You use up energy, you use up water, you use up car parts.
You do _not_ use up bandwidth. Once the infrastructure is there, you get a constant "supply" of data at (almost) no cost.
And _that_ is why we don't pay for data the same way we pay for energy.
I have to admit that this is a wonderfully twisted argument that had me clawing at its cracks for a few minutes, though. If I had heard it in a debate, realization would have come _way_ too late. Good mind-trick, that.
> Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior". > Any product that is designed to be "green" rather than the best is probably GOING to be inferior because there was some compromise made in order to make it "green".
Quite often, that compromise is "higher price, better raw materials, new processes". Not always, mind. And there seems to be some inflation in the word "green". Still, the point remains.
> I make it a point to avoid PC parts from "green" product lines because to me, "green" means SLOW.
Yah. The power from a highly efficient switching PSU lacks the punch which power from copper coils has.
> If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?
The best clean-up would be a black hole. As those are hard to come by, a nuke is your best bet.
> Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?
See above; no.
On the plus side, you don't need spooky terrorists to wreck havoc. Large companies have you covered, there.
> Since the POTUS has committed to No First Use of nukes, the NKs could use chems in the safe knowledge that we banned chems and won't use any other WMD to stop them.
That's a real pity, because clearly the right response to a chemical attack is a nuclear holocaust.
Not that I am saying this rice idea is a bad one, but I am sitting in a house that is a hundred years old as I type this. Almost all of the buildings around me are the same age. The one next to the one I am in is ~250 years old and people live in it.
Houses in Central Europe tend to last very long, though one or two world wars may have cut down the average a tad.
So you are saying if I install software on a computer, said software can react to incoming data? Their (sic) should be a law against these sort of things!
Coming up next: Man hits self with hammer; feels pain.
PS: Yes, a phone number tends to stay associated with a device which is not true for IPv4. That might or might not change with IPv6.
People making tunnels, savely detonating avalanches, digging for resources, destructing old buildings use bombs. Terrorists use cars to blow things up. Clearly, the tool is equal to the usage.
And while the bomb may cause the explosion (or rather the explosive in the bomb), cars are used regularly as a deployment vector of the bomb.
This whole observation bias (we can only wonder at how lucky we have to have Earth because we had it in the first place) has a scientific name, but I can't remember it... Help?
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
And there you go, ruining your perfectly valid points with useless and derisive hyperbole.
I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately. There's no DRM/DLC or crap like that being pushed by other companies.
Exactly. What you can not do is to sell a single game out of your account. Or if you can, they might disable it tomorrow. If Blizzard goes out of business or stops caring, how will you activate your copy on a new system?
While this form of DRM may be better than some, it's still DRM.
At least they are trying, though. The new API sounds like a neat idea. I did not say they will succeed with their particular plan (though I suspect they will). I am just saying that they get the need to adapt.
Hopefully. I can't wait for experiments like this to drive against the wall in a very public way. Rupert Murdoch failing will, hopefully, be a sign for others that they need to change.
Sadly, most will take this as a sign that they need to be more aggressive.
Stuff like that makes me choose a brand when buying things.
Now if whoever bought the company that wanted to free the drugs against the sleeping illness from any IP (which, in turn, bought the company that wanted to free the drugs against the sleeping illness from any IP) would go through with it, a pill that has _no_ economic value to a large megacorp but could be manufactured locally and cure millions of people who are de facto in a coma...
Slashdot Mirror
Bleh, so I will have to wait for Beagleboard 2.0 with OMAP4.
DO WANT!
Then everything would be an analogy.
You use up energy, you use up water, you use up car parts.
You do _not_ use up bandwidth. Once the infrastructure is there, you get a constant "supply" of data at (almost) no cost.
And _that_ is why we don't pay for data the same way we pay for energy.
I have to admit that this is a wonderfully twisted argument that had me clawing at its cracks for a few minutes, though. If I had heard it in a debate, realization would have come _way_ too late. Good mind-trick, that.
I borrowed the tongues of several others for this post.
> Whenever I hear a product called "Green-" I always translate that to mean "inferior".
> Any product that is designed to be "green" rather than the best is probably GOING to be inferior because there was some compromise made in order to make it "green".
