Legal issues pertaining to competitions, basically. You'll find that most contests run by US companies limit entry to residents of the United States and, sometimes, Canada.
The last four digits of a US SSN are allocated in sequence from 0000 to 9999 for a given SSN group. They are exactly and completely uninterpretable and arbitrary.
That'll probably about the same time that horror games stop using movie approaches to scares. There's a lot of horror games that enhance their effect through interactivity, but I can't think of many that achieve scares that are completely unique to the interactive medium.
Not to rip on an article that's just a bunch of one-sentence summaries of other articles and a saucy eyebrow-raise, but the 1% drop cited in the article is in search marketshare. The total value of search ads went up by about 10% in the same period, meaning that Google's revenues almost certainly grew over that period. It's just that they grew slightly more slowly than the newcomers.
Especially quesitonable is giving jurors access to court wi-fi in exchange for participation. The jurors are hardly going to be neutral to that nice man who gave them web access during the boring selection thingie.
I suspect it's the iPod Shuffle all over again. Apple was able to undercut competitors on price by buying up a simple majority of the available flash memory supply. They're probably doing something similar on displays to keep the iPad cost low without compromising their "high-end" image.
(That they're willing to cut off features on the presumption that they're not big selling points can't hurt.)
There's a lot of things to gripe about with the iPad, but a rear camera? A gyroscope? Holding up a 10-inch aluminium slab to wave it around and take pictures are make-or-break features to you? You sound like the kind of guy who has a laser sight on his golf clubs.
By the same logic, detonating a thermonuclear weapon on the seafloor would be harmless because it'd be the equivalent of firing a capgun in your tank. Reductio ad absurdum. Linear scalling is not universal.
Given that the proposal only applies to England and the article actually discussees the government's issues with keeping the move unified across the UK, the summary is totally accurate.
Jailbreaking it for the purpose of changing wireless carrier. The exception's rather neatly circumscribed, you can bet that any jailbreak which allows you to bypass the PlayStation Suite's DRM will have no protection.
I really don't think so. Nokia's European marketshare was hurting as much as anywhere else, e.g. http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=25353 The 5800 did very well but was a low-margin handset, while the N97 was popularly perceived as a turkey and nobody bought the damn thing. The trend here, as much as everywhere else, was for touchscreen phones with a lot of popular apps, and Nokia just did not deliver on either. They were still pimping a Blackberry-alike, 320x240 E72 as their premium business handset as late as last year.
That's an interesting idea, but Nokia was barely coping with putting out bug-free releases and providing customer and developer support on one smartphone OS. I shudder to imagine the state of the handsets they'd be shipping if they had to work on three.
(There's the customer confusion argument, too. Nokia already does about 20 new handsets a year to ensure it's properly fertilising all the niches, make it 60 and it'd be chaotic.)
It's safe to assume that everyone that's developing on Android is already a major Nokia patent licencee. They've got reciprocal agreements with almost everyone that mean they make money and avoid patent suits. Using a patent as a club's nowhere near as profitable as using it as a revenue stream and a white flag, assuming you're an actual product-developing business and not just an IP warehouse.
Nokia's stock would've fallen even if they'd announced they were partnering with Jesus to bring an open-source version of iOS with Android's user interface to the market. They've spent absurd amounts of money acquiring and developing Symbian and collaborating on MeeGo as their primary platforms for the next decade, so switching to any alternative is a tacit admission that they'd thrown that money down the drain. A new partnership also involves a big transitional period in which it's very difficult to make much money. Investors do not like that kind of news.
You seem to be under the impression that legal admissibility grants a piece of information the totemic power of a logical axiom or a videogame powerup. I'm pretty sure that most evidence you could care to name would trump a facebook update's timestamp or geotag.
They were in the long con. Now they're outed and everyone's so sceptical when they cry "threat!" that people investigate, find out things like the nature of the vandalism, and they come out looking even stupider than they did before.
Why would Virgin have to impose a condition like that? TiVo only sold about 35,000 units in the UK before they ended production back in 2002, so it's not like the old service was a competitor. More likely this gave TiVo an excuse to drop a legacy customer base that numbered in the hundreds of users.
Good catch. I'm going to assume that the operator would use the Facebook function as a lure to get people onto their service instead of their rivals', and therefore charging extra is not an option. If you only had one phone network, sure, they could screw you, but there'd be no point in them even bothering to adopt the Facebook SIM to do that.
Given that their UK customer base is microscopic, perhaps they do. They're positioning the Virgin movie as the official UK launch of TiVo, a product which actually hit the shelves about half a decade ago. That should give you some indication of the number of subscribers they have.
The monthly fee for the EPG service is £5/month if you're on the lower two TV packages, and free if you're on largest. Assuming they apply the same price when they switch to TiVo, it'll be half the price TiVo currently charges.
Slashdot Mirror
Legal issues pertaining to competitions, basically. You'll find that most contests run by US companies limit entry to residents of the United States and, sometimes, Canada.
