You've obviously completely missed the implied humanity in Asimov's robots. I mean, have you READ the stories? Like I said, Asimov did some exploring and in essence showed that a moralistically-requiring system could not successfully enslave intelligent creatures. Obviously you missed all this, though, so I really don't know why I'm arguing with you.
I kinda disagree with you there. Asimov took a serious crack at coming up with a set of rules which would need to be implemented in order to make robots safe and useful, and then (like any good hacker) set about finding ways to break them; to prove that any system is inherently insecure. Obviously the laws are used as plot devices, but they weren't created solely so that he could create interesting stories, but so that he could explore something that hadn't been explored before. That theme is true throughout asimov's work, and also through the work of most of the best Scifi authors out there.
Well, the problem is that both states (the shipped from and shipped to) tend to claim taxability, so the federal gov't so far has made sure neither can do anything about it. Eventually there will probably be a solution, though it may just be higher taxation in other ways.
I am not even going to say which side I'm on here, I just thought I'd interject that property right is government upheld in the first place. IF the government exists to provide a safe environment with a free market AND it is determined that the best way it can do that is through moderate taxation (50-70% Europe being heavy), then it is well within reason that it do so. Again, I didn't say which side I'm on, I just think people's preconceptions about property and fundamental rights are hilarious. If the government weren't there, you'd have the RIGHT to have your neighbor shoot you and take everything you own. Who's to say where the appropriate middle ground is aside from an educated majority?
Well, the natural, obvious answer is that some will pay off, some won't. Venture capitalists don't make bets thinking that every one will pay off, you have to understand. A majority of these will pay off, and the overall market will expand and probably make the average payoff high enough to meet that hurdle that VCs expect on their multi-year investments. For some VCs that's a relatively small failure rate and 3-4x on their average deal. For late-stage VCs, it's an extremely low failure rate and 1.2x on their average deal. But think of it this way--if the aggregate investment in mobile game companies (not counting cash they themselves generate, but including cash non-mobile game companies pour into mobile development) adds up to a few hundred million after a few years and the market expands to $5 billion, then the payoff will probably meet VC hurdle rates (depending on the revenue multiple for sales, i.e. whether the sale of these companies leads to 1x revenue or 3x revenue). Need I remind you that the ringtone market alone was estimated at $3 billion last year?
I might also mention (sorry, I forgot before), that the percentage (which you name as 0.0001%) of legitimate content trafficked on p2p networks is highly variable. In the same manner as the VCR initially had no legitimate use because nobody made content-holding tapes at first, p2p networks have yet to host significant legitimate content. However, once the VCR was upheld as legal in US courts, content producers felt sufficiently safe making and distributing VCR tapes. In the same way, once a service like bittorrent shows its ability to survive a court case, companies will learn that it is a much cheaper way to distribute packages like SP2 than hosting them on a server. I would be willing to wager that they can be even more creative and draw even more profits/savings, if they choose to embrace the new technology rather than leave it to outlaws.
You're incredibly naive. While you're technically correct that the Act only bans networks found explicity encouraging infringing, the definition of "explicitly encouraging infringing" is highly variable based almost entirely on the sway of the copyright-holding corporations.
I'm just about the only person I know who can't touch type correctly. I technically hunt and peck with my middle fingers (mostly) at 50-60 wpm, though, so it works fine. I did have typing education in 4th and 5th grade, but I was one of those complete spazoids the article mentions who just didn't have the discipline to concentrate on learning something I didn't care about.
I agree that the game didn't really have much heart. Hopefully the company will take a cue from maxis and release the mod development tools to established modders beforehand so the mod-base can kick off on the right foot.
It's a good point, though. Linux will never have any application competitive advantage; only that of its core operating system's reliability, functionality, etc. Any application that will ever be developed for linux will be snatched up by anyone willing to implement a few relatively simple APIs in their OS.
Yeah, like the above people, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with ya there.
If we can praise rosa parks for having the guts to oppose unjust laws at possible personal penalty, and we can praise warren buffet for having berkshire hathoway NOT hide under insane tax shelters like every other fortune 500, then we can certainly condemn apple for using (currently only considering using) an unjust law to achieve a useless action.
Okay, so if (in theory) apple sells songs at breakeven on itunes to build brand and sell more ipods, why do they care if real sells songs and the ipod becomes a more valuable, cross-platform device?
Or is it just another case of a company being possessive just because somebody goes against what the company originally planned?
