It's a far, far smaller investment to build a company around some piece of stupid social software. Especially if you're goal is simply sell the company at some point. And you can even outsource the labor.
A company that produces actual products, especially on this scale, require a real, exhaustive, long-term commitment and a desire to want to make better products better than anyone else offers.
Many, certainly not all, American companies that still make products seem stuck in the past. They continue relying on the strides and innovations made decades ago and only make half-hearted attempts at innovation. They fail to innovate and improve quality so they can't compete with the likes of the Japanese or some European companies. So they're stuck competing the Chinese but can't possibly match their low prices.
Most Japanese manufacturing is done in China now, but there are two important points. First, the higher end products are still manufactured domestically. And products that are made in China are closely managed so that quality remains high. American companies, on the other hand, seem to send over designs and let the Chinese figure everything out for themselves. The only requirement seems to be that it's made as cheaply as possible. So what do we end up with? Low quality crap.
I don't place the blame solely on corporations. There are a lot of factors that have contributed to this. The government certain has a big part in the difficulty companies, especially smaller ones have in thriving. And I feel like the American work ethic has gone to crap.
To be fair, I don't think it's quite as bad as I'm describing, but then I'm not overly optimistic about things for the US in the long term.
You don't have to buy these employees a thing, honestly I think that's ridiculous. But certainly it makes sense to frequent the same bank location. It's life. Want to get ahead, want good friends, want better service? You've got to build relationships.
Obviously those employees should be treating every customer with respect. But it's also true that everyone else at the company except the individual you're interfacing with sees you as a number. To them your problems are irrelevant, not different than the hundreds of other issues they see every day. But if you've established a relationship with people a particular branch chances are that they'll fight harder for you. And it's not just that, they're more inclined to help in other ways.
Pretty much every other nation on Earth has a more homogeneous culture than the United States. This is reflected in the fact that entertainment is more diverse in terms of content and cultural appeal.
Neither is the US more monolingual than most European or Asian nations. Head down to the DMV and you can probably get a test in most languages. In most other countries you might get English if you're lucky.
I do agree with you that the US has a higher level of affluence than most nations. Actually, it's more accurate to say Americans have more disposable income, probably because they get to keep more of what they earn. Japan is one of the exceptions, which is why they've got such a strong market and my companies that make consumer products thrive there.
These start-ups love to pass themselves off as scrappy little guys nipping at the heels of giants. In my experience these companies, the vast majority of the time, are backed by investors with very deep pockets. These guys are undoubtedly banking on the hope that this investment will pay off in a big way. There's this infatuation investors have with these social sites and it's easy to see why. Minimal investment, little substance, but the pay offs can be huge if people get hooked. Why spend a fortune building a company that actually makes product, with the expense and work that comes with it, when you can just do this? And given that development can easily be outsourced to India these ventures even more attractive.
Right now they're at the hype generating phase. By turning down this offer they have garnered media attention. And amongst the ignorant masses people will believe that these guys are principled. I think they're waiting to hit critical mass with users. Their hope is that they become the next Twitter. Then they'll sell especially if they haven't figured out a way to make money on something that seems completely pointless.
To me this is more simplistic, idealistic tripe. This is a more sophisticated variation of the stupid notion that love can save the world and we all just need to get along; something routinely conveyed in popular music. It's feel-good nonsense that provides no real solutions.
I'll grant you, the world does need these kind of idealists. This world would be a worse place without them. That said, all these problems have already been solved. Religion at it's core teaches humanity almost everything it needs know to solve these problems. Countless researchers and scientists have also devised innumerable practical solutions.
The problem, when it comes down to it, is human nature. These problems haven't been resolved and will never be resolved because of human nature. It doesn't matter what system of government or any other social system you impose on the people. People will find a way to exploit it. And far too often one group ends up being oppressed, financially, politically or socially, for the sake of another. Everything inevitably gets corrupted, including the aforementioned religion.
