You're right, the last thing Sony wants to do with 3D is use it to actually sell some consoles. They're going to want to get that lucrative trade-show and press-junket dime instead.
120Hz doesn't solve the framerate issue, it just allows you to actually deliver those frames to the user. You still have to run at double the framerate of a 2D game, which is non-trivial.
Gruber is reporting that Apple considers the device stolen, and it's been well-known that someone's been shopping it around tech sites asking $10,000 for some hands-on time.
Only can a true fanboy turn the phrase "like a Braun product from the 70s" into a compliment. Because we all want to show off our new iEpilators.
Only someone with zero knowledge of design history would make such a statement. Braun's industrial design has been an explicit influence on Jonathan Ive's work at Apple.
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate. It's a squeamishness I happen to share. If you're going to refuse to pay for their vanity kids, why pay for those of infertile couples? Why pay for a guy to store a sperm sample when he has a vascectomy? I guess it would take something like the US healthcare system to turn a free-market economy into a cold-war totalitarian nightmare.
The path doesn't have to be 700 miles long to be visible over 700 miles of ground. An apparently stationary object 200 miles up will only be overhead of a single point on the ground, but will be 45 degrees or higher above the horizon for about 700 miles in every direction. This thing could've exploded in place and been visible over as long a track.
You're using "The EU" to refer to both the EU's competition regulators, and EU-based businesses. The former have nothing to do with the current action, and the latter are behaving as they would be expected to in an unregulated free market: petulantly and with no regard for their customers.
Like, the customers? If I'm paying for 10GB of data at 10Mbps each month, and the ISP is oversubscribed to uselessness, that's not Google's vault, that's the ISP's false advertising at work.
It'd only be actionable if "made a false statement" was a sufficient condition for libel. It's only a necessary condition. In fact there's no tort which allows you to prosecute someone for simply making a false statement.
They'll let you off if they visit and you don't have any receiving equipment set up, i.e. no cable or satellite box in your home, and no antenna connected. There was talk of them changing the licence fee so that anyone who could use the iPlayer (i.e. anyone with flash and an internet connection) would be billable though.
I expect a more nuanced response to his denial. One that might, perhaps, refute it. As it stands that comment could refer to any company except for the side-splitting double meaning of "yelp" and one word from the article title, suggesting that you have perhaps put a rash need to appear witty above the more significant issue of fraud versus innuendo and human pattern-matching.
Schmidt, however, owes his allegience to the shareholders. Or at least feels the pull and responsibility of profit more so than any sort of ethical dilemma.
His responsibility to his shareholders is an ethical issue. If he makes a decision that affects Google's share price, he's burning other people's money in a big fire, so the effect on the world at large has to be weighed against the effect on shareholders. Of course, if Google had stayed out of censorship in the first place, he wouldn't have to make that decision. I imagine that's why "don't be evil" was implimented. Staying out of a market on principle doesn't look as bad as having to abandon one on principle.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds more like The Register I know than the GP's comment. :p
Given that the finder is the one who opened the phone's Facebook app and got the guy's name, that seems pretty cut-and-dry.
Apple Apple Apple, Apple Apple Apple.
You're right, the last thing Sony wants to do with 3D is use it to actually sell some consoles. They're going to want to get that lucrative trade-show and press-junket dime instead.
120Hz doesn't solve the framerate issue, it just allows you to actually deliver those frames to the user. You still have to run at double the framerate of a 2D game, which is non-trivial.
Gruber is reporting that Apple considers the device stolen, and it's been well-known that someone's been shopping it around tech sites asking $10,000 for some hands-on time.
Only can a true fanboy turn the phrase "like a Braun product from the 70s" into a compliment. Because we all want to show off our new iEpilators.
Only someone with zero knowledge of design history would make such a statement. Braun's industrial design has been an explicit influence on Jonathan Ive's work at Apple.
Engadget never got its hands on the device. They got their hands on photos of it.
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate. It's a squeamishness I happen to share. If you're going to refuse to pay for their vanity kids, why pay for those of infertile couples? Why pay for a guy to store a sperm sample when he has a vascectomy? I guess it would take something like the US healthcare system to turn a free-market economy into a cold-war totalitarian nightmare.
That was an EU directive which individual nations are expected, but not obliged, to turn into a local law.
The path doesn't have to be 700 miles long to be visible over 700 miles of ground. An apparently stationary object 200 miles up will only be overhead of a single point on the ground, but will be 45 degrees or higher above the horizon for about 700 miles in every direction. This thing could've exploded in place and been visible over as long a track.
You're using "The EU" to refer to both the EU's competition regulators, and EU-based businesses. The former have nothing to do with the current action, and the latter are behaving as they would be expected to in an unregulated free market: petulantly and with no regard for their customers.
Like, the customers? If I'm paying for 10GB of data at 10Mbps each month, and the ISP is oversubscribed to uselessness, that's not Google's vault, that's the ISP's false advertising at work.
It'd only be actionable if "made a false statement" was a sufficient condition for libel. It's only a necessary condition. In fact there's no tort which allows you to prosecute someone for simply making a false statement.
There aren't any. It's the BBC.
They'll let you off if they visit and you don't have any receiving equipment set up, i.e. no cable or satellite box in your home, and no antenna connected. There was talk of them changing the licence fee so that anyone who could use the iPlayer (i.e. anyone with flash and an internet connection) would be billable though.
I expect a more nuanced response to his denial. One that might, perhaps, refute it. As it stands that comment could refer to any company except for the side-splitting double meaning of "yelp" and one word from the article title, suggesting that you have perhaps put a rash need to appear witty above the more significant issue of fraud versus innuendo and human pattern-matching.
You of all people should understand how misunderstandings happen. Maybe you read the title of something and completely disregard the content, say.
Nobody writes neutral, well-referenced articles like journalists! And they're great at engaging viewpoints that undermine their article's thesis!
"-1 overrated" is meant to be used for mismoderated comments, in much the same way as "+1 underrated", isn't it?
It's called the "Phoenix". "Commodore" is just the brand.
Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device's very existence?
XP grinding their degree will thoroughly prepare them for the tedium of working on software design, though.
Schmidt, however, owes his allegience to the shareholders. Or at least feels the pull and responsibility of profit more so than any sort of ethical dilemma.
His responsibility to his shareholders is an ethical issue. If he makes a decision that affects Google's share price, he's burning other people's money in a big fire, so the effect on the world at large has to be weighed against the effect on shareholders. Of course, if Google had stayed out of censorship in the first place, he wouldn't have to make that decision. I imagine that's why "don't be evil" was implimented. Staying out of a market on principle doesn't look as bad as having to abandon one on principle.
Better yet, poison the well. Change your account data to be complete garbage. It's going to skew their demographics and reduce the value of the data.