Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).
Moto's hardware was top notch, a bit better then Sammy's (Samsung HW also rates highly for me) but its Moto's software that let it down. Hopefully the Google acquisition will fix this. Having owned a Motorola Milestone, I found the hardware up to the task but the software sorely lacking, I'd definitely buy a current gen Milestone with a "Nexus" OS.
The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for other vendors.
HTC and Samsung are already trying to offer services exclusive to their handsets. SonyEriksson too, especially with access to SonyBMG's extensive media catalogue. Thus is the nature of competition and it is a good thing(TM) as we/.er's tend to rally against monocultures.
But it isn't working. A HTC Android phone is interchangeable with Samsung, Sony, LG, Motorola or any other due to the design of Android and the perception of the market. Consumers more readily accept that each phone is different because they aren't used to a monoculture on phones.
Now what I see coming out of the Google Motorola purchase is that Google will show other vendors how Android is meant to be done. One of the biggest reasons that Iphone fanboys deride the purchase of Motorola and try to imagine a wedge between Google and OEM's that doesn't exist is because this will cause the Android market to become more competitive and force OEM's to fix some of the biggest problems with Android phones. Google learned with the Nexus series they dont have the expertise to produce phones, so they have three choices,
1) Stop.
2) Develop the expertise.
3) Buy the expertise.
Google did number 3, which was the logical choice. What we'll see from "GoogleRola" is Android phones as Google sees them, vanilla phones with rapid updates. Basically like the Nexus series but with better customer service behind it (without a doubt, customer service was the only real flaw in the Nexus series). In turn we'll see other OEM's respond with faster updates (they have already improved in this regard).
So those who deride Android are fearful of Google's Motorola acquisition precisely because it stands to eliminate their only (and rather tired) talking points.
Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.
POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more
On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.
I can't think of many more open markets.
This,
PABX hardware didn't fail because of Asterisk, it failed because of the take up in VOIP. Why should I deploy a separate cable infrastructure for phones when I could just buy a bunch of IP handsets and use VLANs on my existing network?
If you look at single solution PABX's they've done the exact same thing. A 10 user licensed PABX now comes with one Ethernet port for all handsets.
Meanwhile, I can run Asterisk on a VM, connect it to any number of VOIP handsets and have a fully operational PABX that is cheap to run, works on my existing HW and being a VM, easily recoverable (it also sucks a lot less then Nortel PABX's). Asterisk Now is a piece of cake to set up.
John Gruber asked an interesting question in response to this: Has any single PC vendor ever controlled that much of the Windows market?
Gruber is normally full of shit and here he does not disappoint me.
In case we've forgotten, there was a time where IBM controlled almost all of the PC market. They didn't dominate Microsoft.
Right now Intel has 60% + of the Windows CPU market (probably above 75%, but I dont have numbers on hand) and they dont dictate terms to MS. There are only three GPU vendors, Intel, Nvidia and AMD. Do any of them dictate terms to MS?
So, Grubers point is pretty much bollocks.
There is no platform infighting here. HTC are competing with, not fighting against Samsung. Same with Motorola, LG, SonyEriksson and others. Samsung dont hold anything over Google or other vendors.
I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.
As they continue to watch the Iphone fall behind in features and market share. Even with the majority of Android phones being sold with 2.3.x they are still outselling Iphones. People are choosing Android, as much as the Iphone fans like to pretend otherwise.
I mean isn't this one of the things layers in GIS meant for: describing characteristics for points and areas on a map? Simplifying this but after you have done that, doesn't it just come down to some sort of switch or if statements. If so, it sounds like the patent is just too general. Or not? It sounds ridiculous if you ask me though.
Exactly, This is what GIS is, putting data into maps.
But I think MS might be trying to patent the algorithm used to determine what is a bad neighbourhood. Which is just as retarded on several levels (1. patenting an algorithm which is just a mathematical function, 2. thinking that the same algorithm applies to different cities). Often in GIS, the mapping part is just the UI for the actual mathematical process, like taking a bunch of drill hole results and estimating where a gold seam is by the traces of gold in those samples.
