Bill Cosby had a comment some time ago that's applicable. He was talking about his bafflement about why people would want to do cocaine.
(Bill's friend) "Because cocaine intensifies your personality."
(Bill) "Yeah, but what if you're an asshole?"
"Community" is fine, as long as its members are basically decent people. Communities are self-reinforcing; the dominant traits become more and more ensconced as those traits are rewarded and the opposites are pushed out. However, because there are no real consequences that follow you for NOT being a decent person, and because even if you finally get booted out of a game because the customer service people finally come to the DUH! realization that jerks cause others to unsubscribe, you can just pick up your jerkiness and go to another game to ruin another bunch of people's good times. "Community" is not just a martini-pickled marketing flack's buzzword; it defines whether you stay in a game after you've used up the leveling content. IMHO, because there are no consequences for being an asshole, and because so many MMO operators are afraid/don't give a damn/are too lazy to enforce their Codes of Conduct, there is zero incentive to not be a total asshat. And because of that self-reinforcement, many "communities" are little more than unsupervised schoolyards.
Jerks cost money. They consume GM time and salary, they cause unsubscriptions, they can even trigger lawsuits and criminal complaints. But when some VC hack on the Board of Directors spews "a griefer's money is just as green", you know what the people in the game will be like. Yes, I've heard people at that seniority actually SAY that, at Game Developer Conferences and even in communication about game policies from producer to the fans... why the hell do people like that have jobs? I wouldn't blame a community manager in such a game from becoming an alcoholic, wanting to do something about it but having a know-nothing with a title rendering you into an impotent object of mockery.
Come for the game, leave because of the people. Enjoy your playpen, Darkfall players/administators (and games like DF with similar jerk-dominated playerbases). When the lights in the server room are turned off, they will have only themselves to blame. They won't, of course. One of the defining characteristics of an asshole is a refusal to recognize or take responsibility for the consequences of what they've done.
That's the first ethical thing I've heard of Zuckerberg doing. I'm not holding my breath to see if there ever will be a second.
Pretending that meat doesn't involve death is widespread. Oh sure, people SAY they know, but when it comes right down to it, it's an abstract, intellectualized thing with no sense of reality. When you're the one who has to make the cut or pull the trigger, you can't pretend you're not responsible.
Animals die so humans can have meat. If you can't bring yourself to be the one to do the deed, at least don't sneer at those who do; you're not in a position (morally, legally, or otherwise) to do so. Having a class you can look down upon because they do the work you're not man enough to do yourself is one of the pervasive hallmarks of caste system. Who here is going to argue that cultures endorsing formalized caste systems are anything other than evil?
Animals also die so other animals can have meat. Cows aren't "better" than lions because they eat grass instead of antelope. Vegans aren't "better" than me because they don't eat meat. Unless we're about to forbid lions, wolves, and sharks from eating anything other than whole-grain bread, there's no claim to morality here. To do so is to place humanity squarely above and separate from every other living thing, and I've yet to meet a vegan who didn't also espouse that humanity is part of a continuum of animals. Since when are the rules different for us if we're all interconnected?
I hunt, and I apologize to nobody for it, most especially not to vegans. The thrill in the hunt is the hunt itself, not in the joy of killing; the killing is for meat not for bloodlust. None of the hunters I know takes wicked pleasure in the death itself. When I kill, it is my duty to do so humanely; the end must be as sudden, as unannounced and as swift as if a meteor fell out of the sky. In so doing, I am more merciful than any other animal that has ever walked the Earth, and am also more merciful than any method used in the name of the desert-religion-du-jour or any method used commercially.
Or the standards of beauty include knowledge that the person in question is intelligent; some folks find intelligence to be attractive and desirable. Of course, for some people (impotent men, Slashdot ACs), "intelligent" = "ugly".
I guess nothing has changed since the days of Gallileo.
