I couldn't agree more. The problem is villains + heroes would chat it up int he combat zone. If they really wanted to chat, it sounds like either the villian or hero needs to change sides so they can chat. Doing what they do breaks the illusion of the game, which is bad for everyone that actually wants to play as intended.
Personally, seeing villains and heroes chat it up and even worse, watching a fellow hero beaten on by villains speaks loudly that his fellow heroes were not heroes after all. The game should be smart enough to turn the heroes into villains - because that's what they are. They clearly befriended "evil" and stood by while "good" was killed. They stood by and watched while "good", who was doing exactly what "good" was supposed to do, was killed. Worse, the "good" became an outcast for doing "good" by defeating "evil".
Its pretty clear the game mechanics are simply broken. In this case, the game needs to convert all of those heroes into fallen heroes as they are clearly evil and certainly far from good. Good doesn't turn its back on good while evil kills it - even if you don't believe in their politics. That's called chaos. That's in part what defines "evil." Furthermore, popular opinion of them would drastically fall if the public knew they were watching and likely cheering with befriended villains as a hero was murdered on the streets. In short, the article does wonders to explain just how completely broken the game really is.
The fact that players are not doing what they are supposed to be doing is very interesting. Made yet more interesting is that people who clearly identify with being "good" (made a hero) yet are are easily identifiable with "evil" by their actions makes for excellent social commentary. Its no surprise that many "evil" people actually don't see themselves as such. I'm amazed how many people consider themselves good yet do horribly selfish, mean, or down right "evil" things on a daily basis, like take joy in someone else's pain - yet are unshaken in their belief that they are themselves, "good."
Anyone who doesn't believe this is important social science is delusional.
I must say that's an interesting take on things and I can't find fault with your position. Which of course raises the question, how did you find your way to slashdot?;)
Much of the heat is generated by the battery. As the load increases so does the heat. Any application which constantly updates the screen, uses your GPS, and networking via WIFI is going to generate a lot more heat than simply using your phone. In part its because of additional electronics are running. The other part is the battery load is way up.
Which are already paid for in shipping/transport taxes. Its included in the shipping fees you pay. If a truck is over weight and caught, they also pay a fine to cover the yet additional wear-n-tear on the highway.
Besides, when you purchase something in a brick and mortar store, those same goods had to be delivered to the store. It sounds like you are now suggesting retailers should now both a transport tax, in each state it travels through, and a tax on good from the origin warehouse, plus tax when the goods are actually sold.
In short, all taxes have already been paid. Internet tax does not make sense unless it ships from the same state in which it was sold. Otherwise, states and the feds begin to double, triple, and and even quadruple dip into all of our wallets and coffers.
Which is exactly why everyone has 100 channels no one wants or watches and why carte blanche cable/satellite is not allowed. They are buying package discounts.
Anyone who believes the fees we all pay to our cable/satellite company doesn't pay for the content we watch is very uninformed. Advertising is simply additional profit for the networks and/or cable/satellite companies.
I forget the numbers but it was in California. His costs were equally high. His upfront nut was $32,000 USD or something close to that. Hardly chump change. At 100% efficiency and an average sell back to the grid never smaller than his first year average (it has been installed one year), it would take him just shy of 13 years. Since his efficiency is guaranteed to not be 100%. That means that 13 year return is more like 14 or 15 years with all other things being equal.
Remember, it takes a heck of a lot more than just a couple of cells to get your house off the grid. That is, unless you don't want electricity during the winter, when it rains, is cloudy, or at night.
Even if you can get your system installed (assuming its the same size with same power consumption) at half the cost, you're still looking at 7+ year return. Generally people say you shouldn't expect to break even in less than ten years. Which is fine because after ten years your cell efficiency is going to be somewhere between 50%-85%, depending on the cells.
Price isn't an issue anymore, the break even point is just a few years.
Not according to the article on Slashdot just a few days ago. You'll looking at break even in 14-20 years for any entire system which can take your house off the grid. And that assumes a very sunny location.
I think you completely missed the boat on my comment. If Hitler had not been in charge, others who could have easily won the war would have been. Its pretty easy to argue Germany lost the war specifically because of Hitler's ineptitude. In other words, Hitler is a direct cause of Germany losing WWII. Accordingly, Jews are still alive because Germany lost the war, which is really what allowed them to be saved.
