that cop is a complete moron. there is nothing to identify him as a police office: no uniform, unmarked car, no display of badge. yet the first thing he does is pull his gun, for a traffic violation. absolutely crazy.
They say most of the designs submitted take no more time from a designer than it would take for them to bid on a serious project. If they're making bids for free anyway, there's really not much difference to them.
the difference is that in the traditional model, you need have some sort of infrastructure built up around you to be successful. you need a portfolio, a suit, a nice haircut, professional references, possibly a job history.
traditional designers object. why? they now have to compete against people that normally would be excluded for reasons other than their skill set.
- useless if you get an incoming call or want to make an outbound call
that's a shortcoming of your carrier not google maps.
- no way of storing favorites
when the nav app starts, you have several options for inputing an address,
1. speak it 2. type it 3. from contacts 4. starred items 5. recent (list the last 10+ destinations)
if you want favorites, add the address into contacts. if you don't like that, you can use starred items. click the star next to any address in maps.google.com or google.com search results and it'll show up on your droid.
because it's apple to oranges. when you pay $180 for an in-contract N1 you are paying for something quite different. apply your own logic as to what works for you, but you can't compare them. if you are a typical american you are happy living with the weight of contracted financial burdons.
$530 for a no-contract smart phone isn't expensive. if you look on ebay for a new iphone 3gs, they are running around $600, and that's for an outdated inferior phone.
Is there a reason, other than some irrational copycat strategy, that they would want to go and compete with Google in other markets?
google isn't in the smart phone or phone OS business. they don't make money on that directly and they never will. their angle is,
1. get google apps on the phone. this will drive people to google apps on the desktop where they will see advertising.
2. lock them into google search on their phones. the number of searches coming from smart phones is becoming a significant factor. baidu can't afford to be locked out of that.
1. while google did advertise online, through their services, that was about it. if you frequented tech sites you might have known about it, otherwise no.
2. the perceived price is massive compared to amy other phone. US culture perceives cell phones to be around $200 max. the N1's $530 price tag produce an incredible sticker shock for the average person.
how much is freedom worth to you? do you value being able to move to another carrier if the service is poor or if their customer service mistreats you?
yes, but VLC can't play a DVD until you install the restricted extras package. the experience is the same as movie player. it dies without an error (or some obtuse error, i forget) until you install the package and sudo some script.
It really is a shame that Microsoft has such lethal corporate politics impacting their every decision... Not that I thought the Kin was cool (it certainly didn't appear to be...) but to kill a product line mere months after launch is pathetic...
moreover, you already developed the product and took it to market and produced the advertising, you might as well get behind it and see where it goes. if it doesn't take off, then just can development of kin 2.0. now no one will touch verizon's stock of kins with a ten foot pole.
not sure what you mean. maybe it's that XP doesn't come with a DVD playing app? XP certainly plays DVDs. all i did was install the free VLC app.
it's easier on ubuntu? i loved how movieplayer just quit with no error when i tried to play a DVD. not until i ran it from the command line (something which the average PC user would never do) did i get some strange error code that in itself did nothing to indicate the root of the problem was. i was at least able to google for a solution then. the solution then was to first install a package then run some script under sudo root. again, great stuff for the average PC user.
And I find it fascinating that the corporate media usually refuses to even mention FOSS. We nerds are the only ones who know about Linux; when I mention to normal people that they can replace Windows with an OS that costs nothing and is free from viruses, and there is an office suite that is likewise free, and free media playes that are superior to WiMP, they're astounded.
ubuntu, arguably the most advanced desktop linux, won't play DVDs out of the box. the process for making it play DVDs wouldn't be discoverable / doable by the "normal" user. if you are anything more than a flash gamer, linux is out. the only way to play netflix on linux is by running it in a windows VM. no itunes. and so on.
things like that stop people dead in their tracks.
Google's "App Inventor" will very likely have similar results: large numbers of people who would otherwise be unable to create any software will create bad software that is "good enough" because, while bad, it is precisely tailored to problems that they care about./quote?
why would you want to stop people from creating apps that are "good enough" to solve their problems? i could care less if someone is using a crappy app that works for them. i'll never install it or even know it exists. who cares. it's good for them that's all that counts.
apple has tons of crappy apps in their app store already (and so does android). apple doesn't approve / deny apps based on quality. that's not one of the check boxes. if someone pays the developer fee and follows the rules, that's all that matters.
While it makes sense for games like MMO's where the developer needs the monthly subscription to keep up their massive server farms and keep creating new content, the usual multiplayer games don't require that.
citation needed. while i can see that something like WoW would require greater ongoing development, there is certainly a cost involved with maintaining any game server.
with adblock up i get nothing more than a video that was "buffering" constantly. without adblock i got redirected to dating sites several times attempting to click on the play button. you'd need to be really desperate to go here for content.
at least theoretically, there's a huge difference between the near-ness of your body to an antenna, and actually making galvanic contact with the antenna.
this will have less of an impact for verizon than people might think. in a year, android will be even more entrenched in their existing user base. for new users, there will be new android offerings that out-gear the iphone 4.