Italian government remains corrupt top-to-bottom, its judiciary remains primitive banging-rocks-together screwheads. This isn't just one knuckle-dragging "judge"; this so-called "investigation" has been going on for over a year. Hundreds of people have had an opportunity to say "Questo è stupido, e si ferma subito." None have. Any scientists left in that pit of willful ignorance should get out, and get out now, because the tort lawyers are coming. High-tech companies should abandon Italy before they too are targeted my the government extortion machine and--
Oh wait. Too late. Skilled Italian scientists and engineers, the rest of the world will happily take you in. I'm sure there are many of you, and we need you. Your own country doesn't want you, though. The rest of us? We should stay the hell out of Italy lest we be similarly targeted.
Exactly. While the O/S Illuminati are hand-tweaking their RAM timings for 1% better score in Linpack, the rest of the world is using their computers for unimportant things. Designing water delivery systems for third-world nations. Processing photos. Placing an order with a supplier for another car engine diagnostics station that their newly-hired mechanic will need. Checking Kepler data to look for exoplanets. Making a night elf cry in Tol Barad (the most important thing of all).
Pretty dumb, we sheeple. No wonder the extreme overclockers get all the girls.
And another study shows that Apple haters' brains have a remarkable similarity to those of anti-semites, homophobes, Michael Moore and chimpanzees, in which the portions of the brain normally devoted to respecting others are shriveled, while tumor-like enlargements are found in the parts which control the flinging of poo, jealousy and the overwhelming urge to need someone else to insult before self-esteem can occur.
People who are so overwhelmingly stupid and arrogant as to judge others by the brand of computer or phone they buy do not deserve jobs in tech. About the only place they should have a job is in a dairy where they can use their natural tendency to shovel bullshit to the advantage of others.
And ever day the argument that "walled gardens are bad for users" gets weaker, for precisely this reason: they provide an important safety mechanism that people value.Unlike the "Limewire elite", whose pirated software downloads are loaded with malware, a walled-garden user is far more likely to be malware-free. If you want to point the finger at people whose computers are compromised and are therefor participating in DoS attacks, spam, and spreading vile content, point that finger at the ones who think that knowing how to install BitTorrent makes them a computer security expert.
Walled gardens should be optional, but available, and people who choose to use them should not be held in contempt. They are far better Internet citizens than the self-styled leet. (I reserve such contempt for people who spout rank stupidity like "everyone who isn't exactly like me and fails to kiss my fat, pimply, nerdy, Aspergers-poster-child ass is an idiot".)
Success or failure is going to largely depend upon resolution. Something that is chunky, with visible layers (and therefore shear planes), etc. isn't going to be of much use. Is there any talk of what the resolution of this device is?
Your example, the "Coke recipe", is the textbook definition of trade secret. Stealing a trade secret in some places is a felony (California, for example, which is why the Gizmodo editors shit their pants when APple involved the police over the iPhone 4 prototype), due to the magnitude of economic harm. However, it's not a copyright issue. It's a separate body of intellectual property law.
In the case of a trade secret, once it's revealed, it's no longer a trade secret. The original holder of the trade secret can go after the person who revealed it, very strongly, but unless there is something else involved (copyright, contract, trademark, patent), others could exploit that info. A recipe, unless covered in some way by a patent, would be usable by anyone. So if Coke's recipe were made public, the persons responsible would be pauperized and sent to jail, but others could make that recipe. They just couldn't call it "Coke" or use Coke's trademarks, visual designs for packaging, etc.
There are international treaties concerning radio interference. Among the provisions of these treaties are sections defining amateur radio frequencies which are not to be assigned to other usage or interfered with. If power line communications interferes with amateur radio and emergency radio services, the country in question is in noncompliance with the treaties involved. The governing body of these treaties is the International Telecommunications Union; the United States and the United Kingdom are both signatories. (actually, almost every country on Earth is, with the non-signatories being North Korea and their ilk)
In the United States at least, treaties come immediately after the Constitution in being the highest law of the land (the Supremacy Clause). Depending upon where you are, your kilometerage may vary.
Most Silicon Valley businesses that fail, deserve to. Just like anywhere else in any other industry. There are always more people trying to succeed than there is room to achieve that success. Silicon Valley had an excess of fools spending other people's money in the dot-com days, in which "make a profit by selling something that people will find useful and be willing to pay for" never appeared in the business plan. When 19 out of 20 businesses fail, the ones that succeed have to return more than 20:1 to the investors. If they don't, the investors stop investing. They're not charities.