No, I'm not saying we all owe him a big thank you; clearly we don't. I was just pointing out the irony that Hitler's own actions actually help lead to the survival of the Jews which is contrary to his own best efforts.
So for your analogy to be even close, somewhere in there I have to be awake because you were constantly, accidentally, punching your self in the face while trying to punch me. Surely you see the irony in that...
WTF?! You can't even return a valid answer. The 13 years, which is still greater than you initial answer (~10 years) assumes 100% efficiency.
Secondly, that 50% number is thrown around by the people who actually make them. And within the last 45 days, I've had a conversation with an engineer who does commercial planning and installation who also through out that number in a passing conversation. So I have no idea what idiots are moding your informative or where you get off believing your failed second grade math skills are correct.
You need to learn the difference between a "guarantee" and the real world. Secondly, have you actually read the fine print? I know I haven't. I seriously doubt those cells can maintain that efficiency over that span.They may very well be willing to trade sales now for exchanges from the few 10-20 years down the road that realize their cells are far below the guarantee levels. In short, stop confusing fact with what is very likely unsubstantiated marketing.
Long story short, you have nothing to provide here, all the information you offered is wrong, and anyone who modded you informative is an idiot.
And now you know where the technology for the B2 came from. Surprisingly, during early stages of the B2's design, engineers recalculated various design issues such as maximum lift, lowest profile, lowest radar profile, least drag, so on and so on... The result, almost no changes were required from the original designs provided by the Germans, which were later reworked in the late 40s. In other words, they had figured out on slide rulers what took modern engineers and massive computing power.
In almost every way, the Germans were technologically 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world.
Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.
Yes and no on the luck comment. It's really a long series of "ifs"...
If Hitler had been assassinated some two or three years before the end of the war...
If conscientious German scientists hadn't purposely dragged their nuclear bomb feet......the bulk of the world would be speaking German today - and the Jews would very likely be extinct today.
In a very, very odd bit of irony, you can actually thank Hitler for Jews being alive today.
Learn some basic math. His basic ROI is almost 13 years. In reality he'll be lucky to get a ROI in 15 years and it could very well push to 20 years or more depending on maintenance and loss of efficiency over the years. And all that assumes, on average, he'll get at least as much sun in the following 20 years as this last year. And don't forget, those cells can lose as much as 50% efficiency in just ten years. If true, assuming zero maintenance costs, his ROI is suddenly pushed to over 16 years, assuming he encounters no other issues.
So while the panels may last 25+ years, their loss of efficiency makes them obsolete in less than is ever possible with his ROI.
That's the problem with these setups. They are never reasonable ROI. He'll be lucky to get a ROI of 15 years. The straight math shows a ROI of almost 13 years but that assumes zero maintenance and the same efficiency then as he has now. In reality, many systems degrade to as little as 50% efficiency after ten years. So worst case, he might still be trying to pay off his initial investment even after twenty years.
The problem with these system is, efficiency of new cells is constantly improving - though at a very slow pace. The ROI of a new system in five to ten years from now is likely to be considerably better. So waiting five to ten years may actually allow for a ROI ending at the same time as this guy's. And if that's the case, it means he's done nothing but wasting money, time, and yes, energy.
In short, his logic isn't that far off from coming home to find the wife's new purchases fill the living room. When you ask her about it answers, "look how much money I saved - I had coupons!" Reality just doesn't work that way.
or $20 million on an empty performing arts center which is in danger of losing over $1 million this year [lazylightning.org]),
I've really not sure what you were rated insightful. There is a huge difference between government owned buildings which no body wants or obviously uses and services which everyone uses. Remember, the thing that brought pricing down for electrical and phone in the US was government deployment.
Since then, US companies have consistently shown without government involvement they will never lower their prices. In fact, they have constantly shown they will do the opposite. Saying privatization is the only solution is 100% fallacy. Furthermore, you can look at our economy to easily understand just how fucked up things can get with 100% private solution.
Actually the license has really no effect at all for the end user in either of these cases.
Not true at all. Someone needs some basic business classes.
The only people who are effected by the license are people who are either creating H.264 encoders/decoders or those who are creating and streaming H.264 content.
