If you are willing to buy your phone, you can get a pretty good deal from Ting. I really like their model and when my contract is up, I'm going to give them a try.
I don't understand how Microsoft and Sony think this will lead to higher profits.
I sometimes think that high prices aren't all about profit. It almost seems like Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo think it would be an insult to offer their best titles for $15 even if that meant they would make much more money. Prestige matters to them.
Even if they do that, the games aren't necessarily worth much money.
I still play and love games like Asteroids or Tetris. I've been playing Asteroids for around 30 years now and Tetris for 20. It doesn't get much more replayable than that.
You're not the only one. It's interesting to note that there's no market for used iPad games either. I suppose when the game is a few dollars, nobody cares.
Mobile device games are a lot like the games we used to play in video arcades. Frankly, I welcome the return of these smaller games.
You are really underestimating Gates and his intellect.
Re:os/2 was not able to windows 32 bit apps just 3
on
25 Years of IBM's OS/2
·
· Score: 1
You can also argue that their excellent support for Windows applications contributed to their downfall.
Where I worked, we made the decision to support only Windows because OS/2 could run it just as well (actually better). There was no point in supporting OS/2 natively for us.
It comes down to a simple business decision. Adding login via FB (or Twitter or Google or...) gets the site more users than if they make them create an account. Login exclusively through one of these sites also saves them in development and operational costs and lowers the amount of spamming and trolling. It means they lose some users (like yourself), but from the site's point of view, it's a net gain (at least for a Gawker-type sites, it would be different for someplace like Slashdot).
> I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication
It's just a way to remove a barrier to entry. Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID. It's easier (and arguably more secure) to authenticate through one of those services than to ask the user to make and remember yet another set of credentials. There are other reasons as well, but this one is a biggie.
The problem is that asking families to pay more in taxes to make the rules for constructing things like pressure vessels at nuclear reactors public is offensive as well. It's essentially a transfer of wealth from the public to the businesses built on these codes.
Paying for them once? These are all living documents and you are paying for changes from the previous years.
Many of the engineering codes are useful only to businesses and not individuals. Should the ASME code that governs the design of pressure vessels in nuclear reactors be paid for with tax money? It seems to me that paying for them with usage fees is okay most of the time. The ones that have broad applicability (like the NEC) are very inexpensive (under $100 new, even cheaper used).
These have to be paid for either through taxation or user fees. A new tax is a very tough sell in the US, so I don't see it changing any time soon.
I'm not too worried about Google. IMHO, if there is somebody out there to worry about, it's your ISP. They have a much better idea of what it is that you do on the internet and they have a well established history of doing whatever the government asks them to do. Thankfully TLS is quickly becoming the normal way of connecting to sites, so this does quite a bit to shield you from the prying eyes of your ISP.
This was a few years ago, but Shawn Hogan was sued by the MPAA for downloading "Meet the Fockers". He was prepared to fight it in court, but the MPAA settled with him eventually.
"Start an I.V. and tell the patient to remain calm, I'm on my way. I just have to transfer to the red-line bus on 43rd then it's only about a 20 minute ride from there.!"
Holy crap! My uncle has a PhD in History and he doesn't even have a cell phone. I'm going to let him know what the Slashdot legal experts have opined. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Problem is, I'm not going to see him until a couple of weeks from now. With my luck he'll get picked up before then. If only he carried a cell phone, I could call him and let him know.
AT&T is actually fairly reasonable when it comes to peering. You can see their terms here. I would be shocked if AT&T spent anything network access in the US.
They are going to keep the data caps as low as they possibly can. I'm convinced that throttling the heaviest users is just a way to reinforce this idea that using the network costs money. The truth is, the only problem on the network is peak time congestion and throttling the heaviest users has the same effect as throttling any user during peak time.
So, AT&T gets people used to the idea that data caps are normal and necessary. Step two is about approaching companies like Pandora, Netflix, and Google and make them this offer: if you pay us a lot of money, data transferred from your service won't count in the data cap calculation. They want to be paid two times for a single user's network usage. It's so obvious to me that this is what they are working on and it's disgusting.
Keeping in mind that a significant number of people visit Khan Academy from an iPad or iPhone, I think I would have chosen Javascript as well.
Also remember that this is an introductory class. It will be teaching looping, branching, etc... I think you could easily implement all of the essential algorithms from Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" books in Javascript.
I agree with you that burdening kids with syntax is counter productive. Personally, my favorite way to teach programming is with Lego Mindstorms. There's practically no typing involved and the results are very satisfying. Unfortunately, it's also very expensive.
I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits and municipalities find better ways to fund police departments (presumably self-driving cars wouldn't speed, run traffic lights, fail to signal turns, etc...).
Say self driving cars were to suddenly become popular and also assume that road deaths plummet. Thousands of lives are saved every year. Say also that a new car comes out with a software bug that leads to hundreds of deaths. Even though the net benefit is thousands of lives saved, the glitch that kills a hundred will lead to crushing lawsuits. What manufacturer wants to take on that kind of liability?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are willing to buy your phone, you can get a pretty good deal from Ting. I really like their model and when my contract is up, I'm going to give them a try.
I sometimes think that high prices aren't all about profit. It almost seems like Microsoft / Sony / Nintendo think it would be an insult to offer their best titles for $15 even if that meant they would make much more money. Prestige matters to them.