Plus, none of the other OEMS really screamed when Google bought Motorola Mobility.
Because of the open nature of Android. Motorola was already a competitor, Google buying them didn't change anything as Google still needs other OEM's.
Now the likes of HTC and Samsung aren't going to complain if M$ buys out Nokia because the only one not doing a completely half arsed effort on WP7 is Nokia. HTC's bread is buttered by Android. Samsungs bread is buttered by Android and non-smartphones. They fear ZTE, Huawei and Meizu more then MicroNokia because WP7 is a non-starter.
If she's only a "ruling" monarch, then why do you tolerate her title? Why aren't you embarrassed to have a queen?
Because unlike US leaders, she actually does good things. organises a lot of charities, promotes good acts across the world.
The queen is the leader I'm least embarrassed of, even if she is leader in name only.
Also, as the GGP said, the Monarchy is a tourist attraction. One that earns quite a bit of coin.
As a side note, the only people I've ever heard having a problem with the Queen are those who dont have one. Even the most militant Irish I've met dont loathe her personally, they just dont want British rule (which as we've established, is the parliament, not the Queen) and if anyone has cause to hate the Queen, it's the Irish.
China not a threat? I would call BS. They have been a major threat to the US since they found they are good at wars by proxy.
The Korean war was a stalemate.
Erm, Chinese troops actually participated in that conflict, so it wasn't by proxy.
It was actually Stalin who was pulling the strings on that one, which is why the war ended shortly after he died.
The Vietnam conflict was an easy victory for them.
The Vietnam war was lost due to US incompetence and complete failure to understand the causes of the war nor motivation of the people fighting it on both sides.
The driver for this was was the Vietnamese people wanting independence from foreign powers.
Other places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries where insurgents "mysteriously" get ammo and explosives from somewhere also show this.
Utter bollocks.
China sells arms on the open market. Same as Russia, France, Brazil and the United States. Hell, you can even buy German weapons and they do discriminate on who they sell to. US soldiers in Iraq have been shot at with US made munitions, most notably 80mm mortars and 5.56 mm bullets.
Does this make the US a state sponsor to terrorists?
China is doing a damn good job at keeping the US stuck on fighting in shithole countries to keep the foreign oil flowing while they are going to a post oil economy.
The only thing keeping the US in these countries is the US, not China, the US should never have invaded Iraq. That was where the problem started.
The US is still stuck there because no-one has the guts to admit how much of a failure the Invasion of Iraq was. There was never any chance of "winning" and the war is going to continue for years, if not decades after the US finally grows up and leaves. Just today there was another flare up of sectarian violence as Shiites were targeted in several attacks. Yes Shiites, not Americans, all the invasion of Iraq did was create a relgious civil war.
The US can pick up and leave Iraq any time it wants to, you dont need China's permission.
The US is responsible for it's current ills, not China. Get your facts straight.
IBM makes its money selling servers, supercomputers, infrastructure services, microchip designs, etc., not selling software to end users.
Spoken like a man who's never licensed AIX.
Companies like IBM support Open Source because their customers demand it. IBM can prevent Linux from running on their System X and System P's forcing customers to license AIX or Windows but it would be suicide for the System P's and near suicide for the System X line. Even Microsoft has to support FOSS programs in Windows, why, because MS's customers demand it.
3) You eventually figured out the pronunciation. Most of the people I know that use GNU/Linux and LaTeX ca't pronounce GNU or LaTeX, but they work great so they get used. What's the problem?
So it's not pronounced "lay tex" like people expect it to be.
Hell, we're still having the "Lynn-ix" vs "Line-ix" argument where I am.
Anyway, Vietnamese may be having trouble with it, Ng is sometimes pronounced Ngyen.
Should have been written as N-ginX so people understood it.
I dont normally respond to AC's but I'll make an exception for you.
Do you honestly think that rises in U.S. wages have kept anything close to the pace of inflation/declining purchasing power?
Median US Household Income 1998: $38,283
Median US Household Income 2011: $48,753
Percentage change: 27.34%
Laptops?
Smartphones?
White goods?