Like all other business models, if the provider of a service has a cost associated, that cost is always passed on. In this case, that cost will ultimately be passed on to you and me (*). Period. This is basic business people. If the cost of doing business is less, we all pay less.
It boils down to a simple equation. Do you want to pay more for video and audio on the web? Or do you want to pay less? If you want to pay more, jump on any non-free license and/or codecs with royalties associated.
* Cost can be indirectly passed on via advertising which in turn is then passed on to associated products. We all pay for product advertisements. No profitable company does business any other way. This is first and foremost why many generic products cost 1/3 to 1/2 as much, or less, as a name brand - advertising.
it is well known that the CIA and other western powers are spending millions stirring up trouble in Iran
As opposed to the tens of millions Iran spends in destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq? A huge chuck of servicemen have been killed by bombs paid for Iran. A huge chuck of civilians have been killed by bullets paid for by Iran. Anything the US can do to force Iran to refocus efforts outside of Iraq and Afghanistan means improved stability for Iraq and Afghanistan.
What many of you also fail to understand is that while Musavi is less fundamentalist than Ahmadinejad, his views are hardly one of support for "human rights" and free society. It is sorta like the difference between Republicans and Democrats - a few differences on paper but little substantial difference.
Actually, the difference is much larger. While Musavi is certainly no friend of the US is the widely regarded as far more progressive than the incumbent. The result of Musavi is likely to mean additional civil freedoms, a broader western exposure (which need not be the US), and create the window of more progressive freedoms in a generation. You are right in that one over the other is certainly not going to result in night and day differences and certainly not immediate changes. On the other hand, it opens the door for vast improvements over the next twenty years and more immediately, can make a huge difference with nuclear weapon concerns and/or concessions.
Said another way, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the contrasting differences.
A-hole Oppressive Authoritarianism 101 says you crack down hard and fast. Now, the protesters have had a taste of victory and the leadership looks weak.
Except these guys were the ones behind the 70's revolution. As a result they understand very well you need to let people vent and hope they run out of steam else you wind up empowering them (and possibly create martyrs) which might turn into a coup. After all, that's exactly how these ass hats got into power in the first place. They are smart enough to read their own handbook.
On top of that they have international concerns. If they came off as overly oppressive up front it would hasten the turn of the tide which is already against them when it comes to their nuclear weapon ambitions.
In other words, there were many, many reasons they did not clamp down as quickly as most had anticipated.
I see, you can reply with trash but I can't reply with supporting information. Nice.
many do you suppose were actually paid for either directly or indirectly?
Wow...yet more serious reading comprehension issues. How many? The majority was pretty clear. Serious reading comprehension issues there.
It's this hyperbole that makes people like you no better than the fear-mongering mass media
Now that's hyperbole! Making a very well educated estimate is far away not fear mongering; and I even followed up with a link to an independent article which validates my entire post. Your posts, on the other hand, has been nothing but hyperbole and fan-boyism. There is a huge difference. In fact, your posts are actually well into troll territory.
It's this hyperbole that makes people like you no better than the fear-mongering mass media. It's a dirty, despicable tactic which I despise.Oh, nice to see that you hold grudges too. It's been 3 days, let it go.
Replying is now holding a grudge? Holy crap you're delusional. According to you, everyone that replies to anyone on Slashdot is holding a grudge?!?! You're either flat out delusional or one seriously dumb troll.
Easiest way to summarize your post is to say, "Yes you're right but I can't possibly admit it in public. I'll just continue with my unsubstantiated hyperbole and simply troll." After all, an entire article which supports the entire point of my post can't possibly validate anything I said...of course not.
Let me guess, you're fingers are literally in your ears as you read this. Lol.
Swoosh!...but does that mean every blogger and/or reputable news source since the start of the year has been "paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal."
Brings into question reading comprehension skills. Especially since I said, "In short, since the beginning of the year, just about any and all articles which proclaim MS' OS in the phone, smart phone, netbook, smartbook markets are far more likely than not, marketing fluff pieces - paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal." In other words, contrary to your asserted absolutes, which of course paint a horribly flawed statement, in reality I simply stated the betting man wins far, far more often than not but agreeing with my statement. And all that ignores the wave effect whereby one ignorant author reads a planted story and then creates his own, no bac kroom deal required, which offers the original article are confirmation of his own. That of course does not make it true, rather it just makes the pile of crap bigger.