The mythological "small business that could become a large company, with 100% self-funding" that you refer to never really existed. Bank loans against your house and/or the business that had been built thusfar were the norm for getting started. Now it's VC, but nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to accept venture capital. You can still put your house on the line if you want to retain ownership. And guess what? Those legendary rags-to-riches stories you seem to think existed without external funding? Even if the business got started self-funded, they needed big cash infusions to become regional, then national. That money didn't come from nowhere, and on those scales, it didn't come from banks. They had investors too, to help them grow; we just invented the words "venture capital" to relabel something that had before been called other things. And back then, just as now, those investors were not charities, and expected to get a return greater than they put in, in a timely manner.
If entrepreneurs are more risk-averse now than they were before (as far as their personal assets are concerned), that's the fault of the entrepreneur, not the VC. If you're going to build a business with someone else's money, foisting the risk onto them, they're going to be the ones to reap the big profit. If you're willing to risk having your house on the auction block and your kids' college funds seized by the bankruptcy courts, YOU can be the one to reap the big profit. At that point, YOU get to be the one to decide how much your employees, who never endured the same degree of risk, will get. But you don't get to make that decision for others, or dictate it through law.
People who take sub-prime adjustable loans, spend their free time on World of Warcraft instead of studying business, markets and their trade, get stoned all the time, and spend their money on rims are making deliberate choices that lead away from wealth. When those people turn around and say "I deserve the same as the guy that worked harder than me!"... when they try to take away wealth from others and put it into their own pockets through the mechanism of taxes and entitlements... what words other than "greed" and "laziness" apply?
And that's the way it should be. To those who risk go the rewards. Those who risk nothing get their salary and no right to look with jealous eyes on the wealth of others. You don't get rich by having it handed to you on a silver platter ("old money" and inherited wealth is a lot less common than people seem to think it is). You get rich by having a better idea than others, by taking more risks than others, by working harder than others, by delaying your gratification by sinking your earnings back into your business, and by being better at getting your product into people's awareness and communicating what it's good for than others. If someone else got a million dollar paycheck, a Ferrari and a house on the hilltop and you didn't, that's YOUR fault. Yes, YOU.
You're not "entitled" if you don't do what it takes to earn that wealth. The only "entitlement" anyone has is the right to try. Nobody has an entitlement to succeed, or to avoid the consequences of failure.
So how is this different from physical retail? I guarantee that a brick-and-mortal store takes a lot more than 30% on just about anything they sell.
And that includes books.
Apple isn't eBook welfare. They have no duty to subsidize marginal business plans by being the ones to pay for all the hosting, delivery, credit card fees, and all the other expenses associated with e-commerce. It isn't Apple's (or Google's, or Amazon's, or B&N's) job to leak money any time some get-rich-quick scheme gets hatched with the words "on a network that somebody other than me has paid for" involved.
If your business plan requires "and someone else acts as my retailer, storefront and content distributor for free", you deserve failure... for greed, naivete, and parasitism. There are plenty of people making a ton of money in ebooks. I'm not going to shed any tears over someone who can't figure out how.
There is no "time" to be "on". If anyone has ever mentioned a specific date, they've pulled it out of their ass; some random blogtard at whatever fan or industry site is hardly credible or authoritative. Blizz has never promised that D3 would be out in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Saying "we'd like it to be this year" is not the same as "we are officially setting a date for this year", as Morhaime went to great pains to point out.
It could arrive in 2020 and still not be late, if Blizz never promised a specific release date.
Can someone point out where it says that Apple is abandoning its ARM-based architecture and going x86?
...yeah, didn't think so.
Go to the original EE times article. Read it. There is no claim that Apple is dumping ARM or its own SOC design in favor of x86. Apple is simply changing foundries because they don't trust Samsung any more. Intel is just as capable of making A5s, etc. as Samsung. Apple will continue to design its own SOC; they're just using someone else's fabs.
Stickers make it go faster and gets girls.
Red paint makes it go faster and gets girls.
Neon lights and spinner hubcaps make it go faster and gets girls.
Blue lenses to make your headlights into fakey HID lights make it go faster and gets girls.
