Hardly. Nokia didn't "run out of options." They put too much into Symbian. They didn't want to take risks. They had too many models that each excelled at one very specific thing. They didn't want to their new phones to leech sales from their existing luxury phones.
It's classic large corporation syndrome. They can't move because they're entrenched. They have to move because the rest of the world is leaving them behind.
You can argue whether Windows Phone or MeeGo was the better choice, but they needed a reset to their smartphone line. Things were absolutely going to get bad before they could get good. My opinion is that going with WP was a bad move, and having taken this course, they won't ever come back from the slump. But that there was going to be a slump was inevitable.
Why wouldn't game developers sell games on Steam rather than creating their own obnoxious systems?
Some of them don't care for the model. Some of them don't want to incur the extra costs of Steam. Some of them have contractual obligations. But primarily, companies don't want to lose control of their distribution method.
It's like asking why companies don't want to put their app on the Android Market/Google Play, and why other marketplaces exist. Putting all their eggs in one basket is risky.
I wanted to keep all the money I make so that I can spend it on more unnecessary trinkets made in China, but the Federal Government keeps taking a hefty chunk of it from me to spend on things I don't need like roads and hurricane relief and pills for the elderly and poor.
Boeing, Lockheed, et al would have folded if not for government cost-plus contracts that pay even when nothing is delivered, and have all those nifty cost overruns built right into them.
It also subsidizes the civilian arms of these companies, as well as heavily promotes aerospace research within them. Military research projects can eventually find use in civilian contexts.
Not to say that there isn't a better way, but there are benefits to the general public. My inclination is to see this money go to universities, and knowledge to go into the public domain, since it's government-funded. But government funding some research is better than none.
Of course, given the state of science and technology education in the states these days, in 20 years, these companies will have trouble finding people to do military research (which requires clearance). That, and nobody will want to build anything for fear of "IP" lawsuits, those from patent trolls being the most damaging overall.
Vice-versa Obama's solution is to impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes), force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025) and even population downsizing through birth limits (not Obama's plan, but the UN's plan).
Thank's for clarifying that bit of scaremongering in parenthesis, while still looping it in with what you claim Obama "would" do.
Ok, now to pick apart the points individually:
impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes)
There's nothing wrong with carbon usage penalties, and more generally, there's nothing wrong with taxes, especially on corporations. Small businesses are where the economic growth is at. The big businesses make all the headlines, but it's the neighborhood stores that determine the health of that neighborhood. Such regulations are not going to affect small businesses very much. But they will impose severe restrictions on the actions of large businesses, and that's a damn good thing in my book.
Why would this affect large businesses more than small businesses? Because large businesses are incredibly efficient. They are as efficient at creating goods and services as they are spending natural resources to do the creation. A penalty (tax) increases the overhead of creating things. And when their overhead is so small, any increase is a significant increase. On the other hand, because small businesses are not efficient, this penalty is not going to significantly contribute to their overhead.
force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025)
Your hyperbole is showing. I'm not sure where a high mile per gallon equates to a "teeny-tiny" car. There are such things as advancements in technology, even in something as "old" as the automobile. I'm certain that by 2025, there will be plenty of cars capable of being large, and still having 54 MPG. Besides which, the limitation is on car manufacturers' offerings. It has nothing to do with your (or my) individual rights of purchasing our vehicle of choice--unless you consider a corporation an individual. It may affect the prices of larger cars. But tell me why shouldn't you pay more to pollute more? Unless you want something for nothing, which seems to be the case with people like you.
population downsizing through birth limits
I shouldn't even address this because it has NOTHING to do with Obama. You even say it yourself. But this is irrelevant to the U.S. Even with immigration, our population is holding steady, if not on a slight decline. Considering that population growth is not a problem for the U.S. and won't be so long as there a such stringent controls on immigration, wouldn't attributing that to Obama be incredibly, well, silly? You'd have been far more credible had you talked about how he's all for legalizing illegal immigrants.
If you're a libertarian, you really should be complaining about things like strong IP laws, government-sanctioned unregulated monopolies on public infrastructure, and other such intrusive government intervention into the free market. But you're not interested in small vs. big government. You're interested in promoting pro-corporate policies and denoucing anti-corporate policies.
I hope you can see far enough to know where such policies are going to end (hint: facism).
It's a bit of both. Some people see the ban hammer coming down, and are rushing to beat it before it gets banned. People who were waiting to buy, for example, because of tight budgets, or because somebody's birthday or anniversary is too far away, are realizing that they can't afford to wait anymore.
