Actually, if such software was open sourced, for example, people might be able to come up with new and beneficial uses - not to mention being able to fix problems themselves.
Also, they use proprietary stuff just to connect to the car that is prohibitive to the consumer (quite intentionally). You don't think those devices actually cost 1000$ or so, do you?
Just because someone doesn't buy after they try, is just the market doing what the market does. This makes no difference whatsoever.
However, if someone can't try before they buy and thus refuse to buy, this is also common sense. It's for this reason why not every single person just buys crap out of newspapers and magazines and actually does research before they buy things important to them. It's about more than perception; people are informed customers (it isn't the 1900s anymore).
credit is one thing and that is easily enforced even without any form of patents, control over knowledge (patents) is not the same.
Your comparison is incorrect. GPL has no aspect of the discussion. People can give away software without GPL. This wasn't a design issue. This was a "giving away something to sell the service" same as many things including GPL do.
This would be like giving away your code for free instead of charging for your program, and charging for service. Lots of industries do that, replace code/program with any physical item, and the sentence still holds weight.
if I had a dollar for every company who has a patent and doesn't release it to market in order to prevent it and similar products from being public, I'd be a trillionaire right now.
Actually, the person you are replying to is 100% correct.
The only time the service doesn't work is in an unestablished industry with 0 competitors. In every other industry if you look long term giving things out for free makes exponentially more.
You are absolutely incorrect about medical patents. If it weren't for medical patents, my cousin would have been able to release a cure for a form of HIV she discovered about 5 years back. 5 years! But what happened? A similar modification by a big company has been patented, and they did it merely by patenting every possible variant of the string she used.
Patents are allowing the medical R&D companies to over-recoup the costs of research by a factor of 50+, easily, considering government sponsored research as well.
Lets look at other industries. If cars were given away through promotions (which happens all the time), do you think it might draw up more buzz for the companies?
Lets look at other industries. Take any product, and the more you sell it for, the less people come back for more business. The less you sell it for, the more competitive and more people come back for more business. All products break, or wear down, or need some sort of service. Not all products are worth buying twice in anyone's eyes.
This is also why well trained and good customer service policies make or break a company. Think of Dell's customer service and how people hates them for that.
both have been increasing in efficiency,use,everything over the years. Nothing is "OMFG groundbreaking", but both AI and solar power will at some point be prominent technologies, and likely in our lifetime.
Ahh but you see, if they did anything to private aviation, it'd affect their own flights. So no more bush just walking up to the private jet with no security checks.
hahahaha, you are probably right. I didn't know much about computers, etc...monitor probably was shitty (and I probably had contrast set at about 150% taking gamma into consideration).
I also agree about them making a game run well...I just would like to see less special lighting and just make it pretty dark, is all. I'm not asking for specular lighting and all that, just not "bright". Even D2 and D1 towns were night happy bright.
All they have to do, take all that green, all that distanced lighting shit, and make it black. Pitch as fuck black.
This was the thing in the first game, you couldn't just see infinitely further ahead, shit was dark in many places. That was half the fun of the 2nd and 3rd dungeons. I like a change, but honestly, this is to be some form of a dark game, this is not hello kitty meets diablo.
What have they done that has not been involving some subterfuge. Name one thing since their conception that did not involve either: stealing someone else's idea, embrace extend extinguish, or was legitimately good and didn't have some hidden reason behind it that reinforced the evil or wasn't a complete and blatant lie.
(note: any "donations" by the gates corporation goes out the door with that too - follow the money on their "science" investments).
I'd call it a pretty dumb move to have any form of government involvement without warrants/legal documentation to trail back and cover your own ass, but I suppose the library would rather shoot themselves in the foot in this regards.
If in case there is some violation done by the library by willfully handing them over without a warrant that CYA is out the window now./cue directory getting fired in 5...4....3....
Watch out for the fine print for one, and two this is a press release equivalent.
This is an "ohhh, sure, we're going to do this" followed by a "well, not enough people followed it, so we're dropping it". That or it will be DRM laden enough that it's a flaming piece of turd. This is a complete unsubstantiated claim by the MPAA right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if they simply restore that one download site they created before that was dropped...maybe someone else remembers the name. The day MPAA offers "legit online downloads" means the day they accept piracy.
I think it's fine to ask their geek bench the answers to these questions (as representatives of the company), I don't think it's fine to clog up the time intentionally.
Can't help it, FSF goes out of their ways a little sometimes. Apple has the right to throw them out, but really FSF is just using the system that is in place. How is this different than gerrymandering or using legal loopholes for all sorts of crap?