I completely agree with the idiocy of american puritanism. But, just one point: the "nipple slip" (she was actually wearing a pastie) was probably more objectionable than it would usually be because of the inexpectedness of it. That is, if you don't want your kids to see that, you can usually pay attention to ratings and have certain content expectations for regular TV, especially sports. But when the content is rated one way and turns out to be different, it's very difficult to "protect" one's children, so they almost have a point.
If you're so busy you can't dedicate one daily hour to a game, you shouldn't even try playing adventures.
I'm sorry, fuck you. If I want to play an adventure game with little time on my hands, I'll do just that. What the author is saying is that there's a very addressable market of people like him (and myself, a recently out of college investment banker with an interest but a short attention span and erratic schedule) who want to spend money on the right product. For you to say "don't bother" is idiotic; we're telling you "we enjoy this, so consider making it and you can make good money if you do it right."
Berkshire Hathoway is comparatively illiquid and stays out of the hands of the average investor. Buffet likes it this way, but that doesn't mean it's better to hold the stock as a shareholder. It still comes with an illiquidity discount that magnifies as the share price rises.
Oh, I definitely agree that there's plenty of great stonework here, NY, Philly, etc. (not to mention Europe), but it's beauty is not a part of our lives, it's something that has to be looked at as a thing of the past. Moreover, we spend shitloads of money maintaining the old stuff because the typical thinking is that it can never be replicated, which simply may not be true anymore.
I mean, I can see the garden gnomes, but I can also see every new office building being built with beautiful sculptured sides, windows, etc.
You know those old buildings where every single one of the hundreds of windows has a beautifully sculpted frame? That's been impossibly expensive for seventy years, but people can again begin to do that sort of thing, and I'm certain artists will pick up on it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've obviously completely missed the implied humanity in Asimov's robots. I mean, have you READ the stories? Like I said, Asimov did some exploring and in essence showed that a moralistically-requiring system could not successfully enslave intelligent creatures. Obviously you missed all this, though, so I really don't know why I'm arguing with you.
I kinda disagree with you there. Asimov took a serious crack at coming up with a set of rules which would need to be implemented in order to make robots safe and useful, and then (like any good hacker) set about finding ways to break them; to prove that any system is inherently insecure. Obviously the laws are used as plot devices, but they weren't created solely so that he could create interesting stories, but so that he could explore something that hadn't been explored before. That theme is true throughout asimov's work, and also through the work of most of the best Scifi authors out there.
Well, the problem is that both states (the shipped from and shipped to) tend to claim taxability, so the federal gov't so far has made sure neither can do anything about it. Eventually there will probably be a solution, though it may just be higher taxation in other ways.
And I'm sorry you're such a nerd
(kidding! I play DnD too!)
Don't we already?
I'm sure to get 'insightful' for that one!!
I am not even going to say which side I'm on here, I just thought I'd interject that property right is government upheld in the first place. IF the government exists to provide a safe environment with a free market AND it is determined that the best way it can do that is through moderate taxation (50-70% Europe being heavy), then it is well within reason that it do so. Again, I didn't say which side I'm on, I just think people's preconceptions about property and fundamental rights are hilarious. If the government weren't there, you'd have the RIGHT to have your neighbor shoot you and take everything you own. Who's to say where the appropriate middle ground is aside from an educated majority?
Well, the natural, obvious answer is that some will pay off, some won't. Venture capitalists don't make bets thinking that every one will pay off, you have to understand. A majority of these will pay off, and the overall market will expand and probably make the average payoff high enough to meet that hurdle that VCs expect on their multi-year investments. For some VCs that's a relatively small failure rate and 3-4x on their average deal. For late-stage VCs, it's an extremely low failure rate and 1.2x on their average deal. But think of it this way--if the aggregate investment in mobile game companies (not counting cash they themselves generate, but including cash non-mobile game companies pour into mobile development) adds up to a few hundred million after a few years and the market expands to $5 billion, then the payoff will probably meet VC hurdle rates (depending on the revenue multiple for sales, i.e. whether the sale of these companies leads to 1x revenue or 3x revenue). Need I remind you that the ringtone market alone was estimated at $3 billion last year?