At the same time, a lot of people see the verdict as Apple == Samsung, or more importantly, Samsung == Apple. Why bother shelling out extra for the Apple device and pay the Apple Tax if the Samsung one is exactly the same.
Heh heh. And the best part is, not only will this equivalence association be stuck in everybody's heads long after Samsung comes out with non-infringing devices, but because the Samsung devices have more features than Apple's devices, the perception can only go up. The only way Samsung can screw it all up is by releasing a completely crappy flagship device, which won't happen as long as Android belongs to Google.
I'd trust The Register as far as I can throw them, collectively. Forget the sensationalism, the spin, and the overall yellow hue that's all over all their articles. They often speculate, which not surprisingly ends up being incorrect nine times out of ten.
I don't trust the mainstream stuff completely either. But at least it's actual journalism instead of guesswork.
Throw up a warning screen whenever there's malformed input. Kinda like the warning screen with self-signed certs, without the stupid part of having the add the site to a permanent exception list.
And if people want the convenience of whitelisting or just turning the message off entirely, put those in the options, just like the way browsers handle cookies.
This warning page will show up a lot at first. But it would also ultimately shame people into fixing their outputs.
I don't have faith in my memory. I trust my memory. Unlike faith, trust us earned and subject to review. If I were to grow old and senile and found myself forgetting things, I'd be less inclined to trust my memory and more inclined to start writing more things down to get through my day.
GP is probably referring to the opposite and equally radical idea that there's no personal accountability, only social accountability. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty, but the nanny state that Democrats espouse tends to promote this line of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Sharp is an adjective (Sharp Corporation is a noun).
Sharp being the adjective means mortgages is a noun. That automatically makes display the verb (a sentence has to have a verb).
In effect, these cash-poor, sharp mortgages are displaying factories.
Any "hacker" worth his salt would've asked for one hundred billion dollars...in bitcoins.
Hardly. Nokia didn't "run out of options." They put too much into Symbian. They didn't want to take risks. They had too many models that each excelled at one very specific thing. They didn't want to their new phones to leech sales from their existing luxury phones.
It's classic large corporation syndrome. They can't move because they're entrenched. They have to move because the rest of the world is leaving them behind.
You can argue whether Windows Phone or MeeGo was the better choice, but they needed a reset to their smartphone line. Things were absolutely going to get bad before they could get good. My opinion is that going with WP was a bad move, and having taken this course, they won't ever come back from the slump. But that there was going to be a slump was inevitable.
Who needs facts and truth when their base acts on faith and belief.
It's genius.
Uranuscrats?
More commonly known as asshats.
The UK really isn't supposed to be going that way.
In the same way the book 1984 stopped the events of 1984 from happening?
Why wouldn't game developers sell games on Steam rather than creating their own obnoxious systems?
Some of them don't care for the model. Some of them don't want to incur the extra costs of Steam. Some of them have contractual obligations. But primarily, companies don't want to lose control of their distribution method.
It's like asking why companies don't want to put their app on the Android Market/Google Play, and why other marketplaces exist. Putting all their eggs in one basket is risky.
Good luck with that one. Diablo III is a cash cow for Blizzard. There's no reason they should remove this requirement.
They've made their cake, and now they have to lie in it.
The cake is a lie.
I wanted to keep all the money I make so that I can spend it on more unnecessary trinkets made in China, but the Federal Government keeps taking a hefty chunk of it from me to spend on things I don't need like roads and hurricane relief and pills for the elderly and poor.
Boeing, Lockheed, et al would have folded if not for government cost-plus contracts that pay even when nothing is delivered, and have all those nifty cost overruns built right into them.
It also subsidizes the civilian arms of these companies, as well as heavily promotes aerospace research within them. Military research projects can eventually find use in civilian contexts.
Not to say that there isn't a better way, but there are benefits to the general public. My inclination is to see this money go to universities, and knowledge to go into the public domain, since it's government-funded. But government funding some research is better than none.
Of course, given the state of science and technology education in the states these days, in 20 years, these companies will have trouble finding people to do military research (which requires clearance). That, and nobody will want to build anything for fear of "IP" lawsuits, those from patent trolls being the most damaging overall.
8 out of the top 10 largest PAC's fund Obama, including the banks, lawyers, and unions, RIAA/MPAA, etc.
When you have money, you'll realize you can actually afford to buy out both sides.
Ok, I'll bite.
Vice-versa Obama's solution is to impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes), force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025) and even population downsizing through birth limits (not Obama's plan, but the UN's plan).
Thank's for clarifying that bit of scaremongering in parenthesis, while still looping it in with what you claim Obama "would" do.
