What did Google do yesterday? What did they do the day before? Perhaps you could share a calendar showing the other 5 things they've done in the last 7 days?
Isn't it just so very fashionable to proclaim the burgeoning evil of Google these days.
A competitor has accused Google of something. Perhaps, we should wait and see if it is true? When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact? The/. view certainly seemed to be put up or shut up.
Google offers a mobile platform that you can use without paying them. Even if they did require that it came with their map program is that really 'evil'? Sure, we'd like everything 100% free and optional but that doesn't make 99% free and optional 'evil'.
Is it an act of evil if I give £1,000 to a foreign aid charity and ask that the money not be used to promote 'organic' farming? I'm sure they'd appreciate complete freedom, but I doubt they'd think I was on a slippery slope to pure evil.
Much like a gun is a tool. You can use it for target practice, hunting, home defense - and murder. The tool doesn't get to decide how it is used. The user does. The tool is blameless.
He wasn't blaming the tool, he was saying that it would primarily be used for nefarious purposes.
(Effectively) no one questions the idea that governments can restrict access to some items/tools. People may debate about fire arms, yet I think the number who want free access to all military equipment is limited? The number of people who would be happy with machine guns being available without any checks is pretty low. Additionally various medications, certain hardware, various types of image etc are blocked.
In short, tools/items get banned because of potential user behaviour all the time. You might disagree, but this is slashdot hardware, not your rights online.
The survey shows a link between young managers and resistance to mergers. Unless they measured testosterone levels in each of the people (which I don't think they have?) then there is no more reason to believe it has any more to do with it than amount of hair on their heads). Is anyone really that shocked by this? A lot of younger people would rather aim for the top and risk hitting the bottom than settle for 2nd place. I expect my own decisions are more risky now than they will be as I age.
It's getting really worrying watching the slow extension of DLC and how it is protected.
I don't buy DLC. This is because I dislike the hassle, I want to encourage a competitive games market (which DLC isn't) and I don't want to buy something I can arbitrarily lose access to. The idea of paying to extend games is not, however, something I have a problem with.
I own Fallout 3, and the Fallout 3(goty?) edition with all expansions. I waited until prices dropped before buying both new. It was cheaper to wait and buy the physical copy with add-ons than buy the DLC on the xbox. Again, cost wasn't the issue. As long as I have a working Xbox and that disc I know I can play the thing I have bought, that simply isn't the case with DLC.
Mass effect 2 comes with some token DLC (including a character) as a download. The downloads free if you have the activation code in the box. Given that I paid £10 to get the game, it would cost me more to buy the game second hand and pay for the equivalent DLC. From what I have seen so far I could live without the DLC. However, I don't think it will be long until more integral content is restricted in this way.
Why is all this happening? Because publishers want to get paid. The public (including me) doesn't want to pay more for the game up front, getting the extra cash for DLC is less problematic. The second hand game market arguably lowers spending on new games (I myself spend less on new because I buy about 1/3rd of my games 2nd hand). Piracy is easy (I still, shamefully, haven't paid for a copy of Plants vs Zombies even though it's cheap and great!). Given all this it's hardly surprising that they are doing what they are doing.
What I wish someone would do, and would happily pay for, is make a subscription based system for console games. I'd happily pay say £10pm if I could download and play games on my xbox. It may seem odd given my preference for owning DLC, but it's simply a matter of expectation. I will pay to rent things if they are priced accordingly.
I really wouldn't want a surgeon looking up a procedure while I'm open on his table.
It'd be nice to know he knew the procedure. However, if something unusual came up I'd prefer to have the guy who 'phones a friend' than the one who decides to wing it. If you're having a 2+ hour piece of surgery is a 5 min delay while the surgeon checks to ensure something is right really so bad?
Not to be a smartass, but why would you hire an exec from a company that hasn't yet figured out how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market when you need an exec who knows how to combat Apple's success in the smartphone market?
Because you're experienced in hiring executives and know that executive != company. Which google exec would you go for? How many executives at a company primarily focused on advertising would really be appropriate to run one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world? I have no idea. Are you just more willing to share your opinion on matters you don't have in depth knowledge of, or is hiring execs your day job?
Be careful what you wish for. Do you think the people watching MTV or the golf channel are interested in watching SciFi or other channels that might interest you? I'd bet money that geek tv on cable is effectively subsidised by viewers who have no interest in it. Sure you wouldn't be paying for MTV, but you'd be paying more for the channels you do want to make up for the people who stopped paying for that!