Umm, they are trying to spread the word via activism.
What you're referring to is illegal.
If Apple had people try to poke hole's in FSF';s theories through spam the difference is that it'd be easier to sort through and would hold apple accountable.
The only times this would ever occur is because a lot of people are retarded when it comes to computers. The proof of how people hate it is that the minute you show them, the lightbulb goes off and they instantly refuse it. The only ones who accept it are those with the wool over their eyes in the first place.
This has been shown time and time and time again. People don't know how to make things that are worth your time, so they think some magic ad is going to get clicks. Google's cost per action was an example of showing when advertisements really work. I guess a lot of people don't realize there are plenty of website scanners that check things such as advertising links...lots of traffic comes that way.
Uh yes, most people do hate ads, and some like myself never click a single ad, even if it's required as a clickthrough. Adblock + noscript + nukeanything = no ads.
Problem is everyone thinks ads (like marketing) are a magic cashcow. They aren't. If your product sucks, whatever it happens to be, tangible or intangible, advertising and marketing will only go so far. It's like the unsolicited spam-mail when you see who sells your email address (such as amazon, buy.com, anything really). Anytime you sign up for something with spamgourmet's toss away emails just watch how many places start sending mails identified as from them, etc etc.
Problem with advertising and marketing is there are no ethics in that industry, not even remotely; people will make a bag of shit sound like its a 24carat gold bag of benjamins if you pay em to do so.
Is it me, or is this directly contradictory to this article?
From that one: "Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser on any given day. " Did someone really lump IE with the rest of the world?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if such software was open sourced, for example, people might be able to come up with new and beneficial uses - not to mention being able to fix problems themselves.
Or do you not remember honda's "Accidental" higher mileage clocking that if people had access to the software, they could fix themselves. http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/honda-odometer-problem/20070220091309990002
Also, they use proprietary stuff just to connect to the car that is prohibitive to the consumer (quite intentionally). You don't think those devices actually cost 1000$ or so, do you?
Cars are an example of proprietary gone wrong.
Just because someone doesn't buy after they try, is just the market doing what the market does. This makes no difference whatsoever.
However, if someone can't try before they buy and thus refuse to buy, this is also common sense. It's for this reason why not every single person just buys crap out of newspapers and magazines and actually does research before they buy things important to them. It's about more than perception; people are informed customers (it isn't the 1900s anymore).
Yes, I did misunderstand, and I do agree with you. (no counterargument lol)
credit is one thing and that is easily enforced even without any form of patents, control over knowledge (patents) is not the same.
Your comparison is incorrect. GPL has no aspect of the discussion. People can give away software without GPL. This wasn't a design issue. This was a "giving away something to sell the service" same as many things including GPL do.
This would be like giving away your code for free instead of charging for your program, and charging for service. Lots of industries do that, replace code/program with any physical item, and the sentence still holds weight.
if I had a dollar for every company who has a patent and doesn't release it to market in order to prevent it and similar products from being public, I'd be a trillionaire right now.
Actually, the person you are replying to is 100% correct.
The only time the service doesn't work is in an unestablished industry with 0 competitors. In every other industry if you look long term giving things out for free makes exponentially more.
You are absolutely incorrect about medical patents. If it weren't for medical patents, my cousin would have been able to release a cure for a form of HIV she discovered about 5 years back. 5 years! But what happened? A similar modification by a big company has been patented, and they did it merely by patenting every possible variant of the string she used.
Patents are allowing the medical R&D companies to over-recoup the costs of research by a factor of 50+, easily, considering government sponsored research as well.
Lets look at other industries. If cars were given away through promotions (which happens all the time), do you think it might draw up more buzz for the companies?
Lets look at other industries. Take any product, and the more you sell it for, the less people come back for more business. The less you sell it for, the more competitive and more people come back for more business. All products break, or wear down, or need some sort of service. Not all products are worth buying twice in anyone's eyes.
This is also why well trained and good customer service policies make or break a company. Think of Dell's customer service and how people hates them for that.
they want to use physx because as is clear right now, nobody other than Nvidia can use it 100% accurately yet.
I seem to recall an israeli group getting it working on a radeon 4850 and doing fantastic, but overall this is the real reason it's promoted.
Thus, in effect, its like how nvidia refused to support DX 10.1
both have been increasing in efficiency,use,everything over the years. Nothing is "OMFG groundbreaking", but both AI and solar power will at some point be prominent technologies, and likely in our lifetime.
good math, sir.