Cars?
All of these things have become cheaper over the last 10 years. Contrary to your assertions. For nations that had well regulated and functioning banking system, things are still cheaper hence people tend to have more disposable income. Well up until your banking system fell over.
Also you're failing to take into account consumption. How many computing devices including phones, laptops, desktops and tablets did you have in 1998? How many do you have now? How many long distance phone calls did you make in 1998, how many do you make now?
A pack of cigarettes back then cost ~$1.25, and gas was around a dollar a gallon. So it was quite possible, in 1997, to fill your tank and buy a pack of cigarettes for an amount of money equivalent to $15 today.
(Reason being that cigarettes and gasoline have both seen their prices rise at far more than the average rate of inflation.)
Good.
There's half the equation, now tell me what the difference in avg wages was between now and then (in Australia it's grown by about 25%) then compare disposable income. Once again, in Australia we have more disposable income then ever before.
But if we are going to cherry pick products, why dont we pick the ones at the other end of the scale. in 1997 a new laptop cost me along the lines of A$4-5000. Today I can buy one for A$500, top of the line costs about $1500-2000. So using this metric, I can buy 2.5 to 10 2012 laptops for the price of one
There is a massive flaw in comparing prices of a single product. It's gamed to present readers with a false conclusion.
So it was quite possible, in 1997, to fill your tank
At the assumed price of $1 per gallon. The real price was $1.30-1.50 but I'll run with it.
Seeing as I'm not from an archaic place that still uses imperial measurements, I'll convert that to metric, $1/3.78 = $0.26 per litre. For $10.72 in 1997 that would buy you 41.23 litres. Now the tank of a 1997 Honda Civic (a quite small car) holds 45 litres, an average sedan would hold about 65 litres whilst a proper 4 Wheel Drive such as a Toyota Landcruiser or Nissan Patrol can have tanks up to 100 litres. So $15 today wouldn't fill your tank in 1997 even if petrol was at US$1 per gallon.
After all this, I still don't have a pack of durries.
But when DNF was supposed to come out, $15 could fill your gas tank AND have enough left over for a pack of cigarettes.
You also earned less then you do now. I really hate this argument as it never takes into account the rise of wages. $15 in 1998 != $15 in 2012 as it fails to account for changes in wages, purchasing power, inflation, cost of living et al. Yep life cost less dollars in the past but we had _a lot_ less disposable income.
Aslo
When DNF was supposed to come out WE HAD NINE PLANETS IN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM.
in a serious shooting match between First World (and here we include the Ruskkies and the Chinese) powers the US would have its ass handed to it on a platter.
Seriously? You need to go and review the US naval force relative to China or Russia. It's not even close. In a nonnuclear fight the US loses battles but will inevitably win the war. If it then goes nuclear, well, we can bounce more rubble than anyone.
First point, army sizes are inconsequential. Other factors are more important. China or the US may have larger armies/air forces/navies but give either incompetent leadership and they'll quickly succumb to an inferior (on paper) force. Vietnam is a prime example, the US had every advantage on paper except they lost the war because they didn't fight according to what the enemy did, they fought according to what the textbook said.
In a war between US and China, I wouldn't make any bets based on the size of navies. One wrong move by bad admirals and that size could cut itself in half.
Second point, if it goes nuclear, it doesn't matter who has the most bombs, you'll lose anyway. It doesn't matter if China cant nuke the US thirteen thousand times as you only ever need to nuke anything once.
This article is bupkis. ChromeOS is based on Chrome, which is based on WebKit. Seems to work just fine.
ChromeOS is not trying to be a full OS like WebOS was, it openly acknowledges it's designed to be limited and recommends you go elsewhere if you need anything more. ChromeOS is an example of a limited purpose OS, designed that way from the very start.
First there was KHTML,
Then Apple took KHTML and made it into a browser. They called this WebKit
Then Google took WebKit and made it usable.
Chrome has grown faster then Safari ever did (despite Apple shoehorning it into Itunes Microsoft style) because Safari is a pain to use and Chrome is a pleasure to use.
