Thing is, such killing of projects has effects outside the immediate userbase. Google is building a reputation for putting together projects, getting users, and killing it. If this pattern continues people are going to become increasingly reluctant to invest time/energy into things Google back because the risk of it being shut down feels too high. So there is a potential PR problem here, though I do not think we have reached it given the amount of goodwill they have through other things.
Obvious today, not so much at the time. Though I can not comment on this particular person's place in history, I can say that such things were not exactly obvious even once basic networking was in place, esp since the idea of 'sharing documents' was not there right out of the gate either.
Agreed, well, on the later part at least. Civ's sim always had trouble with balanced power, usually someone breaks a little bit ahead and they quickly become uncatchable.
Oddly enough this is what often bothered me about Civ. I actually found it pretty hard to end up in a stalemate situation in the game, either I overwhelmed the computer players and wiped them out over a fairly short course, or some computer player lept out in front and crushed me before I was ready.
Real history though has countries fighting back and forth, often finding the cost of finishing the job to be too high (indigestion absorbing new territory, economic costs of prolonged war, etc)... and I kept wishing Civ did a better job of modeling these situations. So in a way I am actually rather impressed the person managed to end up in such a 'loosing' situation.
I am guessing the latter. Once the computer players get nukes they tend to use them heavily.
I think this would have been more interesting if the game had been modded to remove the time cap and we were talking about a hear 40,000 game instead. A game intentionally played so as to not end and keep some balance (so leaving other civilizations fairly intact) and running the simulation long past its designed ending point.. could be kinda neat.
Actually, I would rather they run off with the Goreans and found their own misogynistic everyone for themselves power makes right paradise. See how long it lasts when a bunch of guys discover that not everyone will be a millionaire with 12 obedient eternally teenaged slave girls....
Sadly, a lot of people believe that is something does not meet their needs then it is bad for everyone. I always take it as a bit of ego.. they are so representative of 'real' users that if they don't like it, then no one should.
It is less a case of 'lost' and more 'never had'. Screens are larger and higher resolution (for the price) then they have ever been. But bringing up the second screen is probably part of why these large high resolution screens are not catching on. Much cheaper just to get two regular screens and get a total area larger then the high resolution one. If you want more screen for your buck, high resolution just doens't cut it.
Because state lawmakers can impose taxes within their state. They can not rescind federal subsidies.
Beyond that, they can probably do this without pissing off the farm lobby too much, which would put probably hurt their reelection chances more then imposing a sin tax.
As for how much balance it would bring, historical studies have shown sin taxes to be at least marginally effective in reducing consumption of luxuries, so if consumption is high due to the artificially low prices, the two would at least partially cancel each other out.
The parents are making them fat to catch sales and save money.
This cut to the heart of why such a tax actually makes economic (and capitalistic) sense at a state level. The cost of these sugary/fattening products is artificially low due to taxpayer money being funneled into the industry at a federal level. Since the farm lobby is too powerful to get that cut it makes sense for states to balance things out and bring such food items at least part of the way back to their real cost.
I think this is less 'logical continuation' and more 'hyperbolic extreme'.
Besides, insurance companies already do this, and to a significant degree they get their calculations from a shared 3rd party so choice is a bit of an illusion.
Why in the world is this 'flamebait'? People were mentioning various backup solutions that would cover this situation and someone mentions the solution that is built in to their OS.
Oh, it is Apple... pointing out anything positive about them is flaimbait in some people's opinion I guess.
It is hard to say if Cuba would have went well. Sanctions did not help, but similar systems have gone badly in other nations so it is questionable if Cuba would have somehow bucked the trend.
(D) is probably the critical one. Languages, at this point, are all pretty similar in what they can do, how easy they are to learn, and readability really just depends on what you are used to.. The thing that tends to separate them is what other components exist for them to link into, i.e. how popular they are among the programmer's target community.
So it is probably more accurate to say 'programmers use languages because other programmers are using them'.
The thing to remember about those studies though is they are native language specific.
Which actually makes me wonder if this menu change might be a surface sign of who the users (or designers) of their UIs are. The combination of upper and lower cases is easier for us to read because our language tree uses it to distinguish things. Not all languages work that way and quite a few trees do not differentiate, and some of those languages are dominant in some developing markets....
The thing is, the American Revolution worked because the local elites were driving it, not average people. That tends to be what determines if a revolution goes well or not. When you have two ruling classes struggling for power, the winner usually has the resources to restore order and most of their power structure already in place. When you have ruling class vs general population, it always ends badly regardless of who wins.
Well, they already have a law stating that, if national security is involved, the government can pay private companies to manufacture things based off other people's patents while being immune from patent litigation if they get caught. So even if we knew who to serve, they have that protection from civilian law.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, such killing of projects has effects outside the immediate userbase. Google is building a reputation for putting together projects, getting users, and killing it. If this pattern continues people are going to become increasingly reluctant to invest time/energy into things Google back because the risk of it being shut down feels too high. So there is a potential PR problem here, though I do not think we have reached it given the amount of goodwill they have through other things.