Or you could be like most of the US and code only for IE ^_-
I might also mention (sorry, I forgot before), that the percentage (which you name as 0.0001%) of legitimate content trafficked on p2p networks is highly variable. In the same manner as the VCR initially had no legitimate use because nobody made content-holding tapes at first, p2p networks have yet to host significant legitimate content. However, once the VCR was upheld as legal in US courts, content producers felt sufficiently safe making and distributing VCR tapes. In the same way, once a service like bittorrent shows its ability to survive a court case, companies will learn that it is a much cheaper way to distribute packages like SP2 than hosting them on a server. I would be willing to wager that they can be even more creative and draw even more profits/savings, if they choose to embrace the new technology rather than leave it to outlaws.
You're incredibly naive. While you're technically correct that the Act only bans networks found explicity encouraging infringing, the definition of "explicitly encouraging infringing" is highly variable based almost entirely on the sway of the copyright-holding corporations.
I'm just about the only person I know who can't touch type correctly. I technically hunt and peck with my middle fingers (mostly) at 50-60 wpm, though, so it works fine. I did have typing education in 4th and 5th grade, but I was one of those complete spazoids the article mentions who just didn't have the discipline to concentrate on learning something I didn't care about.
In the case of significant question, they can recount paper votes. They cannot do so with electronic votes.
I agree that the game didn't really have much heart. Hopefully the company will take a cue from maxis and release the mod development tools to established modders beforehand so the mod-base can kick off on the right foot.
It's a good point, though. Linux will never have any application competitive advantage; only that of its core operating system's reliability, functionality, etc. Any application that will ever be developed for linux will be snatched up by anyone willing to implement a few relatively simple APIs in their OS.
regardless of whether or not people stole the game, you really think they lost 2+ mil? That's idiocy.
And anyway, I downloaded it to see if it would run decently on my box, and it definitely did not. So I'm not buying it. You want to whine about that?
I'm a 22 year old cancer survivor and I don't need to say anything more than this: Laughter is the ONLY fucking way to get through this stuff.
Yeah, like the above people, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with ya there.
If we can praise rosa parks for having the guts to oppose unjust laws at possible personal penalty, and we can praise warren buffet for having berkshire hathoway NOT hide under insane tax shelters like every other fortune 500, then we can certainly condemn apple for using (currently only considering using) an unjust law to achieve a useless action.
Okay, so if (in theory) apple sells songs at breakeven on itunes to build brand and sell more ipods, why do they care if real sells songs and the ipod becomes a more valuable, cross-platform device?
Or is it just another case of a company being possessive just because somebody goes against what the company originally planned?
I completely agree with the idiocy of american puritanism. But, just one point: the "nipple slip" (she was actually wearing a pastie) was probably more objectionable than it would usually be because of the inexpectedness of it. That is, if you don't want your kids to see that, you can usually pay attention to ratings and have certain content expectations for regular TV, especially sports. But when the content is rated one way and turns out to be different, it's very difficult to "protect" one's children, so they almost have a point.
If you're so busy you can't dedicate one daily hour to a game, you shouldn't even try playing adventures.
I'm sorry, fuck you. If I want to play an adventure game with little time on my hands, I'll do just that. What the author is saying is that there's a very addressable market of people like him (and myself, a recently out of college investment banker with an interest but a short attention span and erratic schedule) who want to spend money on the right product. For you to say "don't bother" is idiotic; we're telling you "we enjoy this, so consider making it and you can make good money if you do it right."
No worries, no worries; I'm sure you're not an economic idiot.
That's a signature, buddy--it's what those two strokes are for. Not directed in the least towards you, just towards the general slashdot crowd.
Berkshire Hathoway is comparatively illiquid and stays out of the hands of the average investor. Buffet likes it this way, but that doesn't mean it's better to hold the stock as a shareholder. It still comes with an illiquidity discount that magnifies as the share price rises.
Your signature hurts my brain! Can there be any logic or reason behind it?
Oh, I definitely agree that there's plenty of great stonework here, NY, Philly, etc. (not to mention Europe), but it's beauty is not a part of our lives, it's something that has to be looked at as a thing of the past. Moreover, we spend shitloads of money maintaining the old stuff because the typical thinking is that it can never be replicated, which simply may not be true anymore.
I mean, I can see the garden gnomes, but I can also see every new office building being built with beautiful sculptured sides, windows, etc.
You know those old buildings where every single one of the hundreds of windows has a beautifully sculpted frame? That's been impossibly expensive for seventy years, but people can again begin to do that sort of thing, and I'm certain artists will pick up on it.