Did you use a neanderthal calculator when you turned 6k into 6?
Ahh but you see, if they did anything to private aviation, it'd affect their own flights. So no more bush just walking up to the private jet with no security checks.
Apparently punctuation is difficult for our editors. I believe that was meant to be "So, little of what the TSA is doing is any more than illusion".
Usually they just write "I hate MS troll diaf stfu" with a goatse link.
so for people that are like veto, where do they stand up?
Are we talking excess squads of slepnirs or something?
Do they compare to AAA or is AAA considered wholly territorial?
how do they stand up to say, BoB?
I don't speak for all of Eve players, but I've certainly never heard of them.
hahahaha, you are probably right. I didn't know much about computers, etc...monitor probably was shitty (and I probably had contrast set at about 150% taking gamma into consideration).
I also agree about them making a game run well...I just would like to see less special lighting and just make it pretty dark, is all. I'm not asking for specular lighting and all that, just not "bright". Even D2 and D1 towns were night happy bright.
Okay, I admit. I laughed. I hope you get an extra +mod :D
All they have to do, take all that green, all that distanced lighting shit, and make it black. Pitch as fuck black.
This was the thing in the first game, you couldn't just see infinitely further ahead, shit was dark in many places. That was half the fun of the 2nd and 3rd dungeons. I like a change, but honestly, this is to be some form of a dark game, this is not hello kitty meets diablo.
Really?
What have they done that has not been involving some subterfuge. Name one thing since their conception that did not involve either: stealing someone else's idea, embrace extend extinguish, or was legitimately good and didn't have some hidden reason behind it that reinforced the evil or wasn't a complete and blatant lie.
(note: any "donations" by the gates corporation goes out the door with that too - follow the money on their "science" investments).
Agreed.
I'd call it a pretty dumb move to have any form of government involvement without warrants/legal documentation to trail back and cover your own ass, but I suppose the library would rather shoot themselves in the foot in this regards.
If in case there is some violation done by the library by willfully handing them over without a warrant that CYA is out the window now. /cue directory getting fired in 5...4....3....
Watch out for the fine print for one, and two this is a press release equivalent.
This is an "ohhh, sure, we're going to do this" followed by a "well, not enough people followed it, so we're dropping it". That or it will be DRM laden enough that it's a flaming piece of turd. This is a complete unsubstantiated claim by the MPAA right now.
I wouldn't be surprised if they simply restore that one download site they created before that was dropped...maybe someone else remembers the name. The day MPAA offers "legit online downloads" means the day they accept piracy.
I agree with you about ends justify the means.
I think it's fine to ask their geek bench the answers to these questions (as representatives of the company), I don't think it's fine to clog up the time intentionally.
Can't help it, FSF goes out of their ways a little sometimes. Apple has the right to throw them out, but really FSF is just using the system that is in place. How is this different than gerrymandering or using legal loopholes for all sorts of crap?
Umm, they are trying to spread the word via activism.
What you're referring to is illegal.
If Apple had people try to poke hole's in FSF';s theories through spam the difference is that it'd be easier to sort through and would hold apple accountable.
The only times this would ever occur is because a lot of people are retarded when it comes to computers. The proof of how people hate it is that the minute you show them, the lightbulb goes off and they instantly refuse it. The only ones who accept it are those with the wool over their eyes in the first place.
This has been shown time and time and time again. People don't know how to make things that are worth your time, so they think some magic ad is going to get clicks. Google's cost per action was an example of showing when advertisements really work. I guess a lot of people don't realize there are plenty of website scanners that check things such as advertising links...lots of traffic comes that way.
Uh yes, most people do hate ads, and some like myself never click a single ad, even if it's required as a clickthrough. Adblock + noscript + nukeanything = no ads.
Problem is everyone thinks ads (like marketing) are a magic cashcow. They aren't. If your product sucks, whatever it happens to be, tangible or intangible, advertising and marketing will only go so far. It's like the unsolicited spam-mail when you see who sells your email address (such as amazon, buy.com, anything really). Anytime you sign up for something with spamgourmet's toss away emails just watch how many places start sending mails identified as from them, etc etc.
Problem with advertising and marketing is there are no ethics in that industry, not even remotely; people will make a bag of shit sound like its a 24carat gold bag of benjamins if you pay em to do so.
Is it me, or is this directly contradictory to this article?
From that one: "Firefox users were far and away the most likely to use the latest version, with an overwhelming 83.3 percent running an updated browser on any given day. " Did someone really lump IE with the rest of the world?