No. Do I care if the phone offers the apps I want? Of course, these aren't just phones anymore, they're pocket PCs
Good job you don't want google voice or any other app that Apple arbitrarily decides against.
I have issues with my Android phone, but the only one that really bugged me was HTC's constant delaying of the OS update. I've got the apps I want (although admittedly evernote is better on iOS at the moment) and I'm re-assured by the fact that I'm free to select applications regardless of whether the phone manufacturer blesses them.
That they kept him for 5 months. I'm pretty sure he take that over being kept in Gitmo for ~8 years living in a steel cage. I won't defend the acts of terrorists, I do find it amusing when people condemn them while supporting the similar policies of others.
4chan is nothing but a batch of juvenile asshats, they'll trot out this one story as a counterexample.
Well, this one and the ones where they tracked down animal abusers from Youtube videos.
And ruined the peoples lives because they get the same perverse pleasure out of making other beings suffer as their target. 4chan is too often just a circle-jerk of cowards using its anonymity to engage in the harassment of people for amusement.
The way they would argue it is that you're paying the price of a movie ticket per person: Each person who downloads the file from you.
I'm not agreeing with them. There is however a good reason why the cost of being caught has to be higher than the cost of the item. If the cost of being caught is equal to the cost of the 'thing' you avoid paying for, then unless you get caught 100% of the time it is more cost effective not to pay. It is this balance of risk and reward that discourages most pre-meditated crime.
You bought a phone that didn't support the thing you needed to use it for. You're moaning that it doesn't do something you knew it wouldn't. How seriously did Ford take you when you complained that your car still doesn't hover or fly?
Perhaps you can complain to apple that they won't upgrade your iPhones to iOS 5 when you get them.
hurts consumers through various acts of evil, and then gets into the game business with its monopoly money
That's really your case for Microsoft being uber evil? Microsoft's business practice isn't an example of corporate benefaction at work, and all this sensationalism does is hide valid concerns from people who are mostly concerned with getting work / stuff done.
It's very useful: It informed your decision and you walked away. You wanted a different app without GPS or Internet requirements, that's your problem, not a flaw with the system.
How about putting "For action", "For reply", or "For your information" in the subject lines of e-mails?
Because it would work about as well as the high importance flag in outlook. From experience it seems clear the sender of emails isn't the right person to decide importance etc for the receiver. There is no advantage to sorting my email by someone else's estimate of importance.
I'm a little surprised that this kind of feature has been so long coming. If it works, it will be a big help to people who process there email in fixed time slots (many methods designed to improve effectiveness suggest this). I've taken to processing my personal email in two 15 min chunks daily. The first thing I do is prioritise, so if this is effective it'll save me more time.
Consumers have no technical way to protect themselves.
They don't have any technical way of protecting themselves if they got out of the chair and went to the shops. The telling truth is that a product that 'protects' people from this kind of tracking are trivial. Anonymous proxies or blocking sites that track users for example. The fact that most users haven't gone out looking for solutions to this is an indication of how seriously this is taken by the public at large.
I'm generally against regulating 'internet' issues. Rights to protection against this kind of behaviour are just as relevant to utility companies, bricks and mortar shops, billboards etc. My concern then becomes: If it can be done by the government in secret, and it can be done by people who don't follow the law in secret, then is it really the people who follow the law we should be worried about?
Glad I'm not the only one who read the summary as basically saying: Sony are idiots for doing the same thing as Nintendo. Nintendo, however, are geniuses for doing it...
Also the citizens vote. So why are the politicals doing the behest of the corporations ?
I imagine that if you look at the campaign donations for major Senate and Congressional candidates business donations make up considerably more than citizens. Citizens vote. There decision is driver by party ideology and the candidates campaign. Candidates can't change ideology. They can fund an impressive campaign by scratching a couple of companies backs.
Now you need to ask yourself WHY they're giving you these things for free.... [].... I'd rather pay Skype the $4 a month, thanks. Not to mention Google Voice isn't even available.
One assumes that you don't use Google Search then? The exact same argument is as relevant in both cases. They're giving it away for free because they believe it makes sense. Google is in the fortunate position to not need immediate payback to justify doing something. Much of the best technology invented revolved around research that had no (or little) practical application at the time.