If people were totally selfless and honest we wouldn't even need a sociopolitical because all problems would solve themselves. But people aren't like that, so the most effective system is the one that accounts for human nature but is able to channel that energy in altruistic ways. Easier said than done. And of course this does nothing for disease which is something we'll be dealing with no matter how good people are to each other. It isn't a matter of saying fix it and it's done.
Outside of Mario Kart type games I never liked that view and I've never used it. I never saw it's appeal given that it's difficult to position the car properly on the track or get a proper sense of distance. And that's not to mention you can't even see what's immediately in front of your car. About the only benefit I see is that you could spot another car hiding in your blind spot. It does allow for more of a spectacle when racing. Undoubtedly someone could get good with this view, but that doesn't make for the ideal camera position. Then again, I also never liked the dashboard crowding my view in games. In real life the dashboard isn't as intrusive in my field of vision as it is on the screen.
Not to discount the iPad, but the constant barrage of news on this thing undoubtedly makes a dramatic impact on sales. People inevitably want to get on the bandwagon and find a reason to justify getting an iPad.
If someone else had introduced a similar tablet computer, with a well-designed interface and not chained to any one service I guarantee little attention would be given to the device. Of course, the key point here is that nobody else even tried. There were those tablet PCs several years ago, but since then nobody even tried to improve on those designs. Apple did it and now the inevitable imitators are going to flock to introduce their own versions.
So I find myself torn between thinking Apple's products are overrated and being impressed by the fact that they can bring a bit of technology to maturity and really make it work. And they understand integration better than most.
Why couldn't this be China. Perhaps they don't have the resources of the US or Europe to find more discrete methods of espionage. Perhaps they just don't care who knows. Clearly it doesn't matter all that much if the evidence points to them because so many people are reluctant to accuse China anyway.
I'd say the ones doing the work are probably sloppy. Skilled, but not thorough enough to cover their tracks. And the higher ups are probably feeling rather cocky and couldn't care less since on the international stage they seem to be getting their way anyway.
Let's see your average designer, who's the core user for Flash and responsible for the vast majority of flash-based content every be able to do anything using any of those platforms. Until something comes along that replaces Flash in terms of usability it's here to stay.
And that HTML 5 particle system runs like crap for me. I've seen similar things done in Flash that run at a consistent 30fps.
I was going to make a comment about how if the 4th dimension is time then every board game ever conceived is a 4D game. I was reminded of how 3D ultrasounds are called 4D.
However, this actually looks quite creative, although I'm having a bit of trouble determining the goal of the game. The immediate problem I see is being able to make things out with so many objects obstructing the view. In some ways this reminds me of Echochrome which I think plays with the notion of multiple dimensions in an even more dramatic and mind-bending fashion.
The tea partiers have no love for the GOP and are not comprised of only republicans. The thing is that the GOP is essentially trying to co-opt the movement.
And some of those stats you provide are outright nonsense. I'd consider this a more legitimate source. The highest I've seen elsewhere was on CNBC where they report 42 cents of every dollar goes to the military, 28.7 cents to current spending, 10 cents to interest on past and present military debt and 3.5 cents to Veterans.
I call BS on the story about commercial tax rates but I currently don't have the time or inclination to find evidence to back up my claim.
I have no love for GameStop, but how is this deceptive? You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product. This might mean a missing manual, missing box or limited access to online content. I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.
I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous. But really, it's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around. You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game, brand new, for $55. In fact, you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $45. Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.
Keep in mind, I have no problem with selling used games. I have a problem with how GameStop screws people. But again, that's the fault of gamers and nobody else.
There you go. The key distinction between 2010 and 20,000 years ago is that we have billions of humans around the world more exposed to changes in climate. But as you point out, the climate has changed many times in the past for a variety of reasons clearly not due to human activity. Might human activity be aggravating the matter somewhat? It's entirely possible, but given that it's going to happen no matter what we do I almost think it's irrelevant.
So what do we do? Take potentially disastrous measures and try to actually change the climate ourselves? And how to we even establish what an ideal baseline is? It's entirely possible the ideal temperature for humanity and nature to thrive is even higher than it is now.
