Yes. You'd probably also want monthly service, although you don't need to and I suppose you could just use Skype. It's available now for $90 off Amazon. I hope I don't sound like a Nokia 521 salesman.
TMobile has sold the Windows-based Nokia Lumia 521 for $100 (non contract) for half a year or a year now. It's supposed to be a pretty decent phone for the low-end. $100 is already pretty low, and surely with the continual progress of hardware they could install the phone OS on $50 hardware.
Android has become the de facto standard, and people would have to have some compelling reason to choose Windows phone over the system everybody else has.
It's not like picking mushrooms is a cost-efficient way to get free food. Mushrooms have few calories, you probably spend more searching for them than you actually acquire. It's that they taste better than mushrooms you get at the store, they're fresher, there's varieties you can't normally buy, and it's kind of a fun activity when you're hiking. In Europe and Japan and many other nations, hunting for mushrooms is fairly common.
Only a very small amount of fungi is poisonous, as long as you know what you're doing it's not inherently dangerous to pick them.
You're really straining to try to make a point. iPads/tablets aren't primarily game machines. Sure you can play games on them, but I'm guessing people play games on computer even more, and sales of computers have been going down.
Also, video games aren't just an American thing. Nintendo and PS4, for instance...
And consoles aren't investments in the future. They're just something you play video games on. If you enjoy video games, no harm done. The video game crash of '84 was bad for the companies, but it's not like consumers got burned by their Atari suddenly becoming worthless.
Only, it wasn't a computer in the modern parlance of being general purpose, programmable, and Turling-complete. It was more like an advanced calculator, that only worked for a single job.
Right, I bought Blu Ray so I could see the stretched out skin of porn stars. My smart phone was for pictures of 4" tall women masturbating, well that and and sex chat lines. My GPS helps me find strip clubs, my solar panels keep vibrators charged, and then they're controlled by bluetooth over my Android Tablet.
I mean, sure, independently created Youtube videos are fun and all, but personally I think copyrighted, studio created works that people actually care about forward the arts more. For instance, I prefer "Breaking Bad" to the latest cute puppy videos.
Without copyrights, puppy videos are all we'd have left. Nobody is going to make "Game of Thrones" out of the goodness of their heart.
Well to be fair it's a creationist vs. one of the high Fivin' White guys. It's not like Stephen Hawking is arguing about whether or not there's turtles all the way down.
Yeah, and they weren't called "Zelda" so nobody gave a fuck.
It logically follows that IP protection in video games doesn't actually discourage innovation or game development (people still made zelda-type games), but just financially rewards the people who made the original IP (Nintendo still makes money at it). Isn't that a good argument in favor of video game companies being able to restrict IP?
Duke Nukem 3D is an easy target I suppose, but what about Nintendo? They released Wind Waker & Metroid Prime way after the original products, and these are considered among 2 of the best games ever released for a console. Would these games ever have been released if the IP had gone public and 200 shitty Zelda clones were released in 1993? Their entire business is based on revamps of older games, and yet Nintendo certainly has its fans.
Well it's like saying JK Rowling doesn't make money off tomes of paper (and ebooks and audio books, I suppose).
She herself doesn't, Scholastic does. However because they have the right to profit off tomes of paper, they give JK Rowling a lot of money. So another way of phrasing the issue is, do artists have the right to sell their artistic works?
You treat the word "corporations" like it's a buzzword for "evil." However every single piece of pop culture you love was released by a corporation. Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Indian MILFs #13, the Beatles. And in turn, these corporations compensated the artists responsible.
I agree that companies should for defunct games. However for the most part, the games that people actually care about are still being sold/being re-made. Nintendo makes repackaged 80s games the core of its business, Burger King's happy meal somehow is 'Pac Man,'.
Realistically, do people still pull out 1987 copies of Leisure Suit Larry, and does this get them excited about the recent re-release?
Linus Pauling didn't deserve his Peace Prize, and his deserved prize in Chemistry should be rescinded for the way he became the world's greatest quack, largely responsible for the food supplement industry.
Obama won the Peace Prize for being a president who wasn't Bush. Nobel prizes are an asinine political statement by a committee that's become reactionary anti-American and anti-China.
Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.
Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.
Surprise! Electric cars still need work to accommodate people who drive 240+ miles in a day. That's one of the reasons the author says "2030" instead of "2014."
But effectively you are using solar to charge your car - by supplying power to the utilities, your utility is acting as a battery. Your neighbor is lighting his house with your solar power, when otherwise it would be oil-derived energy.
Sure, if 80% of households were on solar, the analogy wouldn't work. But if it got to that point, different systems would be in place. Perhaps the power company would have systems to hold extra potential energy, or people would use heating systems that didn't need constant energy input.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You'd probably also want monthly service, although you don't need to and I suppose you could just use Skype.
It's available now for $90 off Amazon.
I hope I don't sound like a Nokia 521 salesman.
TMobile has sold the Windows-based Nokia Lumia 521 for $100 (non contract) for half a year or a year now. It's supposed to be a pretty decent phone for the low-end. $100 is already pretty low, and surely with the continual progress of hardware they could install the phone OS on $50 hardware.
Android has become the de facto standard, and people would have to have some compelling reason to choose Windows phone over the system everybody else has.