Even if they do that, the games aren't necessarily worth much money.
I still play and love games like Asteroids or Tetris. I've been playing Asteroids for around 30 years now and Tetris for 20. It doesn't get much more replayable than that.
You're not the only one. It's interesting to note that there's no market for used iPad games either. I suppose when the game is a few dollars, nobody cares.
Mobile device games are a lot like the games we used to play in video arcades. Frankly, I welcome the return of these smaller games.
He should also boycott the internet because of its association with DARPA project.
What do you think it is that patent lawyers do?
Second, who is suggesting that you should admire Gates? Highly intelligent is not a synonym for admirable. I don't even think the two are correlated.
You are really underestimating Gates and his intellect.
You can also argue that their excellent support for Windows applications contributed to their downfall.
Where I worked, we made the decision to support only Windows because OS/2 could run it just as well (actually better). There was no point in supporting OS/2 natively for us.
It all depends on how and what you are counting. I believe the 10% number is usually described as the number of Apple computers and it includes iPads.
It comes down to a simple business decision. Adding login via FB (or Twitter or Google or...) gets the site more users than if they make them create an account. Login exclusively through one of these sites also saves them in development and operational costs and lowers the amount of spamming and trolling. It means they lose some users (like yourself), but from the site's point of view, it's a net gain (at least for a Gawker-type sites, it would be different for someplace like Slashdot).
> I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication
It's just a way to remove a barrier to entry. Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID. It's easier (and arguably more secure) to authenticate through one of those services than to ask the user to make and remember yet another set of credentials. There are other reasons as well, but this one is a biggie.
The problem is that asking families to pay more in taxes to make the rules for constructing things like pressure vessels at nuclear reactors public is offensive as well. It's essentially a transfer of wealth from the public to the businesses built on these codes.
Paying for them once? These are all living documents and you are paying for changes from the previous years.
Many of the engineering codes are useful only to businesses and not individuals. Should the ASME code that governs the design of pressure vessels in nuclear reactors be paid for with tax money? It seems to me that paying for them with usage fees is okay most of the time. The ones that have broad applicability (like the NEC) are very inexpensive (under $100 new, even cheaper used).
These have to be paid for either through taxation or user fees. A new tax is a very tough sell in the US, so I don't see it changing any time soon.
I'm not too worried about Google. IMHO, if there is somebody out there to worry about, it's your ISP. They have a much better idea of what it is that you do on the internet and they have a well established history of doing whatever the government asks them to do. Thankfully TLS is quickly becoming the normal way of connecting to sites, so this does quite a bit to shield you from the prying eyes of your ISP.
This was a few years ago, but Shawn Hogan was sued by the MPAA for downloading "Meet the Fockers". He was prepared to fight it in court, but the MPAA settled with him eventually.
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
"Start an I.V. and tell the patient to remain calm, I'm on my way. I just have to transfer to the red-line bus on 43rd then it's only about a 20 minute ride from there.!"
Holy crap! My uncle has a PhD in History and he doesn't even have a cell phone. I'm going to let him know what the Slashdot legal experts have opined. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Problem is, I'm not going to see him until a couple of weeks from now. With my luck he'll get picked up before then. If only he carried a cell phone, I could call him and let him know.
Since antennas have military applications, it is getting attention. This article describes one interesting approach.
AT&T is actually fairly reasonable when it comes to peering. You can see their terms here. I would be shocked if AT&T spent anything network access in the US.
An antenna doesn't have to be on a tower. If the phone companies were really motivated to solve this problem, they could.
Their goal is much more devious.
They are going to keep the data caps as low as they possibly can. I'm convinced that throttling the heaviest users is just a way to reinforce this idea that using the network costs money. The truth is, the only problem on the network is peak time congestion and throttling the heaviest users has the same effect as throttling any user during peak time.
So, AT&T gets people used to the idea that data caps are normal and necessary. Step two is about approaching companies like Pandora, Netflix, and Google and make them this offer: if you pay us a lot of money, data transferred from your service won't count in the data cap calculation. They want to be paid two times for a single user's network usage. It's so obvious to me that this is what they are working on and it's disgusting.
Keeping in mind that a significant number of people visit Khan Academy from an iPad or iPhone, I think I would have chosen Javascript as well.
Also remember that this is an introductory class. It will be teaching looping, branching, etc... I think you could easily implement all of the essential algorithms from Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" books in Javascript.
I agree with you that burdening kids with syntax is counter productive. Personally, my favorite way to teach programming is with Lego Mindstorms. There's practically no typing involved and the results are very satisfying. Unfortunately, it's also very expensive.
Actually, I would think that a self-driving car would refuse to move if it only had working brakes on one wheel.
I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits and municipalities find better ways to fund police departments (presumably self-driving cars wouldn't speed, run traffic lights, fail to signal turns, etc...).
Say self driving cars were to suddenly become popular and also assume that road deaths plummet. Thousands of lives are saved every year. Say also that a new car comes out with a software bug that leads to hundreds of deaths. Even though the net benefit is thousands of lives saved, the glitch that kills a hundred will lead to crushing lawsuits. What manufacturer wants to take on that kind of liability?