But on a more practical level, I do think we should move to clean, efficient fuels as much as is realistically possible. Many measures to protect the environment make sense for a variety of reasons beyond climate change. That said, I do have a fundamental problem with the alarmists and the suggestion that we need to dramatically change our way of life or that we should support policies which benefit special interests pushed under the pretense of stopping climate change.
Owning patents is a very lucrative business beyond merely patent trolling. I've worked with a number of clients who own a bunch of patents, ranging from a handful up to a few hundred. They're routinely traded, sold or licensed. Sometimes I'm left with the impression that it's like trading Pokemon or baseball cards. Its basically trading in information. In one particular case the patents all fall under a range of related of technologies and services which the company is actively developing. In other cases it seems like investors pick and choose patents they consider to have potential and develop the technology to a point where it can be sold off for a hefty sum to another company.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. In many of these cases they end up doing something with the patents but there's something about this that leaves me with the impression that it's violating the spirit and intent of the patent system. But one thing is certain, we're unlikely to see any substantial and profound changes in the patent system because too many people have too much to gain from the system in its current form. And I think one of the underlying problems here is the litigious nature of this country. Perhaps we need a loser-pays system introduced?
The attitude prevalent around here seems to be one of gushing praise towards Google, like they've completely defied the Chinese government and are standing by their principles. Really, the only difference this move affords Google is that they are no longer mandated by the Chinese government to censor their search. It now falls on the Chinese government to do whatever they want to do.
Google hasn't actually left mainland China. Their research and sales divisions have remained behind. And their map services, music portal and Gmail servers all remain in China. So I'm left with the impression that this is a publicity stunt likely driven by a number of business-related issues. Gmail hosting remaining on the mainland doesn't even address one of the issues of spying on users.
Certainly, such a public action does make a statement, but I wouldn't necessarily consider Google principled any more than any other corporation. Profits are still king and they aren't willing to give up China.
Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region's freedoms. The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms, China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC. I don't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control. If I remember correctly, I think they suggested Hong Kong's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region's autonomy. I don't think much of anything came of it.
From a business perspective Hong Kong is, without question, a far more mature market. They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China. The problem in China for Google isn't simply one of hackers. A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them, stealing whatever they can in the process. And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies. Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist. Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China. Certainly, there's success to be had, but you'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks. I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success wasn't worth the trouble.
The nature of Google's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China. But the fact is that they still are in China, they're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.
If they were serious about making a statement they'd base themselves in Taiwan. But then again, the Taiwanese government probably doesn't want to get involved, especially given the current administration.
The same old pattern repeats itself. Those who disagree with the numbers are quick to argue their fallibility. Plenty of rationalizations are provided to argue that these claims are untrue. It easy to dismiss something when it doesn't fit your worldview. At the other end we've got the people who openly embrace these claims and then will refer to them as gospel. Yet another bit of evidence to support your mindset.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe for some that this administration may actually be rejecting requests in greater numbers. Of course, it's meaningless because it isn't like the Bush administration was a pushover. It's very likely that the number of rejections would have gone up were he still serving as president.
The real problem I see is that there are still people out there so naive as to believe that politicians actually care about any of us. I don't understand how people can continue to be fiercely loyal to either republicans or democrats. There certainly must be politicians out there who care, but you'll find those guys are small-time unknowns who have no say in the fundamental workings of this country. And they'll never be in a position of influence because they wont play the game. The big players are all looking out for themselves and the special interests they represent.
This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now. 2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.
I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.
If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.
This site doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in the government's plan for national broadband. First the site has difficulty loading, it took a few minutes before I got in. So I try the test and Firefox locks up. Eventually I get an unresponsive script warning.
This is inevitable. Not only will we see more of this, but it's going to get a lot more invasive. Politicians have decided it's their responsibility to look out for our well-being.
What does everyone think the president and congress is talking about when they say we need to change how we live, that we need to practice preventative healthcare? They're going to cram this sort of thing down our throats.