Slicked-back hair and sunglasses at night make it go faster and gets girls.
Chopping off two coils from the factory springs makes it go faster and gets girls.
Wings and spoilers and air dams and side skirts make it go faster and gets girls.
Replacing a hood latch with posts-and-cotter-pins makes it go faster and gets girls.
I'm ready for the aftermarket, the thinker's marketplace!
Arbitration = "impartial" non-accredited non-monitored unaccountable random person bought and paid for, who if he decides for the customer more than once in a great while is fired in favor of another "impartial" random person. Alternate definition: how to bribe a civil court judge legally.
No arbiter can be impartial. Their livelihood depends upon bias and outright prejudice (as in "pre-judging"). It is not an honorable profession.
And your pets shot, your ass kicked by cop-thugs, your job lost as word of your child-porn arrest gets out, your car vandalized, your bank account drained (what, you think you get a lawyer-fee refund from the cops once charges are dropped?), and maybe killed when one of your neighbors who was a victim of abuse hears about it. Legal protections? Yeah, right. Anyone who thinks you're innocent until proven guilty is a fool. You're guilty, punished, and slandered from the moment the boots kick down your door until the jury says otherwise, and once the damage to your reputation has happened, nobody is going to care that a jury said "not guilty". NOBODY. The image of you being led away in handcuffs with a dozen cop-cars flashing their lights around your house is indelible, and is far stronger than a paragraph on page 17 of a newspaper that nobody reads.
EFF, that has got to be the most stupid, irresponsible thing you people ever said. This is the kind of head-in-the-sand ivory tower "oughta be" thinking that gets people hurt or killed when it collides with reality. May you be the first for encouraging this.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill Cosby had a comment some time ago that's applicable. He was talking about his bafflement about why people would want to do cocaine.
(Bill's friend) "Because cocaine intensifies your personality."
(Bill) "Yeah, but what if you're an asshole?"
"Community" is fine, as long as its members are basically decent people. Communities are self-reinforcing; the dominant traits become more and more ensconced as those traits are rewarded and the opposites are pushed out. However, because there are no real consequences that follow you for NOT being a decent person, and because even if you finally get booted out of a game because the customer service people finally come to the DUH! realization that jerks cause others to unsubscribe, you can just pick up your jerkiness and go to another game to ruin another bunch of people's good times. "Community" is not just a martini-pickled marketing flack's buzzword; it defines whether you stay in a game after you've used up the leveling content. IMHO, because there are no consequences for being an asshole, and because so many MMO operators are afraid/don't give a damn/are too lazy to enforce their Codes of Conduct, there is zero incentive to not be a total asshat. And because of that self-reinforcement, many "communities" are little more than unsupervised schoolyards.
Jerks cost money. They consume GM time and salary, they cause unsubscriptions, they can even trigger lawsuits and criminal complaints. But when some VC hack on the Board of Directors spews "a griefer's money is just as green", you know what the people in the game will be like. Yes, I've heard people at that seniority actually SAY that, at Game Developer Conferences and even in communication about game policies from producer to the fans... why the hell do people like that have jobs? I wouldn't blame a community manager in such a game from becoming an alcoholic, wanting to do something about it but having a know-nothing with a title rendering you into an impotent object of mockery.
Come for the game, leave because of the people. Enjoy your playpen, Darkfall players/administators (and games like DF with similar jerk-dominated playerbases). When the lights in the server room are turned off, they will have only themselves to blame. They won't, of course. One of the defining characteristics of an asshole is a refusal to recognize or take responsibility for the consequences of what they've done.
That's the first ethical thing I've heard of Zuckerberg doing. I'm not holding my breath to see if there ever will be a second.
Pretending that meat doesn't involve death is widespread. Oh sure, people SAY they know, but when it comes right down to it, it's an abstract, intellectualized thing with no sense of reality. When you're the one who has to make the cut or pull the trigger, you can't pretend you're not responsible.
Animals die so humans can have meat. If you can't bring yourself to be the one to do the deed, at least don't sneer at those who do; you're not in a position (morally, legally, or otherwise) to do so. Having a class you can look down upon because they do the work you're not man enough to do yourself is one of the pervasive hallmarks of caste system. Who here is going to argue that cultures endorsing formalized caste systems are anything other than evil?
