Two ways to look at this. With these new rules, ISP's have new financial motivation to provide fast lanes to more subscribers. The odds of my house getting FIOS to the premises just increased significantly.
Why would you want the FCC to enforce some heavy-handed concept of fair play, when this government entity has no experience at doing so? Why not let the FTC, which has decades of experience at stopping antitrust abuses, and already has ALL the legal authority it needs to throw its weight around in this arena, do the work instead? And besides, narrower, more focused legal doctrines tend to be more enforceable anyways. Can you pick a scenario that Net Neutrality advocates worry over that can't already be tackled by the FTC?
If rich people cruise by in a slick fast lane, that doesn't necessarily imply the slow lane became "bad" all of a sudden. If I can still get 1080p streaming services (even if highly compressed) from smaller content providers in the slow lane, with the same quality as before, then I will remain happy enough, even if Netflix is able to run 15 Mbps 4K streaming traffic as well.
You're assuming the objective of DRM is to prevent everyone from getting ahold of content royalty-free, as opposed to simply preventing most people from doing so.
I find this comment absurd as a person playing games in both PC and console worlds. Your complaint isn't even aimed at Steam really, as it is a general attack on all bound-by-account DRM schemes (Is there one out there better than Steam?). Did you never try having two accounts as a solution to your problem, if simultaneous gameplay is that important? In my view, Steam is insanely friendly, making multiplayer a cinch, allowing use on any number of platforms at no extra cost, offering a fantastic library of titles for PC, Mac, and Linux (!!) for really low prices, etc. And yet, it still can't escape Slashdot whining. Good grief...
Typically an artist wants to get as many eyeballs on their creation as possible, no? You are suggesting Whedon would deliberately sabotage his audience numbers (and potential revenue) just to do some parlor trick? If that were the case, why would he even bother with Tribeca? Furthermore... Vimeo??
A rational person would realize popular product A has pros and cons when compared to popular product B. That rational person would not get bent out of shape shilling for either product A or product B. That rational person would not dismiss either product A or product B as merely being "shiny".
That depends on how you define your market. If you are just buying a "car" or "truck", you're right. If buying a brand new Honda Civic, and looking for available means of buying a Civic locally, then your regional selection may or may not be large enough such that a particular dealer might have a "monopoly" on selling Civics in your area. Truthfully, when it comes to purchasing NEW cars, I think a majority of shoppers are in between these two extremes... they may have narrowed down their choice of vehicles to two or three models, and start talking to salespeople at that stage.
Why should they? They are the Zoom Zoom car company, aiming for cheap and sporty. You can't make a cheap and sporty electric car, at least not one that can sell decently. (Disclaimer: I own two Mazdas, and the next car will probably be a Mazda.)
I think we are describing the same thing. Facebook convinced a couple manufacturers to pre-install that overlay in shipped units, and those probably did not sell great. But the overlay can still be manually installed from Google Play store, as far as I know, as is still in active development. I don't know how many downloads have been made to date.
As far as I know, FB has never sold a hardware product til now. So it's really hard to guess what business strategy they have in mind. If you remember, they even made efforts to avoid the cell phone market, selling FB overlay over Android instead.
Ah you beat me to this post. Note that much of the SL code is open-source, both client+server. I think GPL. Facebook could easily start from there as a low cost experiment if they wanted.
If you ban a player for a short interval, it's not enough to dissuade bad behavior. If you choose a long interval, they just join the game under a different player name. In essence, if a player's behavior has already deteriorated to the point of needing a ban, the battle is already lost.
Most models, including the ones cited by TFA, predict 1-2 C average global temp increase by the end of the century. Troll again, perhaps? The point being argued here, if you need comprehension help, is what the effect of that increase will be.
You didn't even RTFA, did you? Nowhere in the article does it say that Global Warming is wrong. This is about extreme storms, those strong enough to cause insured damages. That's a tangential point in regards overall climate patterns. Try reading first before accusing others of "fanaticism."
Slashdot Mirror
Two ways to look at this. With these new rules, ISP's have new financial motivation to provide fast lanes to more subscribers. The odds of my house getting FIOS to the premises just increased significantly.
Why would you want the FCC to enforce some heavy-handed concept of fair play, when this government entity has no experience at doing so? Why not let the FTC, which has decades of experience at stopping antitrust abuses, and already has ALL the legal authority it needs to throw its weight around in this arena, do the work instead? And besides, narrower, more focused legal doctrines tend to be more enforceable anyways. Can you pick a scenario that Net Neutrality advocates worry over that can't already be tackled by the FTC?