In short, there is a huge difference between the highly probable, but far from absolute, I stated and the false characterization of 100% absolutes you present. The first is accurate and a fairly safe bet while your statement is, of course, wrong.
But that would be a standard business practice; you watch your competitors, old or new.
You're absolutely right. But there is a big difference between watching and following. In this case, Apple has clearly demonstrated they are no longer the technology leader here. After all, Google is responsible for squarely setting their technology goals (hardware and software) for some time to come. So running scared? No. Falling in line. Yes. Yielding the technology-leader reigns? Absolutely - at least for the next year or so, if not more.
Few of the highly anticipated 3.0 features are not as a direct result of Android. The new iPhone's hardware is even a direct play from the G1. So running scared? No. Scared and cautious with a watchful eye...absolutely.
Slashdot needs a "-1 Moderator is too lazy to use a search engine".
Or the ever popular, "-1 Moderator is a hypocrite because while he demands citations, he himself does not bookmark everything he has ever read in his life - including well publicized news stories and documentaries."
Not to mention they have a very long history of doing exactly the the things I describe dating all the way back to the OS/2 days. And its well documented at this point - with various tidbits coming out here and there over the years. To be absolutely clear, this is MS' standard operating procedures. Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company and they prey on the nativity and ignorance of those who refuse to see what's right in front of their face.
Anyone who believes otherwise is terribly naive or unfairly biased.
You're probably right in the case of Apple, "running scared" is a bit strong. Nonetheless, new features in 3.0 are a direct result of Android's features and capabilities. If Android were not a concern they certainly would not be taking feature pointers from Android.
So running scared? Probably not. A cautious, watchful, critical eye? Absolutely! Regardless the point remains, the entire industry is watching Android. And in the case of MS, they absolutely have declared war on Android and they are running scared.
And ultimately people forget that Android is really Linux + a framework. Once you understand Android = Linux + framework, its easy to see your point is 100% accurate. There is no technical merit here. It's all about cross promotion and marketing. In short, the article is nothing but a marketing fluff piece meant to convince the simple minded that Android doesn't have technical merit.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft is very scared of Android. Android is Google and Microsoft has been very mindful who is pushing it. In several cases some hardware manufacturers have publicly stated they are very excited about their Android offering. Shortly afterwards Microsoft announces a hardware/software deal with manufacturer. A month or two later said hardware manufacturer suddenly announces they have brokered a new deal to create MS-based phones and their Android offering may never see the market. Hardly surprising - yet more anti-competitive behavior from MS.
No bones about it, Microsoft is up to their old tricks of paying for editorials, paying for reviews, back door meetings to prevent footholds of their competitors, and working hard to price its competitors out of the market. In short, since the beginning of the year, just about any and all articles which proclaim MS' OS in the phone, smart phone, netbook, smartbook markets are far more likely than not, marketing fluff pieces - paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal.
The fact that Apple, MS and Blackberry are all running scared of Android is very telling.
The fact you responded as you did simply means you are VERY uninformed. Also, check the link provided by another person that replied. It seems Obama has followed through on little he stood on before the election.
The Daily Show frequently shows the parallels between Bush and Obama's speeches. Literally, Bush's writers could frequently go after Obama's writers for plagiarism. And in the cases where its not a literal cut-paste, its close enough it really doesn't matter. In the end, you often have Bush's words coming from Obama's mouth. And the frequency is down right scary.
Long story short, you come off as uninformed, hateful, and ignorant. How about you judge Obama based on what he's done, has done and contrast it against what he said he'll do versus what the other candidates stated. Thus far, he has fairly consistently said one thing and then followed McCain's action plan that bluntly, we've never had any other option but to do. But people didn't want to hear the truth - they only wanted lies. That fact that so many were so willing to swallow so many lies does an excellent job of underscoring how dumb and uninformed the vast majority of the voting population really is in America.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more. The problem is villains + heroes would chat it up int he combat zone. If they really wanted to chat, it sounds like either the villian or hero needs to change sides so they can chat. Doing what they do breaks the illusion of the game, which is bad for everyone that actually wants to play as intended.
