You see, you have to read the entire thread for things to make sense. I'll try to help. Next time I'm not going to do your thinking for you. I suppose you don't care if you look like a tard though as long as you post AC.
How does it even begin to make sense to go buy 100 gold coins in some stupid mobile game, log onto two devices with the same account and get 100 coins each.
Let me provide an analogy. You have a pre-paid VISA card. When you add $100 to the balance, you see the balance on the computer in your mom's basement AND the computer in your little brother's bedroom. But, by the magic of cloud computing, when you purchase that sailor moon action figure online from your mom's computer, you see the balance deducted on your little brother's computer as well. Magic huh?
But hey, don't trust me. Install just about ANY game with in-app purchased consumables and see how it works.
I saw one at the library yesterday. They've been selling in the category of 'poor person's laptop.' At least, that's what I think whenever I see one.
Well, hardly. The SP4 starts at $750, which is $150 less than the starting MBP. I really doubt at that price anyone is picking the SP to save $150.
I have to say though, Apple Marketing has worked well on you. Judging people as "poor" for using a MSFT product. You are s shining example of what Apple wants to make all of us.
Don't be so pedantic, "hubris" comes from Ancient Greek, "hybris", therefore it is perfectly acceptable to write it with a y.
Perfectly acceptable and also unused outside of english lit major parties. But I guess if your goal is to pretend you are smarter than the other humans as opposed to being understood, you have succeeded. Really, ask yourself why you'd use a form of a word that essentially no one knows?
Why would a stock jump 29% based on the release of a game? Such insanity. In contrast, Apples stock went up 0.6%.
Because it (perhaps) shows that Nintendo is finally getting a clue about the profitability of mobile gaming and may start monetizing their assets. Up until this date, you've never seen a Mario game running on non-Nintendo hardware*.
* I know someone is going to link some obscure Mario game that was licensed on the CDI or something. Okay, point taken.
*If* Pokemon Go does more AND in combination with Android, then that is something they've clearly built on top. Which they are entitled but not required to do. But it's not something you can expect from consumable in-app purchases ordinarily.
Um, of course? How would it work otherwise? Consumables must be managed on the developer's cloud. If iOS magically sent the purchase to all of your iOS devices how would it be ensured you'd only use them once?
Not true. Consumable in-app purchases, such as if buy a number of PokeBalls for Pokemon Go are not transferable.
It depends on how it's implemented by the developer. If you are trying to say that it's impossible to link a digital consumable to an online account, that's most certainly false.
Most often, digital assets are linked to the game center / Google Play ID so as long as you are logged onto that ID on the second device you will see the same assets.
Let's hope Nintendo manages to keep cranking out good games and this is not the beginning of the end for them. Like when Sega abandoned their hardware platform.
I think the fact that they are rehashing a 20+ year old game should answer that one.
Chrome is a pile of shit. Google needs to go back to what they do best, spying on you and customizing your advertisement experience... such as running Ashley Madison ads on the screen every time your wife walks in the room.
I suggest you use a incognito window and VPN when cheating on your wife.
That's only a short-term compromise to avoid pissing off the world too much. In the long term headphone makers will start producing Apple-only lightning headphones. Those headphones will have to license Apple since this new interface can negotiate the connection. They will consequently cost more. Moreover, it's a DRM ploy since regulating which devices can connect will also regulate how the media played through that interface can be copied.
Like comparing rocket flight to package delivery? Thanks for furthering the discussion. Not being an aerospace engineer, I appreciate you putting it in terms us lowbies can understand.
You ALWAYS pay more than the average risk is worth when you buy insurance.... Individuals who suffer an insured loss *sometimes* recover more than they have paid in premiums, but this is the exception.
You can't ALWAYS pay more and SOMETIMES recover more than you paid. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ALWAYS.
Last failure = none. Seems like this document is a bit out of date (or it's not listing previous failures since it was a different version (they list no other Falcon 9 variant).
I would expect the same sort of thing from FedEx or even the USPS
Someone get on the phone with Elon and let him know that some guy on the internet thinks rocket flights are comparable to a UPS package delivery and that the same replacement policy should apply.
What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.
It's amusing when people get confused between a democratic society and a corporation. Youtube doesn't need any reason to ban you. They don't have laws. Their policies aren't the result of democratic procedure. There's no court of appeals. Their constitution is their TOU, and it pretty much says they can do whatever they want at any time.
YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.