Every so often someone mentions us sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of security. But inevitably it's always mentioned in relation to the war on terrorism. The real threat to our freedom isn't anything so overt. Wars are temporary and there are plenty of people fighting these overt threats. The real threats to freedom is legislation like this. They're far more subtle, more far-reaching and long-lasting and it's the sort of thing that is harder to defend against because it's pretty easy to argue it's for our own good.
Twenty years from now people might be able to repeal invasive surveillance policies because the terrorist threat has subsided if not outright disappeared. But how do you repeal these kinds of bans? You're repealing a ban on something unhealthy! You're going to raise the cost of healthcare! We can't have that!
The real tool here should be education. People need to understand what they're consuming and the effects it may have on their bodies. Then they make the decision. But they should also be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be realistic in this day and age either. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that we can have a complete libertarian free-for-all where anything goes. But I'm talking about basic personal freedoms here. Pig out on unhealthy food all your want, but be prepared to deal with the health issues you're likely to encounter later in life.
People want the freedom, but they don't want to deal with the responsibilities and consequences of those freedoms. It creates the perfect atmosphere for the government to step in and make these decisions for us. That's really what it comes down to. Either we live safe, secure lives free of major responsibilities but have to give up many of our freedoms, or we have our freedom but we have to deal directly with the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to have the delusion that we can enjoy the best of both worlds.
Banning sugar next? They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
I love the loaded language. Sugary, like we're talking about a bottle full of sugar. And they don't even seem to make much of a distinction about the types of sugar used, other than expecting us all to accept artificial sweetners as a reasonable alternative.
And even better, they're claiming that the money earned by this tax will help pay for other programs. I love this bullshit. So, do they really want people to stop buying these drinks, putting an end to this revenue stream? Of course not! They hope people will go on buying this stuff, giving them another way of digging into our pockets for some extra money.
From what I've seen this is a far more common business model than you realize, at least in the US. I currently have a client who builds up these companies with the explicit intention of selling them. He develops the product or service to the point that it's attractive to potential buyers and then sells it to the highest bidder. This guy has access to huge pool of patents so it's just a matter of finding one that has potential and bringing in investors.
I have friend who is currently working for a company with the same goal of being sold off to someone else. In that case they actually are a web-based business.
I thought direct injection was supposed to accomplish some of what's being claimed here. Fuel is not pre-heated, but it is injected into the combustion chamber at extremely high pressure and already allows for very lean combustion. And to be honest, it's debatable whether the added complication of DI is even worth insignificant gains in fuel economy.
I went from a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder to a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder with direct injection. Both produce the same horsepower and fuel consumption is virtually identical, 24-26mpg on average. What advantage there may be with the 2.0 could be attributed to the smaller displacement.
Then there's an issue that's affecting virtually all direct injection engines. Excessive and premature buildup has been found on intake valves. Because no fuel passes over the intake there is no cleaning action occurring. So whatever cleansers may be present in fuel, or fuel additives are totally ineffective. Apparently the problem is linked to recirculation of unburned fuels, carbon and whatnot cycling through the system. But from my understanding part of the problem has to do with the slightly higher temperatures DI engines run at which help promote this sort of buildup. Additionally, some claim that DI engines have a tendency to breakdown engine oil more quickly than conventional fuel injection.
As I've mentioned, it's a fairly widespread problem and some automakers are trying to find solutions. VW lists these as known issues in their patent filings for their DI engines and list one possible solution as cutting off recirculation. Of course that isn't permissible because of EPA requirements. I've read that BMW maybe institute some kind of intake cleaning regimen as part of regular maintenance. Ford, I believe, is working on a solution that incorporates both fuel and direct injection to address the problem. I suppose it's just the growing pains of new technology.
I'm not entirely sure how this new solution is will help in that regard. Unless ignition is happening at even higher temperatures and burns off some of that buildup. But more importantly, I'm skeptical that it will net much of anything in terms of gains. From what these guys describe I don't see their engine doing anything profoundly different from existing designs.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a far, far smaller investment to build a company around some piece of stupid social software. Especially if you're goal is simply sell the company at some point. And you can even outsource the labor.
A company that produces actual products, especially on this scale, require a real, exhaustive, long-term commitment and a desire to want to make better products better than anyone else offers.