Personally, seeing villains and heroes chat it up and even worse, watching a fellow hero beaten on by villains speaks loudly that his fellow heroes were not heroes after all. The game should be smart enough to turn the heroes into villains - because that's what they are. They clearly befriended "evil" and stood by while "good" was killed. They stood by and watched while "good", who was doing exactly what "good" was supposed to do, was killed. Worse, the "good" became an outcast for doing "good" by defeating "evil".
Its pretty clear the game mechanics are simply broken. In this case, the game needs to convert all of those heroes into fallen heroes as they are clearly evil and certainly far from good. Good doesn't turn its back on good while evil kills it - even if you don't believe in their politics. That's called chaos. That's in part what defines "evil." Furthermore, popular opinion of them would drastically fall if the public knew they were watching and likely cheering with befriended villains as a hero was murdered on the streets. In short, the article does wonders to explain just how completely broken the game really is.
The fact that players are not doing what they are supposed to be doing is very interesting. Made yet more interesting is that people who clearly identify with being "good" (made a hero) yet are are easily identifiable with "evil" by their actions makes for excellent social commentary. Its no surprise that many "evil" people actually don't see themselves as such. I'm amazed how many people consider themselves good yet do horribly selfish, mean, or down right "evil" things on a daily basis, like take joy in someone else's pain - yet are unshaken in their belief that they are themselves, "good."
Anyone who doesn't believe this is important social science is delusional.
+1 Insightful
I must say that's an interesting take on things and I can't find fault with your position. Which of course raises the question, how did you find your way to slashdot? ;)
Much of the heat is generated by the battery. As the load increases so does the heat. Any application which constantly updates the screen, uses your GPS, and networking via WIFI is going to generate a lot more heat than simply using your phone. In part its because of additional electronics are running. The other part is the battery load is way up.
Which are already paid for in shipping/transport taxes. Its included in the shipping fees you pay. If a truck is over weight and caught, they also pay a fine to cover the yet additional wear-n-tear on the highway.
Besides, when you purchase something in a brick and mortar store, those same goods had to be delivered to the store. It sounds like you are now suggesting retailers should now both a transport tax, in each state it travels through, and a tax on good from the origin warehouse, plus tax when the goods are actually sold.
In short, all taxes have already been paid. Internet tax does not make sense unless it ships from the same state in which it was sold. Otherwise, states and the feds begin to double, triple, and and even quadruple dip into all of our wallets and coffers.
Which is exactly why everyone has 100 channels no one wants or watches and why carte blanche cable/satellite is not allowed. They are buying package discounts.
Anyone who believes the fees we all pay to our cable/satellite company doesn't pay for the content we watch is very uninformed. Advertising is simply additional profit for the networks and/or cable/satellite companies.
I forget the numbers but it was in California. His costs were equally high. His upfront nut was $32,000 USD or something close to that. Hardly chump change. At 100% efficiency and an average sell back to the grid never smaller than his first year average (it has been installed one year), it would take him just shy of 13 years. Since his efficiency is guaranteed to not be 100%. That means that 13 year return is more like 14 or 15 years with all other things being equal.
Remember, it takes a heck of a lot more than just a couple of cells to get your house off the grid. That is, unless you don't want electricity during the winter, when it rains, is cloudy, or at night.
Even if you can get your system installed (assuming its the same size with same power consumption) at half the cost, you're still looking at 7+ year return. Generally people say you shouldn't expect to break even in less than ten years. Which is fine because after ten years your cell efficiency is going to be somewhere between 50%-85%, depending on the cells.
Price isn't an issue anymore, the break even point is just a few years.
Not according to the article on Slashdot just a few days ago. You'll looking at break even in 14-20 years for any entire system which can take your house off the grid. And that assumes a very sunny location.
LOL.
I think you completely missed the boat on my comment. If Hitler had not been in charge, others who could have easily won the war would have been. Its pretty easy to argue Germany lost the war specifically because of Hitler's ineptitude. In other words, Hitler is a direct cause of Germany losing WWII. Accordingly, Jews are still alive because Germany lost the war, which is really what allowed them to be saved.
