The thing is, that I just don't understand why you would use "NIH Syndrome" in this context. That is usually used when somebody in Company X says "Hey, why don't we use this awesome technology to make a better product," but is rebuffed by Company X because the technology was invented by company Y.
In this example, there is no new technology involved, and Facebook already has the data. What is "not being invented here"? Facebook already invented Facebook, how is Facebook using the data they generated inventing something that Facebook didn't already invent?
The only domain I'd value more than sex.com would be business.com.
Why? I don't think many people start their day by typing "business.com" into a browser. Maybe you could sell a few business socks there, but not much more.
Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own.
This also means that Buzz may have actually exposed sexual predators, who would have remained hidden otherwise. Assuming there was any sexual predation involved, of course.
I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.
Well, I'm an environmentalist, and for starters, I don't have an "extremist message," and my reason for being an environmentalist is not to control people's lives, but to preserve our natural environment, and in turn, lead to a higher quality of life for the world's people.
So, in short, you're wrong. Yes, there are extremists that will exploit any social issue for power or control, but if you think mainstream environmentalism is about controlling people's lives, you are very ignorant.
and a monopoly on government would destroy civil liberties for centuries, and descend into a spiral of corruption, greed and social inequality that would only start to fix itself once the government collapses in its own filth.
Even if they do buy films, they will go for the used option. These are clearly price conscious folks.
Another baseless and naive assertion. I download movies and TV shows for the convenience. I frequently buy box sets, collector's editions, etc at full retail price.
(the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).
That actually makes sense. Liberalism is a fairly conservative array of political values. It's not actually "extreme leftism" or "socialism" or any of the other things the nutty right-wingers would have you believe.
And who exactly are those who want to use OpenGL? Not the developers,
Plenty of developers want to develop for multiple platforms, and don't want to be tied to Windows. Especially with the rise of powerful mobile gaming platforms.
Gamers? They probably don't even know the technical or philosophical differences between OpenGL and DirectX, and if they do, they don't care.
Gamers in general (90% console), maybe not, but PC gamers are much more likely to understand the difference.
Except for that "only runs on a single OS" problem.
And which platform does the vast majority of Firefox installations run on, again? Remember, Mac OS X and Linux already have other browsers that support H.264 (Chrome and Safari). This leaves Firefox as the odd one out.
When video hosting sites switch to H.264 and don't offer a Theora fallback, what do you think people will do? Stop using those video sites, or switch to IE9, Chrome or Safari?
Slashdot Mirror
That government which governs best, governs least. If he's playing Farmville, he can't be doing too much to interfere with people's lives.
So, you're a fan of government waste?
Seriously, what is it about these stupid fucking pictures on slashdot?
The thing is, that I just don't understand why you would use "NIH Syndrome" in this context. That is usually used when somebody in Company X says "Hey, why don't we use this awesome technology to make a better product," but is rebuffed by Company X because the technology was invented by company Y.
In this example, there is no new technology involved, and Facebook already has the data. What is "not being invented here"? Facebook already invented Facebook, how is Facebook using the data they generated inventing something that Facebook didn't already invent?
Facebook.
The only domain I'd value more than sex.com would be business.com.
Why? I don't think many people start their day by typing "business.com" into a browser. Maybe you could sell a few business socks there, but not much more.
...who found it ironic that a film with "Independence" in the title had quite so many product placements in it.
Hey! I use Depend® brand adult diapers, so get off my motherfucking lawn with your predictable urinary cycle.
Gmail only added people that you had repeated email correspondence with, which means that the 9 year old girl was perfectly capable of picking up sexual predators on her own.
This also means that Buzz may have actually exposed sexual predators, who would have remained hidden otherwise. Assuming there was any sexual predation involved, of course.
Old "parenting skills": 1) Place child in front of TV. 2) Insert Disney DVD 3) Press "Play". 4) Return in 90 minutes. 5) Repeat.
Old? That's practically futuristic. The old parenting technique goes like this:
The cellphone thing I get. "I'm lost, bad man following me," understood. But an e-mail address? Doesn't fly.
It's so she can notify the fire department when her office catches fire.
There must be many, many legit uses this data could be put too...shame it's being killed by NIH syndrome
By "NIH syndrome," I assume you're referring to "Not Invented Here." I don't really see what that has to do with this case.
Doesn't anybody on slashdot listen to Jane's Addiction anymore?
I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.
Well, I'm an environmentalist, and for starters, I don't have an "extremist message," and my reason for being an environmentalist is not to control people's lives, but to preserve our natural environment, and in turn, lead to a higher quality of life for the world's people.
So, in short, you're wrong. Yes, there are extremists that will exploit any social issue for power or control, but if you think mainstream environmentalism is about controlling people's lives, you are very ignorant.
It's going to be a Birkenstock.
This guy doesn't even understand fashion.
and a monopoly on government would destroy civil liberties for centuries, and descend into a spiral of corruption, greed and social inequality that would only start to fix itself once the government collapses in its own filth.
So, bad idea, then?
Even if they do buy films, they will go for the used option. These are clearly price conscious folks.
Another baseless and naive assertion. I download movies and TV shows for the convenience. I frequently buy box sets, collector's editions, etc at full retail price.
I believe that Apple is suing HTC over gestures which use multi-touch.
What's your source for this claim? None of the patents in the Apple-HTC litigation involve multi-touch, let alone multi-touch gestures.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Apple suing HTC over, among other patents, multi-touch?
You're wrong. The patents Apple is suing HTC over don't deal with multi-touch.
(the Liberals are the conservative party for our foreign readers... go figure).
That actually makes sense. Liberalism is a fairly conservative array of political values. It's not actually "extreme leftism" or "socialism" or any of the other things the nutty right-wingers would have you believe.
I had to replace my first gen iPhone because the 3.0 software, released only two years after the iPhone, ran like a dog.
So, why didn't you just run the version 2 software instead? Your reasoning isn't very sound, because there was no reason you had to have new hardware.
It takes hours for me to torrent a movie-sized file (i.e. a distro CD).
What kind of slow-ass connection do you have? Since you mention a "distro CD" then that usually means 700MB, which should take a few minutes.
IE9 won't run on that operating system.
Well, Safari and Chrome will.
And who exactly are those who want to use OpenGL? Not the developers,
Plenty of developers want to develop for multiple platforms, and don't want to be tied to Windows. Especially with the rise of powerful mobile gaming platforms.
Gamers? They probably don't even know the technical or philosophical differences between OpenGL and DirectX, and if they do, they don't care.
Gamers in general (90% console), maybe not, but PC gamers are much more likely to understand the difference.
If they do that, the bandwidth used by complainers in their forum will totally eclipse the amount used by their videos.
Unlikely.
Why would you target DirectX 11, when nobody really wants to use it? PC gaming would be better off if you targeted OpenGL.
Where? I sure as hell haven't been able to find how to revert it to GiB
CMD-I (Get Info) on a device or file.
Except for that "only runs on a single OS" problem.
And which platform does the vast majority of Firefox installations run on, again? Remember, Mac OS X and Linux already have other browsers that support H.264 (Chrome and Safari). This leaves Firefox as the odd one out.
When video hosting sites switch to H.264 and don't offer a Theora fallback, what do you think people will do? Stop using those video sites, or switch to IE9, Chrome or Safari?