If rich people cruise by in a slick fast lane, that doesn't necessarily imply the slow lane became "bad" all of a sudden. If I can still get 1080p streaming services (even if highly compressed) from smaller content providers in the slow lane, with the same quality as before, then I will remain happy enough, even if Netflix is able to run 15 Mbps 4K streaming traffic as well.
You're assuming the objective of DRM is to prevent everyone from getting ahold of content royalty-free, as opposed to simply preventing most people from doing so.
I find this comment absurd as a person playing games in both PC and console worlds. Your complaint isn't even aimed at Steam really, as it is a general attack on all bound-by-account DRM schemes (Is there one out there better than Steam?). Did you never try having two accounts as a solution to your problem, if simultaneous gameplay is that important? In my view, Steam is insanely friendly, making multiplayer a cinch, allowing use on any number of platforms at no extra cost, offering a fantastic library of titles for PC, Mac, and Linux (!!) for really low prices, etc. And yet, it still can't escape Slashdot whining. Good grief...
Typically an artist wants to get as many eyeballs on their creation as possible, no? You are suggesting Whedon would deliberately sabotage his audience numbers (and potential revenue) just to do some parlor trick? If that were the case, why would he even bother with Tribeca? Furthermore... Vimeo??
This. Possibly an indie distributor would have picked it up, but Whedon's demands for the marketing or whatever were too much to deal with.
A rational person would realize popular product A has pros and cons when compared to popular product B. That rational person would not get bent out of shape shilling for either product A or product B. That rational person would not dismiss either product A or product B as merely being "shiny".
How is this better than vanilla Bluetooth Audio?
How is this better than competing Linux alternatives? Besides being more tightly wedded to Google services and the cloud, I mean.
That depends on how you define your market. If you are just buying a "car" or "truck", you're right. If buying a brand new Honda Civic, and looking for available means of buying a Civic locally, then your regional selection may or may not be large enough such that a particular dealer might have a "monopoly" on selling Civics in your area. Truthfully, when it comes to purchasing NEW cars, I think a majority of shoppers are in between these two extremes... they may have narrowed down their choice of vehicles to two or three models, and start talking to salespeople at that stage.
Why should they? They are the Zoom Zoom car company, aiming for cheap and sporty. You can't make a cheap and sporty electric car, at least not one that can sell decently. (Disclaimer: I own two Mazdas, and the next car will probably be a Mazda.)
It goes both ways. You can take regenerative braking and put it into a Mazda. In fact, Mazda has that as an option now on the Mazda3 already.
I think we are describing the same thing. Facebook convinced a couple manufacturers to pre-install that overlay in shipped units, and those probably did not sell great. But the overlay can still be manually installed from Google Play store, as far as I know, as is still in active development. I don't know how many downloads have been made to date.
Virtual money is buying virtual reality, using virtual math. I don't see any problem.
Full assimilation into the Borg also requires an iWatch. A wirelessly controlled sex toy can be thrown in optionally.
What does +1 LIKE mean in this context?
As far as I know, FB has never sold a hardware product til now. So it's really hard to guess what business strategy they have in mind. If you remember, they even made efforts to avoid the cell phone market, selling FB overlay over Android instead.
Ah you beat me to this post. Note that much of the SL code is open-source, both client+server. I think GPL. Facebook could easily start from there as a low cost experiment if they wanted.
Linden Labs virtual world can probably be obtained for dirt cheap, and it's the only thing in existence that makes sense linking FB and OCR.
Seems like a panic move once they saw the demo of Sony's new HMD.
If you ban a player for a short interval, it's not enough to dissuade bad behavior. If you choose a long interval, they just join the game under a different player name. In essence, if a player's behavior has already deteriorated to the point of needing a ban, the battle is already lost.
Seems like a lot of overlap exists between those two groups. From what I've seen, most bigots also spend a lot of time whining.
Most models, including the ones cited by TFA, predict 1-2 C average global temp increase by the end of the century. Troll again, perhaps? The point being argued here, if you need comprehension help, is what the effect of that increase will be.
You didn't even RTFA, did you? Nowhere in the article does it say that Global Warming is wrong. This is about extreme storms, those strong enough to cause insured damages. That's a tangential point in regards overall climate patterns. Try reading first before accusing others of "fanaticism."