The difference between google+ and facebook is google+ doesn't track you across every single website on the internet. Facebooks' like button does track you, whether you are logged in or not, and whether or not you have or have ever created a facebook profile in the first place.
Again, the focus on google is not only inaccurate, but misleading.
Guess how light drugs are at weight -> value, and you can see that this would be incredibly easy to do. A few bottles of fake viagra worth 20 grand sent across a sea for pennies, cost is basically just time? done.
I think he highlights the important part - not bitcoin specific, but that alternate payment methods are going to be needed because this stuff done by the carriers is just retarded.
What solution exists? Nothing great at the moment.
you can pretty much make your entire profile invisible on g+. change the profile photo to something random, use a fake name, make sure every post is only seen by certain people.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yes, people have gotten locked out but it's rare and fake names *don't* get locked.
What part of "it costs $318 today, and won't tomorrow" was hard to understand? Supply costs are not the same, they are always on a downward trend. The biggest cost was the IPS display.
Asus was working on a tablet that was just a screen + battery + smartphone dock, essentially. That would peg it around $100 probably. so don't assume that the $318 on that tablet is in any way representative of what the costs are/must be, more like what HP went with.
Absolutely. There is no tablet in the world worth over $200. That even includes the asus transformer 32GB with the dock. These devices are just not worth it - limited functionality for a premium? Of course it's not selling.
Wha? Bilski and other cases have resulted from a far too relaxed view on patentability. Clearly invalid, obvious patents have indeed been granted due to not being specific enough. That was clarified again by the federal circuit. Long story short, too much has been patented on things that are not patentable.
hours of enjoyment and actual cost of the video game are not equal, and that has been a problem. By that logic, a game with 4x as many "man-hours of enjoyment" should be $120. Or a game with "half the enjoyment" (a made up figure that makes no sense) should be worth half as much.Yet that would be obviously ridiculous. Plenty of people try to charge as much as possible for as little as possible. Do you realize what kind of fuzzy logic (nice username for that) you are suggesting?
What about those "you can only play once through"? When you focus on merely number of hours, you're focusing on allowing yourself to be pigeonholed into an argument that doesn't focus on the reality of that the higher you price a video game the more likely people are not going to be willing to buy it. $40 games lead to 45 lead to etc etc. Now we're up to 60. What if those get to 70? Are you going to just say "well, that's inflation. Oh, and it's a good game!" Only if you are completely oblivious to essentially paying a grand in a single year just for a decent gaming collection.
Or you can buy a PC, download all the games you want via torrent, and spend $0 plus be able to play the game the way it should be able to, assuming that the developers deliberately restricted some kind of feature that should have been available.
Greed is the problem. $60 for a game isn't a value, it's an explotation of a consumer.
you're comparing forms of entertainment. That is not the same at all.
Buying a video game is not even remotely similar to buying a movie ticket. If you are equating the two, then you are not completely comprehending what I am talking about. This isn't a $$ figure to entertainment total. You can buy a movie for $20 (DVD) and watch it more than once. Or you can download it and watch it infinitely without restrictions Look! infinite value!
reality: not really the same comparison. Your idea of $5/hour is also pure imagination, and nowhere do things ever settle on a regular amount within any trend of entertainment. A 3 hour movie that costs $9 for a ticket versus a 2 hour movie for $9 a ticket. Are you saying the 3 hour is magically more value? what if the movie sucks?
You've opened a can of worms that is not related to the discussion.
Actually, I concur. It's not like it's explicitly broken, it's just that it lacks a lot of ridiculously obvious features and the tie-in from the cable companies is annoying. Restricting obvious features with a surcharge is pretty stupid and is contributed to a loss of cable (tv) customers.
This is somewhat accurate. Reality is that game prices are just ridiculous to begin with. Whether it's 100 hours long or 20 hours long, no game is worth $60. $30 is a reasonable "premium title" price.;
Meanwhile, what is the reason for the 100 hours thing? At first, it was quality (SNES, PS era). Since then, it has become "we've made an elaborate timesink to make this shit take 10x as long as it should". I've only seen square be one of the few developers to let people complete their games quickly if they so choose or get as in depth with it as they want in recent games.
The rest are "do this a billion times to proceed to the next level" or hamstringing a player to complete something. This doesn't equate to quality or solid gameplay, in fact it's a defining point of the exact opposite.