Animals also die so other animals can have meat. Cows aren't "better" than lions because they eat grass instead of antelope. Vegans aren't "better" than me because they don't eat meat. Unless we're about to forbid lions, wolves, and sharks from eating anything other than whole-grain bread, there's no claim to morality here. To do so is to place humanity squarely above and separate from every other living thing, and I've yet to meet a vegan who didn't also espouse that humanity is part of a continuum of animals. Since when are the rules different for us if we're all interconnected?
I hunt, and I apologize to nobody for it, most especially not to vegans. The thrill in the hunt is the hunt itself, not in the joy of killing; the killing is for meat not for bloodlust. None of the hunters I know takes wicked pleasure in the death itself. When I kill, it is my duty to do so humanely; the end must be as sudden, as unannounced and as swift as if a meteor fell out of the sky. In so doing, I am more merciful than any other animal that has ever walked the Earth, and am also more merciful than any method used in the name of the desert-religion-du-jour or any method used commercially.
Or the standards of beauty include knowledge that the person in question is intelligent; some folks find intelligence to be attractive and desirable. Of course, for some people (impotent men, Slashdot ACs), "intelligent" = "ugly".
I guess nothing has changed since the days of Gallileo.
Italian government remains corrupt top-to-bottom, its judiciary remains primitive banging-rocks-together screwheads. This isn't just one knuckle-dragging "judge"; this so-called "investigation" has been going on for over a year. Hundreds of people have had an opportunity to say "Questo è stupido, e si ferma subito." None have. Any scientists left in that pit of willful ignorance should get out, and get out now, because the tort lawyers are coming. High-tech companies should abandon Italy before they too are targeted my the government extortion machine and--
Oh wait. Too late. Skilled Italian scientists and engineers, the rest of the world will happily take you in. I'm sure there are many of you, and we need you. Your own country doesn't want you, though. The rest of us? We should stay the hell out of Italy lest we be similarly targeted.
Exactly. While the O/S Illuminati are hand-tweaking their RAM timings for 1% better score in Linpack, the rest of the world is using their computers for unimportant things. Designing water delivery systems for third-world nations. Processing photos. Placing an order with a supplier for another car engine diagnostics station that their newly-hired mechanic will need. Checking Kepler data to look for exoplanets. Making a night elf cry in Tol Barad (the most important thing of all).
Pretty dumb, we sheeple. No wonder the extreme overclockers get all the girls.
And another study shows that Apple haters' brains have a remarkable similarity to those of anti-semites, homophobes, Michael Moore and chimpanzees, in which the portions of the brain normally devoted to respecting others are shriveled, while tumor-like enlargements are found in the parts which control the flinging of poo, jealousy and the overwhelming urge to need someone else to insult before self-esteem can occur.
People who are so overwhelmingly stupid and arrogant as to judge others by the brand of computer or phone they buy do not deserve jobs in tech. About the only place they should have a job is in a dairy where they can use their natural tendency to shovel bullshit to the advantage of others.
And ever day the argument that "walled gardens are bad for users" gets weaker, for precisely this reason: they provide an important safety mechanism that people value.Unlike the "Limewire elite", whose pirated software downloads are loaded with malware, a walled-garden user is far more likely to be malware-free. If you want to point the finger at people whose computers are compromised and are therefor participating in DoS attacks, spam, and spreading vile content, point that finger at the ones who think that knowing how to install BitTorrent makes them a computer security expert.
Walled gardens should be optional, but available, and people who choose to use them should not be held in contempt. They are far better Internet citizens than the self-styled leet. (I reserve such contempt for people who spout rank stupidity like "everyone who isn't exactly like me and fails to kiss my fat, pimply, nerdy, Aspergers-poster-child ass is an idiot".)
UAC, anyone?
NM, found it.
Success or failure is going to largely depend upon resolution. Something that is chunky, with visible layers (and therefore shear planes), etc. isn't going to be of much use. Is there any talk of what the resolution of this device is?