Obvious today, not so much at the time. Though I can not comment on this particular person's place in history, I can say that such things were not exactly obvious even once basic networking was in place, esp since the idea of 'sharing documents' was not there right out of the gate either.
Well, that is kinda what CCP is trying to pull off with EvE+Dust. It remains to be seen how well their experiment will go though.
Agreed, well, on the later part at least. Civ's sim always had trouble with balanced power, usually someone breaks a little bit ahead and they quickly become uncatchable.
Oddly enough this is what often bothered me about Civ. I actually found it pretty hard to end up in a stalemate situation in the game, either I overwhelmed the computer players and wiped them out over a fairly short course, or some computer player lept out in front and crushed me before I was ready.
Real history though has countries fighting back and forth, often finding the cost of finishing the job to be too high (indigestion absorbing new territory, economic costs of prolonged war, etc)... and I kept wishing Civ did a better job of modeling these situations. So in a way I am actually rather impressed the person managed to end up in such a 'loosing' situation.
I am picturing someone mashing up EvE and Civ... it took me to a happy place.
My point exactly ^_^
I am guessing the latter. Once the computer players get nukes they tend to use them heavily.
I think this would have been more interesting if the game had been modded to remove the time cap and we were talking about a hear 40,000 game instead. A game intentionally played so as to not end and keep some balance (so leaving other civilizations fairly intact) and running the simulation long past its designed ending point.. could be kinda neat.
Actually, I would rather they run off with the Goreans and found their own misogynistic everyone for themselves power makes right paradise. See how long it lasts when a bunch of guys discover that not everyone will be a millionaire with 12 obedient eternally teenaged slave girls....
I wonder how much overlap there is between the 'gospel of wealth' and rand sects there is.
Unless it is a religious charity, in which case it is doing god's work, or supporting terrorism.
Ah FORTRAN.. the cockroach of computer languages... runs anywhere.. just can't be killed off.... and great for calculating radiation.
Pity I do not have mod points.
Sadly, a lot of people believe that is something does not meet their needs then it is bad for everyone. I always take it as a bit of ego.. they are so representative of 'real' users that if they don't like it, then no one should.
Ahm.. we have 'content', it is called an operating system. Monitors are used for more then just media consumption and playing games.
Want a killer app that can really use the extra space? Photoshop.
It is less a case of 'lost' and more 'never had'. Screens are larger and higher resolution (for the price) then they have ever been. But bringing up the second screen is probably part of why these large high resolution screens are not catching on. Much cheaper just to get two regular screens and get a total area larger then the high resolution one. If you want more screen for your buck, high resolution just doens't cut it.
Because state lawmakers can impose taxes within their state. They can not rescind federal subsidies.
Beyond that, they can probably do this without pissing off the farm lobby too much, which would put probably hurt their reelection chances more then imposing a sin tax.
As for how much balance it would bring, historical studies have shown sin taxes to be at least marginally effective in reducing consumption of luxuries, so if consumption is high due to the artificially low prices, the two would at least partially cancel each other out.
The parents are making them fat to catch sales and save money.
This cut to the heart of why such a tax actually makes economic (and capitalistic) sense at a state level. The cost of these sugary/fattening products is artificially low due to taxpayer money being funneled into the industry at a federal level. Since the farm lobby is too powerful to get that cut it makes sense for states to balance things out and bring such food items at least part of the way back to their real cost.
I think this is less 'logical continuation' and more 'hyperbolic extreme'.
Besides, insurance companies already do this, and to a significant degree they get their calculations from a shared 3rd party so choice is a bit of an illusion.
Why in the world is this 'flamebait'? People were mentioning various backup solutions that would cover this situation and someone mentions the solution that is built in to their OS.
Oh, it is Apple... pointing out anything positive about them is flaimbait in some people's opinion I guess.
I wonder how many of the anti-net-neutrality camp are outraged by this, since they are functionally identical but framed with different narratives.
It is hard to say if Cuba would have went well. Sanctions did not help, but similar systems have gone badly in other nations so it is questionable if Cuba would have somehow bucked the trend.
(D) is probably the critical one. Languages, at this point, are all pretty similar in what they can do, how easy they are to learn, and readability really just depends on what you are used to.. The thing that tends to separate them is what other components exist for them to link into, i.e. how popular they are among the programmer's target community.
So it is probably more accurate to say 'programmers use languages because other programmers are using them'.
The thing to remember about those studies though is they are native language specific.
Which actually makes me wonder if this menu change might be a surface sign of who the users (or designers) of their UIs are. The combination of upper and lower cases is easier for us to read because our language tree uses it to distinguish things. Not all languages work that way and quite a few trees do not differentiate, and some of those languages are dominant in some developing markets....
The thing is, the American Revolution worked because the local elites were driving it, not average people. That tends to be what determines if a revolution goes well or not. When you have two ruling classes struggling for power, the winner usually has the resources to restore order and most of their power structure already in place. When you have ruling class vs general population, it always ends badly regardless of who wins.
Well, they already have a law stating that, if national security is involved, the government can pay private companies to manufacture things based off other people's patents while being immune from patent litigation if they get caught. So even if we knew who to serve, they have that protection from civilian law.