No, I'm not saying we all owe him a big thank you; clearly we don't. I was just pointing out the irony that Hitler's own actions actually help lead to the survival of the Jews which is contrary to his own best efforts.
So for your analogy to be even close, somewhere in there I have to be awake because you were constantly, accidentally, punching your self in the face while trying to punch me. Surely you see the irony in that...
WTF?! You can't even return a valid answer. The 13 years, which is still greater than you initial answer (~10 years) assumes 100% efficiency.
Secondly, that 50% number is thrown around by the people who actually make them. And within the last 45 days, I've had a conversation with an engineer who does commercial planning and installation who also through out that number in a passing conversation. So I have no idea what idiots are moding your informative or where you get off believing your failed second grade math skills are correct.
You need to learn the difference between a "guarantee" and the real world. Secondly, have you actually read the fine print? I know I haven't. I seriously doubt those cells can maintain that efficiency over that span.They may very well be willing to trade sales now for exchanges from the few 10-20 years down the road that realize their cells are far below the guarantee levels. In short, stop confusing fact with what is very likely unsubstantiated marketing.
Long story short, you have nothing to provide here, all the information you offered is wrong, and anyone who modded you informative is an idiot.
And now you know where the technology for the B2 came from. Surprisingly, during early stages of the B2's design, engineers recalculated various design issues such as maximum lift, lowest profile, lowest radar profile, least drag, so on and so on... The result, almost no changes were required from the original designs provided by the Germans, which were later reworked in the late 40s. In other words, they had figured out on slide rulers what took modern engineers and massive computing power.
In almost every way, the Germans were technologically 50-100 years ahead of the rest of the world.
Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.
Yes and no on the luck comment. It's really a long series of "ifs"...
If Hitler had been assassinated some two or three years before the end of the war...
If conscientious German scientists hadn't purposely dragged their nuclear bomb feet... ...the bulk of the world would be speaking German today - and the Jews would very likely be extinct today.
In a very, very odd bit of irony, you can actually thank Hitler for Jews being alive today.
Bullshit!
Learn some basic math. His basic ROI is almost 13 years. In reality he'll be lucky to get a ROI in 15 years and it could very well push to 20 years or more depending on maintenance and loss of efficiency over the years. And all that assumes, on average, he'll get at least as much sun in the following 20 years as this last year. And don't forget, those cells can lose as much as 50% efficiency in just ten years. If true, assuming zero maintenance costs, his ROI is suddenly pushed to over 16 years, assuming he encounters no other issues.
So while the panels may last 25+ years, their loss of efficiency makes them obsolete in less than is ever possible with his ROI.
That's the problem with these setups. They are never reasonable ROI. He'll be lucky to get a ROI of 15 years. The straight math shows a ROI of almost 13 years but that assumes zero maintenance and the same efficiency then as he has now. In reality, many systems degrade to as little as 50% efficiency after ten years. So worst case, he might still be trying to pay off his initial investment even after twenty years.
The problem with these system is, efficiency of new cells is constantly improving - though at a very slow pace. The ROI of a new system in five to ten years from now is likely to be considerably better. So waiting five to ten years may actually allow for a ROI ending at the same time as this guy's. And if that's the case, it means he's done nothing but wasting money, time, and yes, energy.
In short, his logic isn't that far off from coming home to find the wife's new purchases fill the living room. When you ask her about it answers, "look how much money I saved - I had coupons!" Reality just doesn't work that way.
or $20 million on an empty performing arts center which is in danger of losing over $1 million this year [lazylightning.org]),
I've really not sure what you were rated insightful. There is a huge difference between government owned buildings which no body wants or obviously uses and services which everyone uses. Remember, the thing that brought pricing down for electrical and phone in the US was government deployment.
Since then, US companies have consistently shown without government involvement they will never lower their prices. In fact, they have constantly shown they will do the opposite. Saying privatization is the only solution is 100% fallacy. Furthermore, you can look at our economy to easily understand just how fucked up things can get with 100% private solution.
Actually the license has really no effect at all for the end user in either of these cases.
Not true at all. Someone needs some basic business classes.
The only people who are effected by the license are people who are either creating H.264 encoders/decoders or those who are creating and streaming H.264 content.