They made the game hoping to expand the range of people who would play the game. Personally, the split class, split race, items and skills picked from a dozen different expansions mentality of the 3rd ed groups I met meant I'd beat myself to death with my own arm before playing. I have however had a great time playing, then DMing in 4th. None of the people I played with were 'veteran' roleplayers, and half hadn't roleplayed before. Finally, I can't stand WoW, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the ideas that Wizards pinched.
the base motivation for U.S. military operations tends to be the safety of U.S. citizens.
Korea
Lebanon
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Gulf War
Yugoslavia
Iraq mk2
None of these conflicts was to do with the safety of US citizens. The immediate safety of your own citizens isn't the only good reason to go to war.
America doesn't like the idea of Iran having advanced weaponry because it is afraid that extremists will use them against it or its allies. Iran is afraid of not having the weapons because it is afraid that America will attack it or its allies. Neither party is wrong, and as long as both parties focus on their objectives and ignore the needs of the other the situation will remain.
After one reads an article about the infinite complexity of the human brain, one has to wonder
No. But you are welcome to wonder. Me? I'll continue to find a chain of events however unlikely more persuasive than divine intervention. The entire idea of someone proposing the existence of god using statistical probability to attack another theory seems absurd. I'll gladly accept the divine as the most likely answer when I'm presented with a (credible) better probability of it existing. Religion is based on 'belief', which I have no issue with, so you're basically starting on the grounds of "if wishing made it so".
But I'd bet that most people who pirate games weren't going to buy them anyways.
You could be right, what is certain however is that more and more examples are showing up dismissing a lot of the fanciful claims used to show the benefits of piracy. What I know for sure is that games developers are taking steps to stop pirates and they are impacting on paying customers (regardless of whether they are effective etc) and personally I think the pirates are at least as much to blame as the companies trying to get compensated for their work.
No. It's inherently better if it achieves the goal more effectively. If my doctor had the choice of using an old medical practice with 75% success rate or a new one with 50%, fuck new, I'm picking the one that works. If a lecturer is more effective not using blogs (which I don't find hard to believe) then making him use a blog 'to be modern' isn't achieing the goal more effectively.
Skype makes it clear when one is or is not available to be contacted, so no-one has to get huffy about whether or not you've seen such-and-such a Facebook message or email.
If your friends would get huffy because they sent you a message on Facebook and you didn't respond (even though they won't even know whether you've seen it or not yet) then your friends are the issue not the technology used.
Secondly, how does a chat client like Skype in any way define how much you want to let the internet intrude into your life? If you mean you don't have the willpower to use Facebook without becoming obsessive about the apps then you've made the right call based on your personal situation and again this isn't a tech issue. Personally, I'm fine with checking my friends Facebook status updates every day or so and using it as an email replacement for some communication.
Slashdot Mirror
What did Google do yesterday? What did they do the day before? Perhaps you could share a calendar showing the other 5 things they've done in the last 7 days?
/. view certainly seemed to be put up or shut up.
Isn't it just so very fashionable to proclaim the burgeoning evil of Google these days.
A competitor has accused Google of something. Perhaps, we should wait and see if it is true? When Microsoft said Linux was using its patents without permission did we just accept it as fact? The
Google offers a mobile platform that you can use without paying them. Even if they did require that it came with their map program is that really 'evil'? Sure, we'd like everything 100% free and optional but that doesn't make 99% free and optional 'evil'.
Is it an act of evil if I give £1,000 to a foreign aid charity and ask that the money not be used to promote 'organic' farming? I'm sure they'd appreciate complete freedom, but I doubt they'd think I was on a slippery slope to pure evil.
He wasn't blaming the tool, he was saying that it would primarily be used for nefarious purposes.
(Effectively) no one questions the idea that governments can restrict access to some items/tools. People may debate about fire arms, yet I think the number who want free access to all military equipment is limited? The number of people who would be happy with machine guns being available without any checks is pretty low. Additionally various medications, certain hardware, various types of image etc are blocked.
In short, tools/items get banned because of potential user behaviour all the time. You might disagree, but this is slashdot hardware, not your rights online.
