college dorms. Aah, good times.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
I would agree to this with one additional provision. A couple MUST have a civil, not religious, joining for the legal status to be in place. Meaning, if it happened in a church, it's not legal.
Just wait until they merge that with the rest of their technology. Next time you see a person, you'll see their G+ status, the latest picture they took, where they've been in the past 12 hours, and a bunch of "you might also like" ads from their partners. Unfortunately, what you won't see is the ditch you're about to fall into because your goggles are cluttered with junk.
It would. And it is a problem easily ('easily' in theory, though not perhaps in execution) solved:
I can create characters 'online,' which are stored on Blizzard servers, only playable when connected to the internet for communication with said servers, and can vend their inventories on an RMT market.
I can also create characters 'offline,' which can be played anytime, connected or not, and whose inventories can't interact with an RMT market.
This is a solution which would give Blizzard the ability to keep a tight reign on RMT market activity and still give people to chance to play on a plane, or on a laptop with the wireless off to save battery, or on a dodgy internet connection. It would not, however, serve as DRM, which is half the reason (if not more) why they're doing this in the first place.
Yes, Blizzard wants to control RMT stuff tightly, which is why the game is "always online." But they also want to try and stop the pirates, which is why there's no offline play. Simply put, their desire to try and stop the pirates is more important to them than an offline mode for the (who knows how many) players that want/need it.
Oh, so much like in Diablo II, where your on-line character was different from your local? Funny, you'd think that if such a thing were already possible, it could be a feature in the new game. Guess the devs didn't consider that path.
On a whim, I dug out my old Diablo II and Lord of Darkness disks. Registering my game on their BattleNet site was easy, and was given new "in game" keys for downloading the client, with patches. Sure, the graphics don't look so good, but I can play. And the online servers are still there, allowing people to play the full-featured game, with all the benefits of the network. If being connected on-line is going to be required to play for Diablo III, Blizzard has shown that they will make sure that the game is available.
This pub was one of the first targets in a campaign by the Saul Zentz Company, demanding small businesses in the UK to stop using their trademarks. It doesn't matter in this case if the pub uses stills from the movies, because this is not Warner Bros sueing over copyrights of the Peter Jackson movies. The SZC acquired rights to the Hobbit and LOTR stories in '76, but never bothered enforcing them to small businesses, until well after Peter Jackson repopularized the stories (some 20 years after the pub started).
More proof that no one really cares about their stuff until they can see a way to make money from it. Sounds to me like SZC, after being openly exposed for their actions, is trying to fix what could end up being a PR nightmare. Plus, it's a chance to get in cozy with a few celeBRITies. And, like it was stated above, the pub gets some public notice as well. In the end, everyone makes money. Isn't that the way it should be?
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I like HTC. Their hardware is comparable, if not better, than most others on the market. They don't take c@rp from other companies. Add this to the mix, and it's why I have them at the top of my list when looking at phones. I'll take "not quite as sparkly" as phones from Apple and Samsung. I want durable, solid, functioning equipment, and HTC continues to deliver on that.
More likely something like this... "Your gene is in my body, and it made me sick. You're going to pay me for having it, for my medical treatment, and my pain and suffering." The first time the courts rule in favor of a cancer patient that way, you'll see every company out there abandoning their gene patents. They want to protect their right to make money, then they have to assume the liability for their "product".
Since Google admitted they do that, Microsoft is pointing at that and saying how Google is bad for it. What Microsoft isn't telling anyone is that they are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING (well, may not exactly, but darn near close to it), but isn't telling you they are. Thus, their results are "better" because they are sneaky about it.
Copyright.
Best response that anyone could make. Besides, we all know that turning him into Iron Man would have been a better choice.
He has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right not to listen to it.
No, the drivers lose in the cost of gas to go out. They lose tips for non-existent deliveries. They lose income from people being angry and petty. Remember, the people working in the stores aren't the ones who sent the spam, but they will be the ones to bear the worst of the punishment for such actions. Best response is to just not buy from them anymore. I've stopped ordering a long time ago when I found out he was a heavy political backer of the "nut-job right" (not to be confused with actual Conservatives).
They're not that smart. The day I see a Dice.com logo on this page, I'm signing off for good. !@#$%-ing job scammers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHMzCpy0fXc Original music video by Fluke that was a tie-in to WipEout. More goodness from our memories.
I loved the series too. There was a lot to like. It was a well-made game, even if it was incredibly hard at times. Lots of fun, and great to play with friends. Considering how this predates the MarioKart games, with a lot of similar concepts, RESPECT YER ELDERS!
One of the things I liked about the WipEout games for Playstation was that all the music was on the game disks. There was some good stuff, and I started listening to more music from some of the artists. I'm glad I've kept the games all this time. Think I know what I'll be listening to on the drive home from work today.