Like all other business models, if the provider of a service has a cost associated, that cost is always passed on. In this case, that cost will ultimately be passed on to you and me (*). Period. This is basic business people. If the cost of doing business is less, we all pay less.
It boils down to a simple equation. Do you want to pay more for video and audio on the web? Or do you want to pay less? If you want to pay more, jump on any non-free license and/or codecs with royalties associated.
* Cost can be indirectly passed on via advertising which in turn is then passed on to associated products. We all pay for product advertisements. No profitable company does business any other way. This is first and foremost why many generic products cost 1/3 to 1/2 as much, or less, as a name brand - advertising.
it is well known that the CIA and other western powers are spending millions stirring up trouble in Iran
As opposed to the tens of millions Iran spends in destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq? A huge chuck of servicemen have been killed by bombs paid for Iran. A huge chuck of civilians have been killed by bullets paid for by Iran. Anything the US can do to force Iran to refocus efforts outside of Iraq and Afghanistan means improved stability for Iraq and Afghanistan.
What many of you also fail to understand is that while Musavi is less fundamentalist than Ahmadinejad, his views are hardly one of support for "human rights" and free society. It is sorta like the difference between Republicans and Democrats - a few differences on paper but little substantial difference.
Actually, the difference is much larger. While Musavi is certainly no friend of the US is the widely regarded as far more progressive than the incumbent. The result of Musavi is likely to mean additional civil freedoms, a broader western exposure (which need not be the US), and create the window of more progressive freedoms in a generation. You are right in that one over the other is certainly not going to result in night and day differences and certainly not immediate changes. On the other hand, it opens the door for vast improvements over the next twenty years and more immediately, can make a huge difference with nuclear weapon concerns and/or concessions.
Said another way, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the contrasting differences.
A-hole Oppressive Authoritarianism 101 says you crack down hard and fast. Now, the protesters have had a taste of victory and the leadership looks weak.
Except these guys were the ones behind the 70's revolution. As a result they understand very well you need to let people vent and hope they run out of steam else you wind up empowering them (and possibly create martyrs) which might turn into a coup. After all, that's exactly how these ass hats got into power in the first place. They are smart enough to read their own handbook.
On top of that they have international concerns. If they came off as overly oppressive up front it would hasten the turn of the tide which is already against them when it comes to their nuclear weapon ambitions.
In other words, there were many, many reasons they did not clamp down as quickly as most had anticipated.
Ha! Let it rest man.
I see, you can reply with trash but I can't reply with supporting information. Nice.
many do you suppose were actually paid for either directly or indirectly?
Wow...yet more serious reading comprehension issues. How many? The majority was pretty clear. Serious reading comprehension issues there.
It's this hyperbole that makes people like you no better than the fear-mongering mass media
Now that's hyperbole! Making a very well educated estimate is far away not fear mongering; and I even followed up with a link to an independent article which validates my entire post. Your posts, on the other hand, has been nothing but hyperbole and fan-boyism. There is a huge difference. In fact, your posts are actually well into troll territory.
It's this hyperbole that makes people like you no better than the fear-mongering mass media. It's a dirty, despicable tactic which I despise.Oh, nice to see that you hold grudges too. It's been 3 days, let it go.
Replying is now holding a grudge? Holy crap you're delusional. According to you, everyone that replies to anyone on Slashdot is holding a grudge?!?! You're either flat out delusional or one seriously dumb troll.
Easiest way to summarize your post is to say, "Yes you're right but I can't possibly admit it in public. I'll just continue with my unsubstantiated hyperbole and simply troll." After all, an entire article which supports the entire point of my post can't possibly validate anything I said...of course not.
Let me guess, you're fingers are literally in your ears as you read this. Lol.
Nuff said.
Talk about timely.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/20/0250205/The-Truth-Behind-the-Death-of-Linux-On-the-Netbook
Swoosh! ...but does that mean every blogger and/or reputable news source since the start of the year has been "paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal."
Brings into question reading comprehension skills. Especially since I said, "In short, since the beginning of the year, just about any and all articles which proclaim MS' OS in the phone, smart phone, netbook, smartbook markets are far more likely than not, marketing fluff pieces - paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal." In other words, contrary to your asserted absolutes, which of course paint a horribly flawed statement, in reality I simply stated the betting man wins far, far more often than not but agreeing with my statement. And all that ignores the wave effect whereby one ignorant author reads a planted story and then creates his own, no bac kroom deal required, which offers the original article are confirmation of his own. That of course does not make it true, rather it just makes the pile of crap bigger.