Quite often, that compromise is "higher price, better raw materials, new processes". Not always, mind. And there seems to be some inflation in the word "green". Still, the point remains.
> I make it a point to avoid PC parts from "green" product lines because to me, "green" means SLOW.
Yah. The power from a highly efficient switching PSU lacks the punch which power from copper coils has.
> If we suffer a WMD terrorist attack, I want the BEST products to be used to deal with it, who cares if it's "green"?
The best clean-up would be a black hole. As those are hard to come by, a nuke is your best bet.
> Isn't a massive terrorist attack causing widespread destruction likely to cause FAR more pollution than anything we'd have to do to clean up AFTER IT?
See above; no.
On the plus side, you don't need spooky terrorists to wreck havoc. Large companies have you covered, there.
> Since the POTUS has committed to No First Use of nukes, the NKs could use chems in the safe knowledge that we banned chems and won't use any other WMD to stop them.
That's a real pity, because clearly the right response to a chemical attack is a nuclear holocaust.
Not that I am saying this rice idea is a bad one, but I am sitting in a house that is a hundred years old as I type this. Almost all of the buildings around me are the same age. The one next to the one I am in is ~250 years old and people live in it.
Houses in Central Europe tend to last very long, though one or two world wars may have cut down the average a tad.
So you are saying if I install software on a computer, said software can react to incoming data? Their (sic) should be a law against these sort of things!
Coming up next: Man hits self with hammer; feels pain.
PS: Yes, a phone number tends to stay associated with a device which is not true for IPv4. That might or might not change with IPv6.
People making tunnels, savely detonating avalanches, digging for resources, destructing old buildings use bombs. Terrorists use cars to blow things up. Clearly, the tool is equal to the usage.
And while the bomb may cause the explosion (or rather the explosive in the bomb), cars are used regularly as a deployment vector of the bomb.
Fifth, if we can see it, it has exploded, already.
Guy develops for closed platform, has no control over platform. News at eleven!
> Even decisions that seem like they would harm Apple only make him stronger in the long run.
Yah, not killing Flash Gordon immediately worked out really well for Ming. Nothing like being speared through the chest with a spaceship.
ITYM to reply to my parent :)
So because you tend to live near their offices, that is true for everyone else? Ah, thought so.
Post it to the relevant mailing lists? Oh, wait..
Will google pay for travel and related costs? Ah, thought so.
This whole observation bias (we can only wonder at how lucky we have to have Earth because we had it in the first place) has a scientific name, but I can't remember it... Help?
Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.
And there you go, ruining your perfectly valid points with useless and derisive hyperbole.
I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately. There's no DRM/DLC or crap like that being pushed by other companies.
Exactly. What you can not do is to sell a single game out of your account. Or if you can, they might disable it tomorrow. If Blizzard goes out of business or stops caring, how will you activate your copy on a new system?
While this form of DRM may be better than some, it's still DRM.
At least they are trying, though. The new API sounds like a neat idea. I did not say they will succeed with their particular plan (though I suspect they will). I am just saying that they get the need to adapt.
I know. I just think there is a very fair chance that he will fail :)
Thing is, he can not hurt google with this move. Really, he can't.
Of course, he will spin his failure as a Strong Need for government to hand him back his ogliopoly, but hurting google through this? No.
I don't know specifics or anything, but I would argue that:
a) birth makes quite an impression on both mother and child. It's reasonable to assume that this may trigger some reactions. Note that I said "may".
b) historically, a child would be lower than the mother for some time.
> by then it may be too late.
Hopefully. I can't wait for experiments like this to drive against the wall in a very public way. Rupert Murdoch failing will, hopefully, be a sign for others that they need to change.
Sadly, most will take this as a sign that they need to be more aggressive.
Stuff like that makes me choose a brand when buying things.
Now if whoever bought the company that wanted to free the drugs against the sleeping illness from any IP (which, in turn, bought the company that wanted to free the drugs against the sleeping illness from any IP) would go through with it, a pill that has _no_ economic value to a large megacorp but could be manufactured locally and cure millions of people who are de facto in a coma...
_Some_ people get the whole thing about distribution costs plummeting and the need for new business models. Example: The Guardian.
Others don't. Example: Rupert Murdoch.
For people interested in these matters, I suggest techdirt.com -- I am not affiliated, but I love reading their stuff.