Your example, the "Coke recipe", is the textbook definition of trade secret. Stealing a trade secret in some places is a felony (California, for example, which is why the Gizmodo editors shit their pants when APple involved the police over the iPhone 4 prototype), due to the magnitude of economic harm. However, it's not a copyright issue. It's a separate body of intellectual property law.
In the case of a trade secret, once it's revealed, it's no longer a trade secret. The original holder of the trade secret can go after the person who revealed it, very strongly, but unless there is something else involved (copyright, contract, trademark, patent), others could exploit that info. A recipe, unless covered in some way by a patent, would be usable by anyone. So if Coke's recipe were made public, the persons responsible would be pauperized and sent to jail, but others could make that recipe. They just couldn't call it "Coke" or use Coke's trademarks, visual designs for packaging, etc.
I wonder if a developing nation's workers protest when machines take their jobs.
How about in developed nations, when robots replace auto assembly line workers?
The short answer is "anywhere in the world, yes". This is the kind of thing that reshapes societies, sometimes painfully.
Slick it up, it's party time!
There are international treaties concerning radio interference. Among the provisions of these treaties are sections defining amateur radio frequencies which are not to be assigned to other usage or interfered with. If power line communications interferes with amateur radio and emergency radio services, the country in question is in noncompliance with the treaties involved. The governing body of these treaties is the International Telecommunications Union; the United States and the United Kingdom are both signatories. (actually, almost every country on Earth is, with the non-signatories being North Korea and their ilk)
In the United States at least, treaties come immediately after the Constitution in being the highest law of the land (the Supremacy Clause). Depending upon where you are, your kilometerage may vary.
A nice, well-deserved boot in the face to everyone who prejudged, and who therefore should never be allowed onto a jury.
Thanks! It's working for me.
Most Silicon Valley businesses that fail, deserve to. Just like anywhere else in any other industry. There are always more people trying to succeed than there is room to achieve that success. Silicon Valley had an excess of fools spending other people's money in the dot-com days, in which "make a profit by selling something that people will find useful and be willing to pay for" never appeared in the business plan. When 19 out of 20 businesses fail, the ones that succeed have to return more than 20:1 to the investors. If they don't, the investors stop investing. They're not charities.
The mythological "small business that could become a large company, with 100% self-funding" that you refer to never really existed. Bank loans against your house and/or the business that had been built thusfar were the norm for getting started. Now it's VC, but nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head to accept venture capital. You can still put your house on the line if you want to retain ownership. And guess what? Those legendary rags-to-riches stories you seem to think existed without external funding? Even if the business got started self-funded, they needed big cash infusions to become regional, then national. That money didn't come from nowhere, and on those scales, it didn't come from banks. They had investors too, to help them grow; we just invented the words "venture capital" to relabel something that had before been called other things. And back then, just as now, those investors were not charities, and expected to get a return greater than they put in, in a timely manner.
If entrepreneurs are more risk-averse now than they were before (as far as their personal assets are concerned), that's the fault of the entrepreneur, not the VC. If you're going to build a business with someone else's money, foisting the risk onto them, they're going to be the ones to reap the big profit. If you're willing to risk having your house on the auction block and your kids' college funds seized by the bankruptcy courts, YOU can be the one to reap the big profit. At that point, YOU get to be the one to decide how much your employees, who never endured the same degree of risk, will get. But you don't get to make that decision for others, or dictate it through law.
People who take sub-prime adjustable loans, spend their free time on World of Warcraft instead of studying business, markets and their trade, get stoned all the time, and spend their money on rims are making deliberate choices that lead away from wealth. When those people turn around and say "I deserve the same as the guy that worked harder than me!"... when they try to take away wealth from others and put it into their own pockets through the mechanism of taxes and entitlements... what words other than "greed" and "laziness" apply?
And that's the way it should be. To those who risk go the rewards. Those who risk nothing get their salary and no right to look with jealous eyes on the wealth of others. You don't get rich by having it handed to you on a silver platter ("old money" and inherited wealth is a lot less common than people seem to think it is). You get rich by having a better idea than others, by taking more risks than others, by working harder than others, by delaying your gratification by sinking your earnings back into your business, and by being better at getting your product into people's awareness and communicating what it's good for than others. If someone else got a million dollar paycheck, a Ferrari and a house on the hilltop and you didn't, that's YOUR fault. Yes, YOU.