In short, there is a huge difference between the highly probable, but far from absolute, I stated and the false characterization of 100% absolutes you present. The first is accurate and a fairly safe bet while your statement is, of course, wrong.
But that would be a standard business practice; you watch your competitors, old or new.
You're absolutely right. But there is a big difference between watching and following. In this case, Apple has clearly demonstrated they are no longer the technology leader here. After all, Google is responsible for squarely setting their technology goals (hardware and software) for some time to come. So running scared? No. Falling in line. Yes. Yielding the technology-leader reigns? Absolutely - at least for the next year or so, if not more.
Few of the highly anticipated 3.0 features are not as a direct result of Android. The new iPhone's hardware is even a direct play from the G1. So running scared? No. Scared and cautious with a watchful eye...absolutely.
Slashdot needs a "-1 Moderator is too lazy to use a search engine".
Or the ever popular, "-1 Moderator is a hypocrite because while he demands citations, he himself does not bookmark everything he has ever read in his life - including well publicized news stories and documentaries."
Not to mention they have a very long history of doing exactly the the things I describe dating all the way back to the OS/2 days. And its well documented at this point - with various tidbits coming out here and there over the years. To be absolutely clear, this is MS' standard operating procedures. Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company and they prey on the nativity and ignorance of those who refuse to see what's right in front of their face.
Anyone who believes otherwise is terribly naive or unfairly biased.
You're probably right in the case of Apple, "running scared" is a bit strong. Nonetheless, new features in 3.0 are a direct result of Android's features and capabilities. If Android were not a concern they certainly would not be taking feature pointers from Android.
So running scared? Probably not. A cautious, watchful, critical eye? Absolutely! Regardless the point remains, the entire industry is watching Android. And in the case of MS, they absolutely have declared war on Android and they are running scared.
And ultimately people forget that Android is really Linux + a framework. Once you understand Android = Linux + framework, its easy to see your point is 100% accurate. There is no technical merit here. It's all about cross promotion and marketing. In short, the article is nothing but a marketing fluff piece meant to convince the simple minded that Android doesn't have technical merit.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft is very scared of Android. Android is Google and Microsoft has been very mindful who is pushing it. In several cases some hardware manufacturers have publicly stated they are very excited about their Android offering. Shortly afterwards Microsoft announces a hardware/software deal with manufacturer. A month or two later said hardware manufacturer suddenly announces they have brokered a new deal to create MS-based phones and their Android offering may never see the market. Hardly surprising - yet more anti-competitive behavior from MS.
No bones about it, Microsoft is up to their old tricks of paying for editorials, paying for reviews, back door meetings to prevent footholds of their competitors, and working hard to price its competitors out of the market. In short, since the beginning of the year, just about any and all articles which proclaim MS' OS in the phone, smart phone, netbook, smartbook markets are far more likely than not, marketing fluff pieces - paid for either directly or indirectly by MS or a MS cross promotion, back room deal.
The fact that Apple, MS and Blackberry are all running scared of Android is very telling.
The fact you responded as you did simply means you are VERY uninformed. Also, check the link provided by another person that replied. It seems Obama has followed through on little he stood on before the election.
The Daily Show frequently shows the parallels between Bush and Obama's speeches. Literally, Bush's writers could frequently go after Obama's writers for plagiarism. And in the cases where its not a literal cut-paste, its close enough it really doesn't matter. In the end, you often have Bush's words coming from Obama's mouth. And the frequency is down right scary.
Long story short, you come off as uninformed, hateful, and ignorant. How about you judge Obama based on what he's done, has done and contrast it against what he said he'll do versus what the other candidates stated. Thus far, he has fairly consistently said one thing and then followed McCain's action plan that bluntly, we've never had any other option but to do. But people didn't want to hear the truth - they only wanted lies. That fact that so many were so willing to swallow so many lies does an excellent job of underscoring how dumb and uninformed the vast majority of the voting population really is in America.