And that is overnight? Do you know what "more than 24 hours" is? I'll tell you what it is, getting 4.5 billion spent by your competitors in fear of your leading the market, and then doing exactly that.
In the meanwhile, this could simultaneously delete any need for tablets altogether. I think you need to read between the lines.
Between ASUS's equivalent functionality to how the "laptop" works with the ACER, except being done on the tablet, you are looking at single device convergence here. One smartphone to control all of those.
This is not posturing, but that is the key phrase of the shills. People aren't that stupid to believe an anon about "posturing".
Motorola Mobility, as indicated, indeed includes set top boxes and a TON of other technology. Don't forget about the Atrix, and what the possibilities of a chromebook + docking android phone could do, as well.
This isn't desperation. There are a lot of things behind this. I love how you look at this from an immediate perspective. Think of the fact that acquisitions don't happen overnight.
Then, don't think that this is just about patents, and don't be so shortsighted to assume that this is just the "cellphone" arm of the company. This is a large part of motorola's split, not just "cellphones".
There is plenty google can do, and this wasn't a mistake. It was pretty clear they got their competition to spend $4.5B on nothing.
Wrong question with "firefox is better", etc etc. The real question is, who the hell uses IE9 in the first place?
I dont' care how good it is at "blocking malicious content" if the underlying OS is still completely unsafe, which is due to what consumers put on their PC's.
End result = IE9 could be bulletproof and the OS will still be pwned a million times over.
Uh, samsung *gave* people the phones - to the devs, and said "hack away". That's not hostility towards CM. It's a small step, but a significant one. As noted, the CM mod would not be likely to accept a job from samsung without the freedom to do what he wants.
As noted, there is no "I'm leaving the CM team" announcement. That part is significant.
Slashdot Mirror
Forcing?
What imagination do you come up with?
The difference between google+ and facebook is google+ doesn't track you across every single website on the internet. Facebooks' like button does track you, whether you are logged in or not, and whether or not you have or have ever created a facebook profile in the first place.
Again, the focus on google is not only inaccurate, but misleading.
SCO group (AKA SCO). So, same group in it's entirety.
Just a small clarification.
Guess how light drugs are at weight -> value, and you can see that this would be incredibly easy to do. A few bottles of fake viagra worth 20 grand sent across a sea for pennies, cost is basically just time? done.
I think he highlights the important part - not bitcoin specific, but that alternate payment methods are going to be needed because this stuff done by the carriers is just retarded.
What solution exists? Nothing great at the moment.
wha?
you can pretty much make your entire profile invisible on g+. change the profile photo to something random, use a fake name, make sure every post is only seen by certain people.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yes, people have gotten locked out but it's rare and fake names *don't* get locked.
How many times does someone parrot the "oh, they're evil now"?
because they call it an identity service? really?
Troll less, please.
If you want to worry about a company, worry about facebook + microsoft working together.
What part of "it costs $318 today, and won't tomorrow" was hard to understand? Supply costs are not the same, they are always on a downward trend. The biggest cost was the IPS display.
Asus was working on a tablet that was just a screen + battery + smartphone dock, essentially. That would peg it around $100 probably. so don't assume that the $318 on that tablet is in any way representative of what the costs are/must be, more like what HP went with.
uh, a TV is not at all like a tablet.
The ipad is no better at this than any other tablet, since it can't do what a normal OSX or X86 or Linux PC can do.
All markets have a "marketshare" and ipad has the most of it's, but that doesn't mean that a shitload are selling. Not even close.
Absolutely. There is no tablet in the world worth over $200. That even includes the asus transformer 32GB with the dock. These devices are just not worth it - limited functionality for a premium? Of course it's not selling.
Wha? Bilski and other cases have resulted from a far too relaxed view on patentability. Clearly invalid, obvious patents have indeed been granted due to not being specific enough. That was clarified again by the federal circuit. Long story short, too much has been patented on things that are not patentable.
However, guess when these denials don't happen first?
When it's expedited requests.
hours of enjoyment and actual cost of the video game are not equal, and that has been a problem. By that logic, a game with 4x as many "man-hours of enjoyment" should be $120. Or a game with "half the enjoyment" (a made up figure that makes no sense) should be worth half as much.Yet that would be obviously ridiculous. Plenty of people try to charge as much as possible for as little as possible.
Do you realize what kind of fuzzy logic (nice username for that) you are suggesting?