Many, certainly not all, American companies that still make products seem stuck in the past. They continue relying on the strides and innovations made decades ago and only make half-hearted attempts at innovation. They fail to innovate and improve quality so they can't compete with the likes of the Japanese or some European companies. So they're stuck competing the Chinese but can't possibly match their low prices.
Most Japanese manufacturing is done in China now, but there are two important points. First, the higher end products are still manufactured domestically. And products that are made in China are closely managed so that quality remains high. American companies, on the other hand, seem to send over designs and let the Chinese figure everything out for themselves. The only requirement seems to be that it's made as cheaply as possible. So what do we end up with? Low quality crap.
I don't place the blame solely on corporations. There are a lot of factors that have contributed to this. The government certain has a big part in the difficulty companies, especially smaller ones have in thriving. And I feel like the American work ethic has gone to crap.
To be fair, I don't think it's quite as bad as I'm describing, but then I'm not overly optimistic about things for the US in the long term.
You don't have to buy these employees a thing, honestly I think that's ridiculous. But certainly it makes sense to frequent the same bank location. It's life. Want to get ahead, want good friends, want better service? You've got to build relationships.
Obviously those employees should be treating every customer with respect. But it's also true that everyone else at the company except the individual you're interfacing with sees you as a number. To them your problems are irrelevant, not different than the hundreds of other issues they see every day. But if you've established a relationship with people a particular branch chances are that they'll fight harder for you. And it's not just that, they're more inclined to help in other ways.
Pretty much every other nation on Earth has a more homogeneous culture than the United States. This is reflected in the fact that entertainment is more diverse in terms of content and cultural appeal.
Neither is the US more monolingual than most European or Asian nations. Head down to the DMV and you can probably get a test in most languages. In most other countries you might get English if you're lucky.
I do agree with you that the US has a higher level of affluence than most nations. Actually, it's more accurate to say Americans have more disposable income, probably because they get to keep more of what they earn. Japan is one of the exceptions, which is why they've got such a strong market and my companies that make consumer products thrive there.
These start-ups love to pass themselves off as scrappy little guys nipping at the heels of giants. In my experience these companies, the vast majority of the time, are backed by investors with very deep pockets. These guys are undoubtedly banking on the hope that this investment will pay off in a big way. There's this infatuation investors have with these social sites and it's easy to see why. Minimal investment, little substance, but the pay offs can be huge if people get hooked. Why spend a fortune building a company that actually makes product, with the expense and work that comes with it, when you can just do this? And given that development can easily be outsourced to India these ventures even more attractive.
Right now they're at the hype generating phase. By turning down this offer they have garnered media attention. And amongst the ignorant masses people will believe that these guys are principled. I think they're waiting to hit critical mass with users. Their hope is that they become the next Twitter. Then they'll sell especially if they haven't figured out a way to make money on something that seems completely pointless.
That's true, except that most high school girls there nowadays have rather pudgy legs.
To me this is more simplistic, idealistic tripe. This is a more sophisticated variation of the stupid notion that love can save the world and we all just need to get along; something routinely conveyed in popular music. It's feel-good nonsense that provides no real solutions.
I'll grant you, the world does need these kind of idealists. This world would be a worse place without them. That said, all these problems have already been solved. Religion at it's core teaches humanity almost everything it needs know to solve these problems. Countless researchers and scientists have also devised innumerable practical solutions.
The problem, when it comes down to it, is human nature. These problems haven't been resolved and will never be resolved because of human nature. It doesn't matter what system of government or any other social system you impose on the people. People will find a way to exploit it. And far too often one group ends up being oppressed, financially, politically or socially, for the sake of another. Everything inevitably gets corrupted, including the aforementioned religion.
If people were totally selfless and honest we wouldn't even need a sociopolitical because all problems would solve themselves. But people aren't like that, so the most effective system is the one that accounts for human nature but is able to channel that energy in altruistic ways. Easier said than done. And of course this does nothing for disease which is something we'll be dealing with no matter how good people are to each other. It isn't a matter of saying fix it and it's done.