It's not like picking mushrooms is a cost-efficient way to get free food. Mushrooms have few calories, you probably spend more searching for them than you actually acquire. It's that they taste better than mushrooms you get at the store, they're fresher, there's varieties you can't normally buy, and it's kind of a fun activity when you're hiking. In Europe and Japan and many other nations, hunting for mushrooms is fairly common.
Only a very small amount of fungi is poisonous, as long as you know what you're doing it's not inherently dangerous to pick them.
That's why they say, if it tastes good spit it out!
You're really straining to try to make a point. iPads/tablets aren't primarily game machines. Sure you can play games on them, but I'm guessing people play games on computer even more, and sales of computers have been going down.
Also, video games aren't just an American thing. Nintendo and PS4, for instance...
And consoles aren't investments in the future. They're just something you play video games on. If you enjoy video games, no harm done. The video game crash of '84 was bad for the companies, but it's not like consumers got burned by their Atari suddenly becoming worthless.
Only, it wasn't a computer in the modern parlance of being general purpose, programmable, and Turling-complete. It was more like an advanced calculator, that only worked for a single job.
Also, Beta sucks.
Right, I bought Blu Ray so I could see the stretched out skin of porn stars. My smart phone was for pictures of 4" tall women masturbating, well that and and sex chat lines. My GPS helps me find strip clubs, my solar panels keep vibrators charged, and then they're controlled by bluetooth over my Android Tablet.
Yeah he did some great programming back in the mid 90s.
I mean, sure, independently created Youtube videos are fun and all, but personally I think copyrighted, studio created works that people actually care about forward the arts more. For instance, I prefer "Breaking Bad" to the latest cute puppy videos.
Without copyrights, puppy videos are all we'd have left. Nobody is going to make "Game of Thrones" out of the goodness of their heart.
Well to be fair it's a creationist vs. one of the high Fivin' White guys. It's not like Stephen Hawking is arguing about whether or not there's turtles all the way down.
Yeah, and they weren't called "Zelda" so nobody gave a fuck.
It logically follows that IP protection in video games doesn't actually discourage innovation or game development (people still made zelda-type games), but just financially rewards the people who made the original IP (Nintendo still makes money at it). Isn't that a good argument in favor of video game companies being able to restrict IP?
Duke Nukem 3D is an easy target I suppose, but what about Nintendo? They released Wind Waker & Metroid Prime way after the original products, and these are considered among 2 of the best games ever released for a console. Would these games ever have been released if the IP had gone public and 200 shitty Zelda clones were released in 1993? Their entire business is based on revamps of older games, and yet Nintendo certainly has its fans.
Well it's like saying JK Rowling doesn't make money off tomes of paper (and ebooks and audio books, I suppose).
She herself doesn't, Scholastic does. However because they have the right to profit off tomes of paper, they give JK Rowling a lot of money. So another way of phrasing the issue is, do artists have the right to sell their artistic works?
You treat the word "corporations" like it's a buzzword for "evil." However every single piece of pop culture you love was released by a corporation. Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Indian MILFs #13, the Beatles. And in turn, these corporations compensated the artists responsible.
I agree that companies should for defunct games. However for the most part, the games that people actually care about are still being sold/being re-made. Nintendo makes repackaged 80s games the core of its business, Burger King's happy meal somehow is 'Pac Man,'.
Realistically, do people still pull out 1987 copies of Leisure Suit Larry, and does this get them excited about the recent re-release?
Does this mean thepiratebay is full of great artists? JewHater69's "More seedz pleez" comment might one day be shown in the Guggenheim?
A $50 Roku or $60 Blue Ray player can already stream Amazon content fine. Heck, even a Kindle Fire has a micro-HDMI cable.
$300 for an Android game console would be nuts, but it would actually make a lot more sense than a $300 streaming device.
$100 for an Amazon version of the Ouya would be kind of cool.
Linus Pauling didn't deserve his Peace Prize, and his deserved prize in Chemistry should be rescinded for the way he became the world's greatest quack, largely responsible for the food supplement industry.
Obama won the Peace Prize for being a president who wasn't Bush. Nobel prizes are an asinine political statement by a committee that's become reactionary anti-American and anti-China.
Right, just google pictures of people at EVE conventions and you are looking at the very definition of 21st century cool.
This will really help companies that need to make plastic cups and little toys - and in a hurry!
Presumably the movies that got requested more would receive a larger chunk of the pie.
Are people in China going to agree to this? 45% of the entire world's internet subscriber base strikes me as absurd.
Sure if Photoshop sold for $3 to every single person who owns a PC they would make way more money than if they sold their software for several hundred dollars. But it's not going to happen.
I doubt people are going to get over the whole "use the internet to communicate with friends" thing any time soon.
Surprise! Electric cars still need work to accommodate people who drive 240+ miles in a day. That's one of the reasons the author says "2030" instead of "2014."
But effectively you are using solar to charge your car - by supplying power to the utilities, your utility is acting as a battery. Your neighbor is lighting his house with your solar power, when otherwise it would be oil-derived energy.
Sure, if 80% of households were on solar, the analogy wouldn't work. But if it got to that point, different systems would be in place. Perhaps the power company would have systems to hold extra potential energy, or people would use heating systems that didn't need constant energy input.