You're not "entitled" if you don't do what it takes to earn that wealth. The only "entitlement" anyone has is the right to try. Nobody has an entitlement to succeed, or to avoid the consequences of failure.
Capitalism (at least in the US) works great for big guys... not so much for entrepreneurs.
There was a time when one could dream of starting a small niche business and if done right, grow it into a large and successful company.
Those days are long gone.
Silicon Valley says "Hi! You're wrong!" And continues to do so every day.
So how is this different from physical retail? I guarantee that a brick-and-mortal store takes a lot more than 30% on just about anything they sell.
And that includes books.
Apple isn't eBook welfare. They have no duty to subsidize marginal business plans by being the ones to pay for all the hosting, delivery, credit card fees, and all the other expenses associated with e-commerce. It isn't Apple's (or Google's, or Amazon's, or B&N's) job to leak money any time some get-rich-quick scheme gets hatched with the words "on a network that somebody other than me has paid for" involved.
If your business plan requires "and someone else acts as my retailer, storefront and content distributor for free", you deserve failure... for greed, naivete, and parasitism. There are plenty of people making a ton of money in ebooks. I'm not going to shed any tears over someone who can't figure out how.
Correlation does not imply causation, but to an advertiser, marketing hack or political spin-doctor that doesn't matter.
There is no "time" to be "on". If anyone has ever mentioned a specific date, they've pulled it out of their ass; some random blogtard at whatever fan or industry site is hardly credible or authoritative. Blizz has never promised that D3 would be out in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Saying "we'd like it to be this year" is not the same as "we are officially setting a date for this year", as Morhaime went to great pains to point out.
It could arrive in 2020 and still not be late, if Blizz never promised a specific release date.
Unlike individual contributors, who work for free because it's the "right thing to do", and who exhibit amazing long-term planning?
Can someone point out where it says that Apple is abandoning its ARM-based architecture and going x86?
...yeah, didn't think so.
Go to the original EE times article. Read it. There is no claim that Apple is dumping ARM or its own SOC design in favor of x86. Apple is simply changing foundries because they don't trust Samsung any more. Intel is just as capable of making A5s, etc. as Samsung. Apple will continue to design its own SOC; they're just using someone else's fabs.
Stickers make it go faster and gets girls.
Red paint makes it go faster and gets girls.
Neon lights and spinner hubcaps make it go faster and gets girls.
Blue lenses to make your headlights into fakey HID lights make it go faster and gets girls.
Slicked-back hair and sunglasses at night make it go faster and gets girls.
Chopping off two coils from the factory springs makes it go faster and gets girls.
Wings and spoilers and air dams and side skirts make it go faster and gets girls.
Replacing a hood latch with posts-and-cotter-pins makes it go faster and gets girls.
I'm ready for the aftermarket, the thinker's marketplace!
Arbitration = "impartial" non-accredited non-monitored unaccountable random person bought and paid for, who if he decides for the customer more than once in a great while is fired in favor of another "impartial" random person. Alternate definition: how to bribe a civil court judge legally.
No arbiter can be impartial. Their livelihood depends upon bias and outright prejudice (as in "pre-judging"). It is not an honorable profession.
And your pets shot, your ass kicked by cop-thugs, your job lost as word of your child-porn arrest gets out, your car vandalized, your bank account drained (what, you think you get a lawyer-fee refund from the cops once charges are dropped?), and maybe killed when one of your neighbors who was a victim of abuse hears about it. Legal protections? Yeah, right. Anyone who thinks you're innocent until proven guilty is a fool. You're guilty, punished, and slandered from the moment the boots kick down your door until the jury says otherwise, and once the damage to your reputation has happened, nobody is going to care that a jury said "not guilty". NOBODY. The image of you being led away in handcuffs with a dozen cop-cars flashing their lights around your house is indelible, and is far stronger than a paragraph on page 17 of a newspaper that nobody reads.
EFF, that has got to be the most stupid, irresponsible thing you people ever said. This is the kind of head-in-the-sand ivory tower "oughta be" thinking that gets people hurt or killed when it collides with reality. May you be the first for encouraging this.