Outside of Mario Kart type games I never liked that view and I've never used it. I never saw it's appeal given that it's difficult to position the car properly on the track or get a proper sense of distance. And that's not to mention you can't even see what's immediately in front of your car. About the only benefit I see is that you could spot another car hiding in your blind spot. It does allow for more of a spectacle when racing. Undoubtedly someone could get good with this view, but that doesn't make for the ideal camera position. Then again, I also never liked the dashboard crowding my view in games. In real life the dashboard isn't as intrusive in my field of vision as it is on the screen.
Not to discount the iPad, but the constant barrage of news on this thing undoubtedly makes a dramatic impact on sales. People inevitably want to get on the bandwagon and find a reason to justify getting an iPad.
If someone else had introduced a similar tablet computer, with a well-designed interface and not chained to any one service I guarantee little attention would be given to the device. Of course, the key point here is that nobody else even tried. There were those tablet PCs several years ago, but since then nobody even tried to improve on those designs. Apple did it and now the inevitable imitators are going to flock to introduce their own versions.
So I find myself torn between thinking Apple's products are overrated and being impressed by the fact that they can bring a bit of technology to maturity and really make it work. And they understand integration better than most.
Why couldn't this be China. Perhaps they don't have the resources of the US or Europe to find more discrete methods of espionage. Perhaps they just don't care who knows. Clearly it doesn't matter all that much if the evidence points to them because so many people are reluctant to accuse China anyway.
I'd say the ones doing the work are probably sloppy. Skilled, but not thorough enough to cover their tracks. And the higher ups are probably feeling rather cocky and couldn't care less since on the international stage they seem to be getting their way anyway.
Let's see your average designer, who's the core user for Flash and responsible for the vast majority of flash-based content every be able to do anything using any of those platforms. Until something comes along that replaces Flash in terms of usability it's here to stay.
And that HTML 5 particle system runs like crap for me. I've seen similar things done in Flash that run at a consistent 30fps.
I was going to make a comment about how if the 4th dimension is time then every board game ever conceived is a 4D game. I was reminded of how 3D ultrasounds are called 4D.
However, this actually looks quite creative, although I'm having a bit of trouble determining the goal of the game. The immediate problem I see is being able to make things out with so many objects obstructing the view. In some ways this reminds me of Echochrome which I think plays with the notion of multiple dimensions in an even more dramatic and mind-bending fashion.
The tea partiers have no love for the GOP and are not comprised of only republicans. The thing is that the GOP is essentially trying to co-opt the movement.
And some of those stats you provide are outright nonsense. I'd consider this a more legitimate source. The highest I've seen elsewhere was on CNBC where they report 42 cents of every dollar goes to the military, 28.7 cents to current spending, 10 cents to interest on past and present military debt and 3.5 cents to Veterans.
I call BS on the story about commercial tax rates but I currently don't have the time or inclination to find evidence to back up my claim.
I have no love for GameStop, but how is this deceptive? You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product. This might mean a missing manual, missing box or limited access to online content. I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.
I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous. But really, it's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around. You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game, brand new, for $55. In fact, you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $45. Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.
Keep in mind, I have no problem with selling used games. I have a problem with how GameStop screws people. But again, that's the fault of gamers and nobody else.
There you go. The key distinction between 2010 and 20,000 years ago is that we have billions of humans around the world more exposed to changes in climate. But as you point out, the climate has changed many times in the past for a variety of reasons clearly not due to human activity. Might human activity be aggravating the matter somewhat? It's entirely possible, but given that it's going to happen no matter what we do I almost think it's irrelevant.
So what do we do? Take potentially disastrous measures and try to actually change the climate ourselves? And how to we even establish what an ideal baseline is? It's entirely possible the ideal temperature for humanity and nature to thrive is even higher than it is now.
But on a more practical level, I do think we should move to clean, efficient fuels as much as is realistically possible. Many measures to protect the environment make sense for a variety of reasons beyond climate change. That said, I do have a fundamental problem with the alarmists and the suggestion that we need to dramatically change our way of life or that we should support policies which benefit special interests pushed under the pretense of stopping climate change.