You need to go watch some of the protest videos. The problem is that people who disagree with the viewpoints expressed in some video or another are "flagging" those videos as hate speech, racism, harassment, etc. This is really Youtube demonetizing content because it gets one group (or one person in some cases) upset.
As a content creator, you could have years of content taken offline because one SJW decides they don't like your viewpoints.
Can you get fired for making an off color joke at work? Sure. Can you in turn sue your employer? Absolutely.
I think most rationalize some of it away, so to speak.
Sure, they see short term gains. Things like the insurance bill, big repair bills, new tires, accidents, and so on. Those don't come immediately. So it seems like pure profit at first.
So, Google can't create a ride-sharing app? It's an immoral venture? They need to be held accountable for this ride sharing app? You think they will regret devoting a few engineers for a few months to write this app? Somehow I doubt that.
Google's business model is to throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks, and don't shed a tear if it doesn't. It's a great strategy. It's also not too hard to see that most of what they do is to prop up their ad revenue business in one way or another. Android is all about not letting some other corp control the mobile device and therefore control the ads displayed on it. Self driving cars are the same thing. Chrome and Chromebooks, same thing. They are avoiding anyone controlling the space in which they might want to show advertising.
It's fun to think that you somehow have more insight into Google's business than the hundreds of people they employ to do the same thing. Some humility is probably in order if you do though.
Curious how you think Google being predator by providing an app that allows commuters to share rides.
Google's interest is self driving cars. They've poured a ton of cash into it and aren't keen to see Uber beat them to the punch. They are putting a monkey wrench into Uber's business model. They won't make any money from this, but they will hurt Uber's profits. That's what happens when the core of your business is an app that a few good engineers could put together in a month.
Slashdot Mirror
You see, you have to read the entire thread for things to make sense. I'll try to help. Next time I'm not going to do your thinking for you. I suppose you don't care if you look like a tard though as long as you post AC.
How does it even begin to make sense to go buy 100 gold coins in some stupid mobile game, log onto two devices with the same account and get 100 coins each.
Let me provide an analogy. You have a pre-paid VISA card. When you add $100 to the balance, you see the balance on the computer in your mom's basement AND the computer in your little brother's bedroom. But, by the magic of cloud computing, when you purchase that sailor moon action figure online from your mom's computer, you see the balance deducted on your little brother's computer as well. Magic huh?
But hey, don't trust me. Install just about ANY game with in-app purchased consumables and see how it works.
If you want to know, I usually judge them as ignorant more than anything.
Considering you were so far off on the price and didn't bothering looking it up, I'm judging you ignorant and lazy.
The Surface TABLETS are more than $1,800.
Surface Pro 4 starts at ~780USD.
https://www.amazon.com/Microso...
Seriously though, you can't be bothered to spend 5 seconds on Amazon before posting?
I saw one at the library yesterday. They've been selling in the category of 'poor person's laptop.' At least, that's what I think whenever I see one.
Well, hardly. The SP4 starts at $750, which is $150 less than the starting MBP. I really doubt at that price anyone is picking the SP to save $150.
I have to say though, Apple Marketing has worked well on you. Judging people as "poor" for using a MSFT product. You are s shining example of what Apple wants to make all of us.
Don't be so pedantic, "hubris" comes from Ancient Greek, "hybris", therefore it is perfectly acceptable to write it with a y.
Perfectly acceptable and also unused outside of english lit major parties. But I guess if your goal is to pretend you are smarter than the other humans as opposed to being understood, you have succeeded. Really, ask yourself why you'd use a form of a word that essentially no one knows?
Why would a stock jump 29% based on the release of a game? Such insanity. In contrast, Apples stock went up 0.6%.
Because it (perhaps) shows that Nintendo is finally getting a clue about the profitability of mobile gaming and may start monetizing their assets. Up until this date, you've never seen a Mario game running on non-Nintendo hardware*.
* I know someone is going to link some obscure Mario game that was licensed on the CDI or something. Okay, point taken.
*If* Pokemon Go does more AND in combination with Android, then that is something they've clearly built on top. Which they are entitled but not required to do. But it's not something you can expect from consumable in-app purchases ordinarily.
Um, of course? How would it work otherwise? Consumables must be managed on the developer's cloud. If iOS magically sent the purchase to all of your iOS devices how would it be ensured you'd only use them once?
Not true. Consumable in-app purchases, such as if buy a number of PokeBalls for Pokemon Go are not transferable.
It depends on how it's implemented by the developer. If you are trying to say that it's impossible to link a digital consumable to an online account, that's most certainly false.