The survey shows a link between young managers and resistance to mergers. Unless they measured testosterone levels in each of the people (which I don't think they have?) then there is no more reason to believe it has any more to do with it than amount of hair on their heads). Is anyone really that shocked by this? A lot of younger people would rather aim for the top and risk hitting the bottom than settle for 2nd place. I expect my own decisions are more risky now than they will be as I age.
It's getting really worrying watching the slow extension of DLC and how it is protected.
I don't buy DLC. This is because I dislike the hassle, I want to encourage a competitive games market (which DLC isn't) and I don't want to buy something I can arbitrarily lose access to. The idea of paying to extend games is not, however, something I have a problem with.
I own Fallout 3, and the Fallout 3(goty?) edition with all expansions. I waited until prices dropped before buying both new. It was cheaper to wait and buy the physical copy with add-ons than buy the DLC on the xbox. Again, cost wasn't the issue. As long as I have a working Xbox and that disc I know I can play the thing I have bought, that simply isn't the case with DLC.
Mass effect 2 comes with some token DLC (including a character) as a download. The downloads free if you have the activation code in the box. Given that I paid £10 to get the game, it would cost me more to buy the game second hand and pay for the equivalent DLC. From what I have seen so far I could live without the DLC. However, I don't think it will be long until more integral content is restricted in this way.
Why is all this happening? Because publishers want to get paid. The public (including me) doesn't want to pay more for the game up front, getting the extra cash for DLC is less problematic. The second hand game market arguably lowers spending on new games (I myself spend less on new because I buy about 1/3rd of my games 2nd hand). Piracy is easy (I still, shamefully, haven't paid for a copy of Plants vs Zombies even though it's cheap and great!). Given all this it's hardly surprising that they are doing what they are doing.
What I wish someone would do, and would happily pay for, is make a subscription based system for console games. I'd happily pay say £10pm if I could download and play games on my xbox. It may seem odd given my preference for owning DLC, but it's simply a matter of expectation. I will pay to rent things if they are priced accordingly.
It'd be nice to know he knew the procedure. However, if something unusual came up I'd prefer to have the guy who 'phones a friend' than the one who decides to wing it. If you're having a 2+ hour piece of surgery is a 5 min delay while the surgeon checks to ensure something is right really so bad?
Because you're experienced in hiring executives and know that executive != company. Which google exec would you go for? How many executives at a company primarily focused on advertising would really be appropriate to run one of the largest manufacturing companies in the world? I have no idea. Are you just more willing to share your opinion on matters you don't have in depth knowledge of, or is hiring execs your day job?
Be careful what you wish for. Do you think the people watching MTV or the golf channel are interested in watching SciFi or other channels that might interest you? I'd bet money that geek tv on cable is effectively subsidised by viewers who have no interest in it. Sure you wouldn't be paying for MTV, but you'd be paying more for the channels you do want to make up for the people who stopped paying for that!
Good job you don't want google voice or any other app that Apple arbitrarily decides against.
I have issues with my Android phone, but the only one that really bugged me was HTC's constant delaying of the OS update. I've got the apps I want (although admittedly evernote is better on iOS at the moment) and I'm re-assured by the fact that I'm free to select applications regardless of whether the phone manufacturer blesses them.
That they kept him for 5 months. I'm pretty sure he take that over being kept in Gitmo for ~8 years living in a steel cage. I won't defend the acts of terrorists, I do find it amusing when people condemn them while supporting the similar policies of others.
And ruined the peoples lives because they get the same perverse pleasure out of making other beings suffer as their target. 4chan is too often just a circle-jerk of cowards using its anonymity to engage in the harassment of people for amusement.
The way they would argue it is that you're paying the price of a movie ticket per person: Each person who downloads the file from you.
I'm not agreeing with them. There is however a good reason why the cost of being caught has to be higher than the cost of the item. If the cost of being caught is equal to the cost of the 'thing' you avoid paying for, then unless you get caught 100% of the time it is more cost effective not to pay. It is this balance of risk and reward that discourages most pre-meditated crime.
You bought a phone that didn't support the thing you needed to use it for. You're moaning that it doesn't do something you knew it wouldn't. How seriously did Ford take you when you complained that your car still doesn't hover or fly?
Perhaps you can complain to apple that they won't upgrade your iPhones to iOS 5 when you get them.
That's really your case for Microsoft being uber evil? Microsoft's business practice isn't an example of corporate benefaction at work, and all this sensationalism does is hide valid concerns from people who are mostly concerned with getting work / stuff done.