The last four digits of a US SSN are allocated in sequence from 0000 to 9999 for a given SSN group. They are exactly and completely uninterpretable and arbitrary.
It's the last four digits that they were collecting, as a unique ID.
That'll probably about the same time that horror games stop using movie approaches to scares. There's a lot of horror games that enhance their effect through interactivity, but I can't think of many that achieve scares that are completely unique to the interactive medium.
That's the sort of thing I figured you must've meant, thanks for clearing itup.
I think it's unlikely that Freud commented on PTSD per se, given that the term was coined thirty years after he died.
Not to rip on an article that's just a bunch of one-sentence summaries of other articles and a saucy eyebrow-raise, but the 1% drop cited in the article is in search marketshare. The total value of search ads went up by about 10% in the same period, meaning that Google's revenues almost certainly grew over that period. It's just that they grew slightly more slowly than the newcomers.
Especially quesitonable is giving jurors access to court wi-fi in exchange for participation. The jurors are hardly going to be neutral to that nice man who gave them web access during the boring selection thingie.
I suspect it's the iPod Shuffle all over again. Apple was able to undercut competitors on price by buying up a simple majority of the available flash memory supply. They're probably doing something similar on displays to keep the iPad cost low without compromising their "high-end" image.
(That they're willing to cut off features on the presumption that they're not big selling points can't hurt.)
There's a lot of things to gripe about with the iPad, but a rear camera? A gyroscope? Holding up a 10-inch aluminium slab to wave it around and take pictures are make-or-break features to you? You sound like the kind of guy who has a laser sight on his golf clubs.
By the same logic, detonating a thermonuclear weapon on the seafloor would be harmless because it'd be the equivalent of firing a capgun in your tank. Reductio ad absurdum. Linear scalling is not universal.
Real life isn't Slashdot. Breakthroughs mean more than being the guy who gets to shout "First!"
Given that the proposal only applies to England and the article actually discussees the government's issues with keeping the move unified across the UK, the summary is totally accurate.
Jailbreaking it for the purpose of changing wireless carrier. The exception's rather neatly circumscribed, you can bet that any jailbreak which allows you to bypass the PlayStation Suite's DRM will have no protection.
I really don't think so. Nokia's European marketshare was hurting as much as anywhere else, e.g. http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=25353 The 5800 did very well but was a low-margin handset, while the N97 was popularly perceived as a turkey and nobody bought the damn thing. The trend here, as much as everywhere else, was for touchscreen phones with a lot of popular apps, and Nokia just did not deliver on either. They were still pimping a Blackberry-alike, 320x240 E72 as their premium business handset as late as last year.
That's an interesting idea, but Nokia was barely coping with putting out bug-free releases and providing customer and developer support on one smartphone OS. I shudder to imagine the state of the handsets they'd be shipping if they had to work on three.
(There's the customer confusion argument, too. Nokia already does about 20 new handsets a year to ensure it's properly fertilising all the niches, make it 60 and it'd be chaotic.)
It's safe to assume that everyone that's developing on Android is already a major Nokia patent licencee. They've got reciprocal agreements with almost everyone that mean they make money and avoid patent suits. Using a patent as a club's nowhere near as profitable as using it as a revenue stream and a white flag, assuming you're an actual product-developing business and not just an IP warehouse.
Nokia's stock would've fallen even if they'd announced they were partnering with Jesus to bring an open-source version of iOS with Android's user interface to the market. They've spent absurd amounts of money acquiring and developing Symbian and collaborating on MeeGo as their primary platforms for the next decade, so switching to any alternative is a tacit admission that they'd thrown that money down the drain. A new partnership also involves a big transitional period in which it's very difficult to make much money. Investors do not like that kind of news.
You seem to be under the impression that legal admissibility grants a piece of information the totemic power of a logical axiom or a videogame powerup. I'm pretty sure that most evidence you could care to name would trump a facebook update's timestamp or geotag.
They were in the long con. Now they're outed and everyone's so sceptical when they cry "threat!" that people investigate, find out things like the nature of the vandalism, and they come out looking even stupider than they did before.
Reportedly, they only sold 35000 units. Even assuming every one of them survived the past decade without breaking down, I'm not sure that's a flood.
Why would Virgin have to impose a condition like that? TiVo only sold about 35,000 units in the UK before they ended production back in 2002, so it's not like the old service was a competitor. More likely this gave TiVo an excuse to drop a legacy customer base that numbered in the hundreds of users.
Good catch. I'm going to assume that the operator would use the Facebook function as a lure to get people onto their service instead of their rivals', and therefore charging extra is not an option. If you only had one phone network, sure, they could screw you, but there'd be no point in them even bothering to adopt the Facebook SIM to do that.
Given that their UK customer base is microscopic, perhaps they do. They're positioning the Virgin movie as the official UK launch of TiVo, a product which actually hit the shelves about half a decade ago. That should give you some indication of the number of subscribers they have.
The monthly fee for the EPG service is £5/month if you're on the lower two TV packages, and free if you're on largest. Assuming they apply the same price when they switch to TiVo, it'll be half the price TiVo currently charges.