It's not becoming. Meanwhile, I'm laughing over here at how this really is funny, and how Google won the day by not only having a sense of humor, but using that instead of lawyers. This could have been ignored. This could have been answered by a terse e-mail about how inaccurate Inman's portrayal of G+ is compared to actual numbers. But no, the brains at Google decided to just prove the guy wrong, at least in his own case, and everyone involved has a good-natured laugh. I think, instead of suits, lawyers should have to dress up as clowns to go to court. If we all laughed a little more, society would be a better place.
That would, IMO, depend on the startup, and what you contribution to that startup will get you. If all you get for your money is a great big "Thank you" e-mail and that's it, then I'd say go to the video game store and rummage through the discount bin, you'll do better. Find out just how involved you'll be able to be, and what the project promises in the way of communication, updates, and other "stuff". Many people have stated the "when it works, it works really well" idea, and I hold to that as well. But like anything else, a project can fail, even with funding. Kickstarter is not the place for skeptics and cynics, though a good dose of critical thinking is needed before backing a project.
Add to the the fact that we live in a world where, if you do pull something like the above scam concept, people will know AND make sure everyone else they can tell knows. Information is too quickly spread all over the internet now to hide for long. This kind of Kickstarter scam idea is pretty much a one-shot for someone. Once your name is associated with one, you're pretty much done trying to get anyone to back anything you might try to do.
THIS! ^^^
Activate the steel plates blocking all exits, then releasing the trained attack hounds? Perhaps after, it can also deploy the cleaning robots.
Some days I miss my old Atari 800 computer, with the 32MB ram, 2 5 1/4" disk drives, and blasting Star Raiders out my stereo speakers in the college dorms. Aah, good times.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
I would agree to this with one additional provision. A couple MUST have a civil, not religious, joining for the legal status to be in place. Meaning, if it happened in a church, it's not legal.
But they still won't let you walk around town with a shotgun, will they?
Just wait until they merge that with the rest of their technology. Next time you see a person, you'll see their G+ status, the latest picture they took, where they've been in the past 12 hours, and a bunch of "you might also like" ads from their partners. Unfortunately, what you won't see is the ditch you're about to fall into because your goggles are cluttered with junk.
It would. And it is a problem easily ('easily' in theory, though not perhaps in execution) solved: I can create characters 'online,' which are stored on Blizzard servers, only playable when connected to the internet for communication with said servers, and can vend their inventories on an RMT market. I can also create characters 'offline,' which can be played anytime, connected or not, and whose inventories can't interact with an RMT market. This is a solution which would give Blizzard the ability to keep a tight reign on RMT market activity and still give people to chance to play on a plane, or on a laptop with the wireless off to save battery, or on a dodgy internet connection. It would not, however, serve as DRM, which is half the reason (if not more) why they're doing this in the first place. Yes, Blizzard wants to control RMT stuff tightly, which is why the game is "always online." But they also want to try and stop the pirates, which is why there's no offline play. Simply put, their desire to try and stop the pirates is more important to them than an offline mode for the (who knows how many) players that want/need it.
Oh, so much like in Diablo II, where your on-line character was different from your local? Funny, you'd think that if such a thing were already possible, it could be a feature in the new game. Guess the devs didn't consider that path.
On a whim, I dug out my old Diablo II and Lord of Darkness disks. Registering my game on their BattleNet site was easy, and was given new "in game" keys for downloading the client, with patches. Sure, the graphics don't look so good, but I can play. And the online servers are still there, allowing people to play the full-featured game, with all the benefits of the network. If being connected on-line is going to be required to play for Diablo III, Blizzard has shown that they will make sure that the game is available.
Microsoft, the Godwin of IT tech arguments? Discuss.
Right, because it was the US that started that war by invading Poland....
One does not simply walk into Mordor...
No, you need a reservation.
This pub was one of the first targets in a campaign by the Saul Zentz Company, demanding small businesses in the UK to stop using their trademarks. It doesn't matter in this case if the pub uses stills from the movies, because this is not Warner Bros sueing over copyrights of the Peter Jackson movies. The SZC acquired rights to the Hobbit and LOTR stories in '76, but never bothered enforcing them to small businesses, until well after Peter Jackson repopularized the stories (some 20 years after the pub started).
More proof that no one really cares about their stuff until they can see a way to make money from it. Sounds to me like SZC, after being openly exposed for their actions, is trying to fix what could end up being a PR nightmare. Plus, it's a chance to get in cozy with a few celeBRITies. And, like it was stated above, the pub gets some public notice as well. In the end, everyone makes money. Isn't that the way it should be?