It's very useful: It informed your decision and you walked away. You wanted a different app without GPS or Internet requirements, that's your problem, not a flaw with the system.
Because it would work about as well as the high importance flag in outlook. From experience it seems clear the sender of emails isn't the right person to decide importance etc for the receiver. There is no advantage to sorting my email by someone else's estimate of importance.
I'm a little surprised that this kind of feature has been so long coming. If it works, it will be a big help to people who process there email in fixed time slots (many methods designed to improve effectiveness suggest this). I've taken to processing my personal email in two 15 min chunks daily. The first thing I do is prioritise, so if this is effective it'll save me more time.
They don't have any technical way of protecting themselves if they got out of the chair and went to the shops. The telling truth is that a product that 'protects' people from this kind of tracking are trivial. Anonymous proxies or blocking sites that track users for example. The fact that most users haven't gone out looking for solutions to this is an indication of how seriously this is taken by the public at large.
I'm generally against regulating 'internet' issues. Rights to protection against this kind of behaviour are just as relevant to utility companies, bricks and mortar shops, billboards etc. My concern then becomes: If it can be done by the government in secret, and it can be done by people who don't follow the law in secret, then is it really the people who follow the law we should be worried about?
Glad I'm not the only one who read the summary as basically saying: Sony are idiots for doing the same thing as Nintendo. Nintendo, however, are geniuses for doing it...
I imagine that if you look at the campaign donations for major Senate and Congressional candidates business donations make up considerably more than citizens. Citizens vote. There decision is driver by party ideology and the candidates campaign. Candidates can't change ideology. They can fund an impressive campaign by scratching a couple of companies backs.
One assumes that you don't use Google Search then? The exact same argument is as relevant in both cases. They're giving it away for free because they believe it makes sense. Google is in the fortunate position to not need immediate payback to justify doing something. Much of the best technology invented revolved around research that had no (or little) practical application at the time.
They made the game hoping to expand the range of people who would play the game. Personally, the split class, split race, items and skills picked from a dozen different expansions mentality of the 3rd ed groups I met meant I'd beat myself to death with my own arm before playing. I have however had a great time playing, then DMing in 4th. None of the people I played with were 'veteran' roleplayers, and half hadn't roleplayed before. Finally, I can't stand WoW, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the ideas that Wizards pinched.
Korea
Lebanon
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Gulf War
Yugoslavia
Iraq mk2
None of these conflicts was to do with the safety of US citizens. The immediate safety of your own citizens isn't the only good reason to go to war.
America doesn't like the idea of Iran having advanced weaponry because it is afraid that extremists will use them against it or its allies. Iran is afraid of not having the weapons because it is afraid that America will attack it or its allies. Neither party is wrong, and as long as both parties focus on their objectives and ignore the needs of the other the situation will remain.
No. But you are welcome to wonder. Me? I'll continue to find a chain of events however unlikely more persuasive than divine intervention. The entire idea of someone proposing the existence of god using statistical probability to attack another theory seems absurd. I'll gladly accept the divine as the most likely answer when I'm presented with a (credible) better probability of it existing. Religion is based on 'belief', which I have no issue with, so you're basically starting on the grounds of "if wishing made it so".
You could be right, what is certain however is that more and more examples are showing up dismissing a lot of the fanciful claims used to show the benefits of piracy. What I know for sure is that games developers are taking steps to stop pirates and they are impacting on paying customers (regardless of whether they are effective etc) and personally I think the pirates are at least as much to blame as the companies trying to get compensated for their work.
No. It's inherently better if it achieves the goal more effectively. If my doctor had the choice of using an old medical practice with 75% success rate or a new one with 50%, fuck new, I'm picking the one that works. If a lecturer is more effective not using blogs (which I don't find hard to believe) then making him use a blog 'to be modern' isn't achieing the goal more effectively.
If your friends would get huffy because they sent you a message on Facebook and you didn't respond (even though they won't even know whether you've seen it or not yet) then your friends are the issue not the technology used.
Secondly, how does a chat client like Skype in any way define how much you want to let the internet intrude into your life? If you mean you don't have the willpower to use Facebook without becoming obsessive about the apps then you've made the right call based on your personal situation and again this isn't a tech issue. Personally, I'm fine with checking my friends Facebook status updates every day or so and using it as an email replacement for some communication.