Nobody can afford not to be making a 3D TV right now and the sales guys are just being sales guys. Thrusting things in your face, with or without 3D, is what they do.
PS: Add me to the "people unconvinced about 3D" list. In real 3D you can shift focus foreground/background. In this fake 3D you can't, and your eyes/brain know it. It's a cheap gimmick, which is fine if you're watching something cheap and gimmicky but long exposure to it will mess with people's brains. I can't wait for all the class-action lawsuits when the children grow up and their parents start claiming "I didn't know!!".
PS: Remember the old virtual reality headsets? They failed because they had the same problem - the illusion never worked and they warped your brain - you needed a readjustment-to-reality timeout every time you took them off.
If anything, Bing is the one in a position to lower prices to drive Google out of the market. Microsoft can use the money from Windows/Office to subsidize it. Google doesn't have that.
Microsoft wasn't sued for their operating system, they were sued because they bundled other products with their OS, thus giving those products an unfair advantage.
Nope completely wrong. You can have 99.999% market share and not be a monopoly.
It only takes you about ten seconds to switch to a different search provider, if you use google it's from free choice.
the deal that saw Google acquire Double click almost certainly ran afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act in that it substantially reduced the market competition in the on line advertising space
Google doesn't have a monopoly. Switching to Bing, Yahoo or whatever takes a few seconds - there's no lock-in, no barriers, nothing forcing you to search with google. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else.
I repeat... market share alone doesn't make a monopoly. You have to engage in monopolistic practices - something which is almost impossible for a search engine.
Ummm, we have pirate parties forming as we speak. The Pirate Party even has two members of the European parliament now.
I'm definitely voting 'Pirate' in the next elections... and I've never actually got off my ass to vote before (and I've been eligible to vote since the 1980s).
I'm not particularly for piracy, I just don't believe the RIAAs lies and I don't think politicians should be wasting time listening to them either.
They should cut out the middle man - let the content producers compensate the ISPs directly. Surely it's a small price for them to pay if it's going to prevent billions of Euros in lost sales due to piracy, it's also a short-term thing because the biggest pirates will disconnected within a couple of months.
a) Make movie b) Hype it c) Release it on P2P d) Wait six moths, release in theaters e) When it bombs, sue 10,000 John Does because you know they can't afford to defend themselves. f) Profit!
The Avatar DVD is currently #51 in the Amazon sales charts despite being released in April. I bet it was way more pirated than The Hurt Locker will ever be.
#6 in the Amazon sales charts is a movie made in the 1960s that has been available for piracy for many years.
Occam's Razor: The movie isn't as good as they think it is.
The only people who'll want this are wildlife documentary makers and people with really expensive security systems. I doubt it will ever be seen in a consumer device (or even a 'prosumer' device).
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the scratch-and-sniff films? With Divine?
First smell was a red rose, second smell was Divine's first fart of the morning. Sure, I'm gonna scratch that one...
It's sales guys, what do you expect?
Nobody can afford not to be making a 3D TV right now and the sales guys are just being sales guys. Thrusting things in your face, with or without 3D, is what they do.
PS: Add me to the "people unconvinced about 3D" list. In real 3D you can shift focus foreground/background. In this fake 3D you can't, and your eyes/brain know it. It's a cheap gimmick, which is fine if you're watching something cheap and gimmicky but long exposure to it will mess with people's brains. I can't wait for all the class-action lawsuits when the children grow up and their parents start claiming "I didn't know!!".
PS: Remember the old virtual reality headsets? They failed because they had the same problem - the illusion never worked and they warped your brain - you needed a readjustment-to-reality timeout every time you took them off.
a) Neither Android not gmail have dominant market share, not even close.
b) It's not true ... Android is open source so anybody is free to change that arrangement.
If anything, Bing is the one in a position to lower prices to drive Google out of the market. Microsoft can use the money from Windows/Office to subsidize it. Google doesn't have that.
Yes, that's right...
Microsoft wasn't sued for their operating system, they were sued because they bundled other products with their OS, thus giving those products an unfair advantage.
ie. The crime was bundling/leveraging.
Yep. The comedy content of slashdot parenting-advice threads is always high.
An iPad for an 18 month old - LOL!
Nope completely wrong. You can have 99.999% market share and not be a monopoly.
It only takes you about ten seconds to switch to a different search provider, if you use google it's from free choice.
the deal that saw Google acquire Double click almost certainly ran afoul of the Clayton Antitrust Act in that it substantially reduced the market competition in the on line advertising space
What does that have to do with this?
Huh? How does it break anti-trust laws?
Google doesn't have a monopoly. Switching to Bing, Yahoo or whatever takes a few seconds - there's no lock-in, no barriers, nothing forcing you to search with google. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else.
I repeat ... market share alone doesn't make a monopoly. You have to engage in monopolistic practices - something which is almost impossible for a search engine.
Yep. Asking for parenting advice on Slashdot isn't a good idea...
Heh, I just noticed it's not even released yet...those are pre-orders...
Yep...and to be honest I'd rather watch those again than sit through The Hurt Locker.
In fact I might just go and dig out the DVDs...
OH, wait, that should be in the "Hurt Locker" thread... :-S
If I'm walking down the street and I drop my wallet, losing $1000, should I be able to sue random people to recover my loss?
If anybody's responsible for their "loss", it's the person who allowed a pristine copy to leave the movie studio. Haven't they heard of safes?
Ummm, we have pirate parties forming as we speak. The Pirate Party even has two members of the European parliament now.
I'm definitely voting 'Pirate' in the next elections ... and I've never actually got off my ass to vote before (and I've been eligible to vote since the 1980s).
I'm not particularly for piracy, I just don't believe the RIAAs lies and I don't think politicians should be wasting time listening to them either.
They should cut out the middle man - let the content producers compensate the ISPs directly. Surely it's a small price for them to pay if it's going to prevent billions of Euros in lost sales due to piracy, it's also a short-term thing because the biggest pirates will disconnected within a couple of months.
'months', not 'moths'...duh!
This will be the new Hollywood business model.
a) Make movie
b) Hype it
c) Release it on P2P
d) Wait six moths, release in theaters
e) When it bombs, sue 10,000 John Does because you know they can't afford to defend themselves.
f) Profit!
Anybody see a flaw?
The Avatar DVD is currently #51 in the Amazon sales charts despite being released in April. I bet it was way more pirated than The Hurt Locker will ever be.
#6 in the Amazon sales charts is a movie made in the 1960s that has been available for piracy for many years.
Occam's Razor: The movie isn't as good as they think it is.
That's why uncropped Hubble images (like this one) have black squares in the corner - the Hubble camera can't take pictures there.
The only people who'll want this are wildlife documentary makers and people with really expensive security systems. I doubt it will ever be seen in a consumer device (or even a 'prosumer' device).
3 chargers for that one ... 3 chargers for the one you had before... how many have you had in your lifetime?
The 'USB' thing is recent (and still not universal - my phone doesn't have it).
It doesn't say so in the article but are these things going to be completely standard for all devices? (presumably sold separately...)
If not then it's going to make things an awful lot worse.
If you have a "dock" then how is it easier? Normal docks already eliminate cables.
What's the efficiency of these? The last thing the world needs right now is another way to waste energy.
Still ... if it's expensive enough and leads to standardization it might mean less overall waste then having dozens of chargers for everything.
It's gonna be so cool if it says "wrong!"