Money has to come from somewhere. If developers can earn money by selling advertising, it means they will be able to spend more time polishing up their projects at the end of the development cycle instead of having to push the product out the door early to start getting money from sales. So why are advertisers so eager to pay for advertising in a game that's not finished yet?
Overall, that means fewer rushed titles, late patches, and incomplete games. In an ideal world. If you find one, let me know where.
Will some publishers abuse advertising for quick profit? Of course. Some here meaning most or almost all?
developers need money in order to do what they love. I know that quite well, but what makes you think the big companies that are going to get most of the money from in-game advertising are going to share it with the devs?
the most efficient Toyotas (in the US) get up to 36 (manual Yaris according to fueleconomy.gov). Might as well get a Honda then. My combustion-only Civic gets 30/35. You sure you looked at the hybrids and not combustion only?
A few problems with this:
1. I saw nothing about checking whether it was the driver or passenger using the cellphone.
2. They will get sued out of existence the first time the automatic paintball gun hits a nice new expensive car.
3. The EMP.
-- Cars nowadays are highly dependent on their electronic controls. How would the EMP not disable them?
-- If any electronics besides the cellphone are disabled, that would also lead to a lawsuit the company likely could not win.
In short, there are too many problems for this to be practical.
Can mobile companies successfully crush VOIP competitors like this? Yes. Everyone already has a cell, and few people are going to switch if it means getting cut off from everyone else.
So we've got more broadband users than anybody else in the world, and more this year than last year, and they're calling that "falling"? The absolute number means little to nothing. We're 24th (down from 19th if I remember last year's number correctly, it's been a while) by percentage, which matters more.
And that's only counting households - that's not counting the number of people there That's only counting households for the rest of the world too, and I think our average household size is lower than most of the world (not china though).
IMHO, the people pushing the "oh, no, we're falling behind" FUD are mainly trying to sell television over broadband I think they're trying to induce competition which much of the US lacks, leading to higher prices and lower bitrates.
I went and downloaded Safari within hours of it being announced. I hate having to give out an email address just to get the download, and I hate even more having to uncheck several boxes to avoid downloading every piece of software Apple owns. I gave the browser about 10 minutes, it didn't impress me on page loading time, usability, or looks, and it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows.
11. The system of claim 1 wherein said geographical search area is a provence. Due to a typo in the patent application, this should only apply to Southeastern France
A few things:
1. Thanks for doing the research, I hadn't actually looked into it, but I hadn't heard of any school shootings.
2. Only 2 of those are shootings, it would be unreasonable to ban knives, and the explosives were probably illegal anyway.
3. Are there more, or were there only 9 incidents in the last 7 years outside the US? I believe there have been more school shootings within the US during that time frame.
The article seems say that because violence exists where guns are banned, we shouldn't ban guns. That's a ridiculous and valid argument. Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.
I would guess that a statistical analysis would show a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities per student where gun control is much more strict.
In Blair's UK, only outlaws have guns! And is that a bad thing?
How many school shootings have you heard about in the US? And how many school shootings have you heard of in countries where handguns are banned?
Slashdot Mirror
I will not play any game with in-game advertising, especially if it doesn't lower the cost. I encourage everyone to follow me.
A few problems with this:
1. I saw nothing about checking whether it was the driver or passenger using the cellphone.
2. They will get sued out of existence the first time the automatic paintball gun hits a nice new expensive car.
3. The EMP.
-- Cars nowadays are highly dependent on their electronic controls. How would the EMP not disable them?
-- If any electronics besides the cellphone are disabled, that would also lead to a lawsuit the company likely could not win.
In short, there are too many problems for this to be practical.
At most, that argument would allow for state governments to regulate content, the federal government still has no authority to do this.
How is it constitutional for the federal government to tell any company what product(s) they must or can't offer?
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
I went and downloaded Safari within hours of it being announced. I hate having to give out an email address just to get the download, and I hate even more having to uncheck several boxes to avoid downloading every piece of software Apple owns. I gave the browser about 10 minutes, it didn't impress me on page loading time, usability, or looks, and it's likely to just disappear and not make it back onto my machine the next time I reinstall Windows.
... out of this world! Someone had to say it.
I am pretty sure that any call (even 2-2) crossing state lines would fall under the federal law and thus require only one party to consent.
Quite true and well said.
A few things:
1. Thanks for doing the research, I hadn't actually looked into it, but I hadn't heard of any school shootings.
2. Only 2 of those are shootings, it would be unreasonable to ban knives, and the explosives were probably illegal anyway.
3. Are there more, or were there only 9 incidents in the last 7 years outside the US? I believe there have been more school shootings within the US during that time frame.
The article seems say that because violence exists where guns are banned, we shouldn't ban guns. That's a ridiculous and valid argument. Banning guns obviously wouldn't stop all violence, but it would likely reduce weapon-based violence and fatalities.
I would guess that a statistical analysis would show a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities per student where gun control is much more strict.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a CEO who is trying to save money by cutting things he has no clue about.
The inherent problem with this is that you assume people in general are smart and rational.
How many school shootings have you heard about in the US? And how many school shootings have you heard of in countries where handguns are banned?