Say you use Messenger to IM your wife. You also use Messenger to IM your old girlfriend...
i suggest flowers. or maybe not cheating on your wife. if you think it's not cheating, then ask your wife (or your mom if you are living in her basement) and see what she thinks.
here's the problem. people want a free and open market. they don't want the apple approval process. hence, the android market is pretty open. you can post pretty much whatever you want.
the consequence of that is that you can get malware on your device pretty easily. the other day i saw an app that was masquerading as a bank of america account access application... right there in the official android market. these type of things get taken down quickly, but there is still some number of people that install them.
remote removal is a safety net to protect against these type of things. it could be used for evil, sure. as long as google doesn't use it for evil, i'm fine with it. this doesn't qualify as evil.
for them, it's a question if they want the bad press from having android known as a malware-infected platform, or from them having the ability to remote-wipe apps. only nerds get upset about the latter.
If you make the same profit two year si a row, you are not growing.
you know the difference between increasing, and rate of change right? just because the rate of growth decreased does not mean the company is shrinking. it means it is growing slower.
so if a company grew 1000% percent one year, then *only* grew 500% the next year, it's a "shrinking", "stagnant", company by the logic of the OP, which you are trying to support (i guess).
Why would you leave money in a possibly dying company?
high P/E means the price of the share does not closely correlate to the earnings of the company. it does not necessarily mean the company is growing. rather, it means that investors *think* it will grow.
you'd invest in a company with a low P/E for the same reason generations of people before you have... because they want stable investments. low P/E is generally considered a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
that cop is a complete moron. there is nothing to identify him as a police office: no uniform, unmarked car, no display of badge. yet the first thing he does is pull his gun, for a traffic violation. absolutely crazy.
They say most of the designs submitted take no more time from a designer than it would take for them to bid on a serious project. If they're making bids for free anyway, there's really not much difference to them.
the difference is that in the traditional model, you need have some sort of infrastructure built up around you to be successful. you need a portfolio, a suit, a nice haircut, professional references, possibly a job history.
traditional designers object. why? they now have to compete against people that normally would be excluded for reasons other than their skill set.
- no way to route around traffic delays
take a look here,
http://cellphoneforums.net/motorola-droid/t304903-google-maps-navigation-droid-gps-traffic-reroute.html
- useless if you get an incoming call or want to make an outbound call
that's a shortcoming of your carrier not google maps.
- no way of storing favorites
when the nav app starts, you have several options for inputing an address,
1. speak it
2. type it
3. from contacts
4. starred items
5. recent (list the last 10+ destinations)
if you want favorites, add the address into contacts. if you don't like that, you can use starred items. click the star next to any address in maps.google.com or google.com search results and it'll show up on your droid.
Interesting how people are quick to jump on Apple for this, when Android and Chrome are created by an advertising company.
neither android or chrome forces advertisements on the user. even the google apps in android are ad-less. even google search on android is ad-less.
because it's apple to oranges. when you pay $180 for an in-contract N1 you are paying for something quite different. apply your own logic as to what works for you, but you can't compare them. if you are a typical american you are happy living with the weight of contracted financial burdons.
$530 for a no-contract smart phone isn't expensive. if you look on ebay for a new iphone 3gs, they are running around $600, and that's for an outdated inferior phone.
Is there a reason, other than some irrational copycat strategy, that they would want to go and compete with Google in other markets?
google isn't in the smart phone or phone OS business. they don't make money on that directly and they never will. their angle is,
1. get google apps on the phone. this will drive people to google apps on the desktop where they will see advertising.
2. lock them into google search on their phones. the number of searches coming from smart phones is becoming a significant factor. baidu can't afford to be locked out of that.
1. while google did advertise online, through their services, that was about it. if you frequented tech sites you might have known about it, otherwise no.
2. the perceived price is massive compared to amy other phone. US culture perceives cell phones to be around $200 max. the N1's $530 price tag produce an incredible sticker shock for the average person.
how much is freedom worth to you? do you value being able to move to another carrier if the service is poor or if their customer service mistreats you?
expensive compared to what? i hope you aren't comparing subsidized phone costs.
yes, but VLC can't play a DVD until you install the restricted extras package. the experience is the same as movie player. it dies without an error (or some obtuse error, i forget) until you install the package and sudo some script.