What about those "you can only play once through"? When you focus on merely number of hours, you're focusing on allowing yourself to be pigeonholed into an argument that doesn't focus on the reality of that the higher you price a video game the more likely people are not going to be willing to buy it. $40 games lead to 45 lead to etc etc. Now we're up to 60. What if those get to 70? Are you going to just say "well, that's inflation. Oh, and it's a good game!" Only if you are completely oblivious to essentially paying a grand in a single year just for a decent gaming collection.
Or you can buy a PC, download all the games you want via torrent, and spend $0 plus be able to play the game the way it should be able to, assuming that the developers deliberately restricted some kind of feature that should have been available.
Greed is the problem. $60 for a game isn't a value, it's an explotation of a consumer.
you're comparing forms of entertainment. That is not the same at all.
Buying a video game is not even remotely similar to buying a movie ticket. If you are equating the two, then you are not completely comprehending what I am talking about. This isn't a $$ figure to entertainment total. You can buy a movie for $20 (DVD) and watch it more than once. Or you can download it and watch it infinitely without restrictions Look! infinite value!
reality: not really the same comparison. Your idea of $5/hour is also pure imagination, and nowhere do things ever settle on a regular amount within any trend of entertainment. A 3 hour movie that costs $9 for a ticket versus a 2 hour movie for $9 a ticket. Are you saying the 3 hour is magically more value? what if the movie sucks?
You've opened a can of worms that is not related to the discussion.
Actually, I concur. It's not like it's explicitly broken, it's just that it lacks a lot of ridiculously obvious features and the tie-in from the cable companies is annoying. Restricting obvious features with a surcharge is pretty stupid and is contributed to a loss of cable (tv) customers.
This is somewhat accurate. Reality is that game prices are just ridiculous to begin with. Whether it's 100 hours long or 20 hours long, no game is worth $60. $30 is a reasonable "premium title" price.;
Meanwhile, what is the reason for the 100 hours thing? At first, it was quality (SNES, PS era). Since then, it has become "we've made an elaborate timesink to make this shit take 10x as long as it should". I've only seen square be one of the few developers to let people complete their games quickly if they so choose or get as in depth with it as they want in recent games.
The rest are "do this a billion times to proceed to the next level" or hamstringing a player to complete something. This doesn't equate to quality or solid gameplay, in fact it's a defining point of the exact opposite.
Testing a virtual lab rat has only the cost of the computing power.
People try to say that research costs hundreds of billions of dollars (it used to maybe 20 years ago, but is far less today).
It's used as an excuse to extract money.
maybe now people will start to understand that research is nowhere near the costs it is claimed to be.
And that is overnight? Do you know what "more than 24 hours" is? I'll tell you what it is, getting 4.5 billion spent by your competitors in fear of your leading the market, and then doing exactly that.
Oh hi shill!
In the meanwhile, this could simultaneously delete any need for tablets altogether. I think you need to read between the lines.
Between ASUS's equivalent functionality to how the "laptop" works with the ACER, except being done on the tablet, you are looking at single device convergence here. One smartphone to control all of those.
This is not posturing, but that is the key phrase of the shills. People aren't that stupid to believe an anon about "posturing".
Motorola Mobility, as indicated, indeed includes set top boxes and a TON of other technology. Don't forget about the Atrix, and what the possibilities of a chromebook + docking android phone could do, as well.
This isn't desperation. There are a lot of things behind this. I love how you look at this from an immediate perspective. Think of the fact that acquisitions don't happen overnight.
Then, don't think that this is just about patents, and don't be so shortsighted to assume that this is just the "cellphone" arm of the company. This is a large part of motorola's split, not just "cellphones".
There is plenty google can do, and this wasn't a mistake. It was pretty clear they got their competition to spend $4.5B on nothing.
Wrong question with "firefox is better", etc etc. The real question is, who the hell uses IE9 in the first place?
I dont' care how good it is at "blocking malicious content" if the underlying OS is still completely unsafe, which is due to what consumers put on their PC's.
End result = IE9 could be bulletproof and the OS will still be pwned a million times over.
reading fail on my part.
troll more creatively please.
Aaron Barr got his ass handed to him, almost specifically for being unethical. This shouldn't exactly be a surprise.
Uh, samsung *gave* people the phones - to the devs, and said "hack away". That's not hostility towards CM. It's a small step, but a significant one. As noted, the CM mod would not be likely to accept a job from samsung without the freedom to do what he wants.
As noted, there is no "I'm leaving the CM team" announcement. That part is significant.