Owning patents is a very lucrative business beyond merely patent trolling. I've worked with a number of clients who own a bunch of patents, ranging from a handful up to a few hundred. They're routinely traded, sold or licensed. Sometimes I'm left with the impression that it's like trading Pokemon or baseball cards. Its basically trading in information. In one particular case the patents all fall under a range of related of technologies and services which the company is actively developing. In other cases it seems like investors pick and choose patents they consider to have potential and develop the technology to a point where it can be sold off for a hefty sum to another company.
To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. In many of these cases they end up doing something with the patents but there's something about this that leaves me with the impression that it's violating the spirit and intent of the patent system. But one thing is certain, we're unlikely to see any substantial and profound changes in the patent system because too many people have too much to gain from the system in its current form. And I think one of the underlying problems here is the litigious nature of this country. Perhaps we need a loser-pays system introduced?
The attitude prevalent around here seems to be one of gushing praise towards Google, like they've completely defied the Chinese government and are standing by their principles. Really, the only difference this move affords Google is that they are no longer mandated by the Chinese government to censor their search. It now falls on the Chinese government to do whatever they want to do.
Google hasn't actually left mainland China. Their research and sales divisions have remained behind. And their map services, music portal and Gmail servers all remain in China. So I'm left with the impression that this is a publicity stunt likely driven by a number of business-related issues. Gmail hosting remaining on the mainland doesn't even address one of the issues of spying on users.
Certainly, such a public action does make a statement, but I wouldn't necessarily consider Google principled any more than any other corporation. Profits are still king and they aren't willing to give up China.
Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region's freedoms. The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms, China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC. I don't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control. If I remember correctly, I think they suggested Hong Kong's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region's autonomy. I don't think much of anything came of it.
From a business perspective Hong Kong is, without question, a far more mature market. They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China. The problem in China for Google isn't simply one of hackers. A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them, stealing whatever they can in the process. And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies. Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist. Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China. Certainly, there's success to be had, but you'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks. I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success wasn't worth the trouble.
The nature of Google's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China. But the fact is that they still are in China, they're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.
If they were serious about making a statement they'd base themselves in Taiwan. But then again, the Taiwanese government probably doesn't want to get involved, especially given the current administration.
The same old pattern repeats itself. Those who disagree with the numbers are quick to argue their fallibility. Plenty of rationalizations are provided to argue that these claims are untrue. It easy to dismiss something when it doesn't fit your worldview. At the other end we've got the people who openly embrace these claims and then will refer to them as gospel. Yet another bit of evidence to support your mindset.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe for some that this administration may actually be rejecting requests in greater numbers. Of course, it's meaningless because it isn't like the Bush administration was a pushover. It's very likely that the number of rejections would have gone up were he still serving as president.
The real problem I see is that there are still people out there so naive as to believe that politicians actually care about any of us. I don't understand how people can continue to be fiercely loyal to either republicans or democrats. There certainly must be politicians out there who care, but you'll find those guys are small-time unknowns who have no say in the fundamental workings of this country. And they'll never be in a position of influence because they wont play the game. The big players are all looking out for themselves and the special interests they represent.
This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now. 2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.
I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.
If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.
This site doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in the government's plan for national broadband. First the site has difficulty loading, it took a few minutes before I got in. So I try the test and Firefox locks up. Eventually I get an unresponsive script warning.
In case you're wondering, there's a Fake Drive in VA and a Fake Road in PA. No Fake Streets, unfortunately. There are two False Roads, however.
I wonder how much trouble residents of those roads run into when they give their address.
This is inevitable. Not only will we see more of this, but it's going to get a lot more invasive. Politicians have decided it's their responsibility to look out for our well-being.
What does everyone think the president and congress is talking about when they say we need to change how we live, that we need to practice preventative healthcare? They're going to cram this sort of thing down our throats.