It really is a shame that Microsoft has such lethal corporate politics impacting their every decision... Not that I thought the Kin was cool (it certainly didn't appear to be...) but to kill a product line mere months after launch is pathetic...
moreover, you already developed the product and took it to market and produced the advertising, you might as well get behind it and see where it goes. if it doesn't take off, then just can development of kin 2.0. now no one will touch verizon's stock of kins with a ten foot pole.
XP 'won't play DVDs out of the box' either
not sure what you mean. maybe it's that XP doesn't come with a DVD playing app? XP certainly plays DVDs. all i did was install the free VLC app.
it's easier on ubuntu? i loved how movieplayer just quit with no error when i tried to play a DVD. not until i ran it from the command line (something which the average PC user would never do) did i get some strange error code that in itself did nothing to indicate the root of the problem was. i was at least able to google for a solution then. the solution then was to first install a package then run some script under sudo root. again, great stuff for the average PC user.
It is true that had XP+SP2 been free software...
it is free. 6 billion chinese can't be wrong.
And I find it fascinating that the corporate media usually refuses to even mention FOSS. We nerds are the only ones who know about Linux; when I mention to normal people that they can replace Windows with an OS that costs nothing and is free from viruses, and there is an office suite that is likewise free, and free media playes that are superior to WiMP, they're astounded.
ubuntu, arguably the most advanced desktop linux, won't play DVDs out of the box. the process for making it play DVDs wouldn't be discoverable / doable by the "normal" user. if you are anything more than a flash gamer, linux is out. the only way to play netflix on linux is by running it in a windows VM. no itunes. and so on.
things like that stop people dead in their tracks.
Google's "App Inventor" will very likely have similar results: large numbers of people who would otherwise be unable to create any software will create bad software that is "good enough" because, while bad, it is precisely tailored to problems that they care about. /quote?
why would you want to stop people from creating apps that are "good enough" to solve their problems? i could care less if someone is using a crappy app that works for them. i'll never install it or even know it exists. who cares. it's good for them that's all that counts.
apple has tons of crappy apps in their app store already (and so does android). apple doesn't approve / deny apps based on quality. that's not one of the check boxes. if someone pays the developer fee and follows the rules, that's all that matters.
While it makes sense for games like MMO's where the developer needs the monthly subscription to keep up their massive server farms and keep creating new content, the usual multiplayer games don't require that.
citation needed. while i can see that something like WoW would require greater ongoing development, there is certainly a cost involved with maintaining any game server.
with adblock up i get nothing more than a video that was "buffering" constantly. without adblock i got redirected to dating sites several times attempting to click on the play button. you'd need to be really desperate to go here for content.
at least theoretically, there's a huge difference between the near-ness of your body to an antenna, and actually making galvanic contact with the antenna.
this will have less of an impact for verizon than people might think. in a year, android will be even more entrenched in their existing user base. for new users, there will be new android offerings that out-gear the iphone 4.
netflix is $8.99, is ad-free, has more content, has many client platforms (PC, mobile, wii, playstation, roku, etc), and includes DVD rentals by mail.
what are they thinking?
Say you use Messenger to IM your wife. You also use Messenger to IM your old girlfriend...
i suggest flowers. or maybe not cheating on your wife. if you think it's not cheating, then ask your wife (or your mom if you are living in her basement) and see what she thinks.
here's the problem. people want a free and open market. they don't want the apple approval process. hence, the android market is pretty open. you can post pretty much whatever you want.
the consequence of that is that you can get malware on your device pretty easily. the other day i saw an app that was masquerading as a bank of america account access application ... right there in the official android market. these type of things get taken down quickly, but there is still some number of people that install them.
remote removal is a safety net to protect against these type of things. it could be used for evil, sure. as long as google doesn't use it for evil, i'm fine with it. this doesn't qualify as evil.
for them, it's a question if they want the bad press from having android known as a malware-infected platform, or from them having the ability to remote-wipe apps. only nerds get upset about the latter.
If you make the same profit two year si a row, you are not growing.
you know the difference between increasing, and rate of change right? just because the rate of growth decreased does not mean the company is shrinking. it means it is growing slower.
so if a company grew 1000% percent one year, then *only* grew 500% the next year, it's a "shrinking", "stagnant", company by the logic of the OP, which you are trying to support (i guess).
Why would you leave money in a possibly dying company?
high P/E means the price of the share does not closely correlate to the earnings of the company. it does not necessarily mean the company is growing. rather, it means that investors *think* it will grow.
you'd invest in a company with a low P/E for the same reason generations of people before you have ... because they want stable investments. low P/E is generally considered a good thing.
Sony and Nintendo bend Microsoft over a chair and take turns having their way.
are you sure? xbox recently overtook both PS3 and Wii in market share, although they are all very close.
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/slideshow/npd-console-marketshare,0101-243018-0-2-3-1-jpg-.html
the hardware itself is a money sink, as it is for other console vendors. they make $ on games / licensing / peripherals / online services.