Ok, now to pick apart the points individually:
impose harsh carbon-usage penalties (taxes)
There's nothing wrong with carbon usage penalties, and more generally, there's nothing wrong with taxes, especially on corporations. Small businesses are where the economic growth is at. The big businesses make all the headlines, but it's the neighborhood stores that determine the health of that neighborhood. Such regulations are not going to affect small businesses very much. But they will impose severe restrictions on the actions of large businesses, and that's a damn good thing in my book.
Why would this affect large businesses more than small businesses? Because large businesses are incredibly efficient. They are as efficient at creating goods and services as they are spending natural resources to do the creation. A penalty (tax) increases the overhead of creating things. And when their overhead is so small, any increase is a significant increase. On the other hand, because small businesses are not efficient, this penalty is not going to significantly contribute to their overhead.
force us to drive teeny-tiny cars (54mpg average by 2025)
Your hyperbole is showing. I'm not sure where a high mile per gallon equates to a "teeny-tiny" car. There are such things as advancements in technology, even in something as "old" as the automobile. I'm certain that by 2025, there will be plenty of cars capable of being large, and still having 54 MPG. Besides which, the limitation is on car manufacturers' offerings. It has nothing to do with your (or my) individual rights of purchasing our vehicle of choice--unless you consider a corporation an individual. It may affect the prices of larger cars. But tell me why shouldn't you pay more to pollute more? Unless you want something for nothing, which seems to be the case with people like you.
population downsizing through birth limits
I shouldn't even address this because it has NOTHING to do with Obama. You even say it yourself. But this is irrelevant to the U.S. Even with immigration, our population is holding steady, if not on a slight decline. Considering that population growth is not a problem for the U.S. and won't be so long as there a such stringent controls on immigration, wouldn't attributing that to Obama be incredibly, well, silly? You'd have been far more credible had you talked about how he's all for legalizing illegal immigrants.
If you're a libertarian, you really should be complaining about things like strong IP laws, government-sanctioned unregulated monopolies on public infrastructure, and other such intrusive government intervention into the free market. But you're not interested in small vs. big government. You're interested in promoting pro-corporate policies and denoucing anti-corporate policies.
I hope you can see far enough to know where such policies are going to end (hint: facism).
The experiment has ended. The result is failure. Several millenia of genetic selection cannot be undone in 200 short years.
A really sharp knife or a pair of bolt cutters.
Not if it's shortened to S.H.I.E.L.D.
Samsung phones have been determined to be equivalent to Apple's iPhone. So you don't have to settle for 2nd best anymore.
It's a bit of both. Some people see the ban hammer coming down, and are rushing to beat it before it gets banned. People who were waiting to buy, for example, because of tight budgets, or because somebody's birthday or anniversary is too far away, are realizing that they can't afford to wait anymore.
At the same time, a lot of people see the verdict as Apple == Samsung, or more importantly, Samsung == Apple. Why bother shelling out extra for the Apple device and pay the Apple Tax if the Samsung one is exactly the same.
Heh heh. And the best part is, not only will this equivalence association be stuck in everybody's heads long after Samsung comes out with non-infringing devices, but because the Samsung devices have more features than Apple's devices, the perception can only go up. The only way Samsung can screw it all up is by releasing a completely crappy flagship device, which won't happen as long as Android belongs to Google.
I'd trust The Register as far as I can throw them, collectively. Forget the sensationalism, the spin, and the overall yellow hue that's all over all their articles. They often speculate, which not surprisingly ends up being incorrect nine times out of ten.
I don't trust the mainstream stuff completely either. But at least it's actual journalism instead of guesswork.
Amazon did it for a couple of years. So did E-Bay. They had income, but no profit.
All you need is enough venture capitalists to keep you going until you hit critical mass.
Throw up a warning screen whenever there's malformed input. Kinda like the warning screen with self-signed certs, without the stupid part of having the add the site to a permanent exception list.
And if people want the convenience of whitelisting or just turning the message off entirely, put those in the options, just like the way browsers handle cookies.
This warning page will show up a lot at first. But it would also ultimately shame people into fixing their outputs.
I don't have faith in my memory. I trust my memory. Unlike faith, trust us earned and subject to review. If I were to grow old and senile and found myself forgetting things, I'd be less inclined to trust my memory and more inclined to start writing more things down to get through my day.
From here.
I'm waiting for that day myself, when someone can magically disappear all those believers and restore the planet to some semblance of sanity.
GP is probably referring to the opposite and equally radical idea that there's no personal accountability, only social accountability. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty, but the nanny state that Democrats espouse tends to promote this line of thinking.
No, they obviously don't force it upon their kids. They make the teachers do it. That's what teachers are there for, after all.