Every so often someone mentions us sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of security. But inevitably it's always mentioned in relation to the war on terrorism. The real threat to our freedom isn't anything so overt. Wars are temporary and there are plenty of people fighting these overt threats. The real threats to freedom is legislation like this. They're far more subtle, more far-reaching and long-lasting and it's the sort of thing that is harder to defend against because it's pretty easy to argue it's for our own good.
Twenty years from now people might be able to repeal invasive surveillance policies because the terrorist threat has subsided if not outright disappeared. But how do you repeal these kinds of bans? You're repealing a ban on something unhealthy! You're going to raise the cost of healthcare! We can't have that!
The real tool here should be education. People need to understand what they're consuming and the effects it may have on their bodies. Then they make the decision. But they should also be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be realistic in this day and age either. Now, I'm not so naive as to believe that we can have a complete libertarian free-for-all where anything goes. But I'm talking about basic personal freedoms here. Pig out on unhealthy food all your want, but be prepared to deal with the health issues you're likely to encounter later in life.
People want the freedom, but they don't want to deal with the responsibilities and consequences of those freedoms. It creates the perfect atmosphere for the government to step in and make these decisions for us. That's really what it comes down to. Either we live safe, secure lives free of major responsibilities but have to give up many of our freedoms, or we have our freedom but we have to deal directly with the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately too many people nowadays seem to have the delusion that we can enjoy the best of both worlds.
Banning sugar next? They're already working hard to push tax on "sugary" sodas and drinks in NY.
I love the loaded language. Sugary, like we're talking about a bottle full of sugar. And they don't even seem to make much of a distinction about the types of sugar used, other than expecting us all to accept artificial sweetners as a reasonable alternative.
And even better, they're claiming that the money earned by this tax will help pay for other programs. I love this bullshit. So, do they really want people to stop buying these drinks, putting an end to this revenue stream? Of course not! They hope people will go on buying this stuff, giving them another way of digging into our pockets for some extra money.
From what I've seen this is a far more common business model than you realize, at least in the US. I currently have a client who builds up these companies with the explicit intention of selling them. He develops the product or service to the point that it's attractive to potential buyers and then sells it to the highest bidder. This guy has access to huge pool of patents so it's just a matter of finding one that has potential and bringing in investors.
I have friend who is currently working for a company with the same goal of being sold off to someone else. In that case they actually are a web-based business.
I thought direct injection was supposed to accomplish some of what's being claimed here. Fuel is not pre-heated, but it is injected into the combustion chamber at extremely high pressure and already allows for very lean combustion. And to be honest, it's debatable whether the added complication of DI is even worth insignificant gains in fuel economy.
I went from a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder to a 2.0 liter 4-cylinder with direct injection. Both produce the same horsepower and fuel consumption is virtually identical, 24-26mpg on average. What advantage there may be with the 2.0 could be attributed to the smaller displacement.
Then there's an issue that's affecting virtually all direct injection engines. Excessive and premature buildup has been found on intake valves. Because no fuel passes over the intake there is no cleaning action occurring. So whatever cleansers may be present in fuel, or fuel additives are totally ineffective. Apparently the problem is linked to recirculation of unburned fuels, carbon and whatnot cycling through the system. But from my understanding part of the problem has to do with the slightly higher temperatures DI engines run at which help promote this sort of buildup. Additionally, some claim that DI engines have a tendency to breakdown engine oil more quickly than conventional fuel injection.
As I've mentioned, it's a fairly widespread problem and some automakers are trying to find solutions. VW lists these as known issues in their patent filings for their DI engines and list one possible solution as cutting off recirculation. Of course that isn't permissible because of EPA requirements. I've read that BMW maybe institute some kind of intake cleaning regimen as part of regular maintenance. Ford, I believe, is working on a solution that incorporates both fuel and direct injection to address the problem. I suppose it's just the growing pains of new technology.
I'm not entirely sure how this new solution is will help in that regard. Unless ignition is happening at even higher temperatures and burns off some of that buildup. But more importantly, I'm skeptical that it will net much of anything in terms of gains. From what these guys describe I don't see their engine doing anything profoundly different from existing designs.