Most often, digital assets are linked to the game center / Google Play ID so as long as you are logged onto that ID on the second device you will see the same assets.
Let's hope Nintendo manages to keep cranking out good games and this is not the beginning of the end for them. Like when Sega abandoned their hardware platform.
I think the fact that they are rehashing a 20+ year old game should answer that one.
Chrome is a pile of shit. Google needs to go back to what they do best, spying on you and customizing your advertisement experience... such as running Ashley Madison ads on the screen every time your wife walks in the room.
I suggest you use a incognito window and VPN when cheating on your wife.
They include the dongle with the phone...
That's only a short-term compromise to avoid pissing off the world too much. In the long term headphone makers will start producing Apple-only lightning headphones. Those headphones will have to license Apple since this new interface can negotiate the connection. They will consequently cost more. Moreover, it's a DRM ploy since regulating which devices can connect will also regulate how the media played through that interface can be copied.
So the "Ariane" designation only pertains to the "shape" of the rocket? Well, that's a little hard to believe but what do I know.
Have you ever heard about satellite insurance?
No, I don't own a satellite.
About about an analogy?
Like comparing rocket flight to package delivery? Thanks for furthering the discussion. Not being an aerospace engineer, I appreciate you putting it in terms us lowbies can understand.
GPS. Communications satellites. Weather satellites.
Except this one was going to primarily beam Facebook-sponsored internet to 3rd world countries.
You ALWAYS pay more than the average risk is worth when you buy insurance.... Individuals who suffer an insured loss *sometimes* recover more than they have paid in premiums, but this is the exception.
You can't ALWAYS pay more and SOMETIMES recover more than you paid. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ALWAYS.
For the failures, there are the bankruptcy courts..
... and lawsuits.
Falcon 9 v1.2 8 8 1.00 .90(D) 8 None 2015-
Last failure = none. Seems like this document is a bit out of date (or it's not listing previous failures since it was a different version (they list no other Falcon 9 variant).
You missed that key word "variant", a variation or change in design that makes a ship different to the previous one
Is that change in a design, like the logo painted on the side? Or a completely new engine subsystem? My guess is that it's much closer to the former.
I would expect the same sort of thing from FedEx or even the USPS
Someone get on the phone with Elon and let him know that some guy on the internet thinks rocket flights are comparable to a UPS package delivery and that the same replacement policy should apply.
What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.
It's amusing when people get confused between a democratic society and a corporation. Youtube doesn't need any reason to ban you. They don't have laws. Their policies aren't the result of democratic procedure. There's no court of appeals. Their constitution is their TOU, and it pretty much says they can do whatever they want at any time.
YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.
You need to go watch some of the protest videos. The problem is that people who disagree with the viewpoints expressed in some video or another are "flagging" those videos as hate speech, racism, harassment, etc. This is really Youtube demonetizing content because it gets one group (or one person in some cases) upset.
As a content creator, you could have years of content taken offline because one SJW decides they don't like your viewpoints.
Can you get fired for making an off color joke at work? Sure. Can you in turn sue your employer? Absolutely.
I think most rationalize some of it away, so to speak.
Sure, they see short term gains. Things like the insurance bill, big repair bills, new tires, accidents, and so on. Those don't come immediately. So it seems like pure profit at first.
google is not being held accountable
So, Google can't create a ride-sharing app? It's an immoral venture? They need to be held accountable for this ride sharing app? You think they will regret devoting a few engineers for a few months to write this app? Somehow I doubt that.
Google's business model is to throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks, and don't shed a tear if it doesn't. It's a great strategy. It's also not too hard to see that most of what they do is to prop up their ad revenue business in one way or another. Android is all about not letting some other corp control the mobile device and therefore control the ads displayed on it. Self driving cars are the same thing. Chrome and Chromebooks, same thing. They are avoiding anyone controlling the space in which they might want to show advertising.
It's fun to think that you somehow have more insight into Google's business than the hundreds of people they employ to do the same thing. Some humility is probably in order if you do though.
Only difference being, Google is now the predator doing this to Uber, rather than Uber alone being the predator doing this to everyone else.
Yeah, I read that. Competing in business isn't being a "predator". Is Coke predating Pepsi? I hope you get it now.
Curious how you think Google being predator by providing an app that allows commuters to share rides.
Google's interest is self driving cars. They've poured a ton of cash into it and aren't keen to see Uber beat them to the punch. They are putting a monkey wrench into Uber's business model. They won't make any money from this, but they will hurt Uber's profits. That's what happens when the core of your business is an app that a few good engineers could put together in a month.