It's his claim that we shouldn't listen to Stallman because Stallman is a nut-job. It's a sort of reverse argument from authority, where he claims that the other side is so insane, you should listen to him (he's comparatively authoritative). Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
Thats more reductio ad absurdum not to mention, ad hominiem as others pointed out.
Funny how the police did nothing where the protesters were armed.
Fixed that for you.
Arming everyone only results in a mob rule, this only ends in a bloodbath. This is why the US has so many mass shootings, such a childish and unsafe attitude to firearm ownership.
Also the Tea Party is a astroturf for the Republican party. Like the Nationals here in Australia, a vote for National is a vote for the Liberal Party (conservatives), same as the US, a vote for the Tea Party is a vote for the Republicans. It's just a ploy to get disenfranchised Republican voters to vote Republican without realising it. Just follow the funding as to who was funding the Tea Party....
Also remind me again who was funding the Occupy movement?
'd like to see if there's a a correlation between most pirated game and top selling game.
Except that that does not take into account that Crysis 2 was shit.
Forget DRM, publishing that game was punishing paying customers.
I'm willing to bet the more pirated a game is the better its sales generally are as well.
9 times out of 10 you'd be right. The highest selling PC games are also the highest torrented. I'd also like to know the correlation between advertising and illegitimate downloading. Saints Row the Third I'd think would be an ideal case.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because - for the most part - Samsung's phones don't *suck* the way some others' do.
I was immensely underwhelmed by the performance of my last Motorola, and even less impressed with Motorola's support of their customers (advertised the milestone as supporting flash, didn't ship an OS update that allowed it until over a *year* and in some cases not-at-all).
Moto's hardware was top notch, a bit better then Sammy's (Samsung HW also rates highly for me) but its Moto's software that let it down. Hopefully the Google acquisition will fix this. Having owned a Motorola Milestone, I found the hardware up to the task but the software sorely lacking, I'd definitely buy a current gen Milestone with a "Nexus" OS.
So the story is that Samsung sell so many phones/devices that they can strong arm Google now
Just like Intel sells so many processors they can strong arm Microsoft.
The thing is, there's hardly any barrier to switching from a Samsung Android phone to a non-Samsung Android phone. Without a barrier, it doesn't function as a separate market. With time they could try to build up some barriers by tying users to Samsung-only services. But that would take time, and success would be far from certain. Users might just ignore their services and continue to use competing, cross platform ones. And if they tried to fork before then, it could easily drive users to leave for other vendors.
HTC and Samsung are already trying to offer services exclusive to their handsets. SonyEriksson too, especially with access to SonyBMG's extensive media catalogue. Thus is the nature of competition and it is a good thing(TM) as we /.er's tend to rally against monocultures.
But it isn't working. A HTC Android phone is interchangeable with Samsung, Sony, LG, Motorola or any other due to the design of Android and the perception of the market. Consumers more readily accept that each phone is different because they aren't used to a monoculture on phones.
Now what I see coming out of the Google Motorola purchase is that Google will show other vendors how Android is meant to be done. One of the biggest reasons that Iphone fanboys deride the purchase of Motorola and try to imagine a wedge between Google and OEM's that doesn't exist is because this will cause the Android market to become more competitive and force OEM's to fix some of the biggest problems with Android phones. Google learned with the Nexus series they dont have the expertise to produce phones, so they have three choices,
1) Stop.
2) Develop the expertise.
3) Buy the expertise.
Google did number 3, which was the logical choice. What we'll see from "GoogleRola" is Android phones as Google sees them, vanilla phones with rapid updates. Basically like the Nexus series but with better customer service behind it (without a doubt, customer service was the only real flaw in the Nexus series). In turn we'll see other OEM's respond with faster updates (they have already improved in this regard).
So those who deride Android are fearful of Google's Motorola acquisition precisely because it stands to eliminate their only (and rather tired) talking points.
Nice analogy but bollocks I'm afraid. I run several Asterisk systems, including at home.
POTS n ISDN cards - Digium (Asterisk coders) and Sangoma. I'm aware of others.
Handsets - there are masses of suppliers of VoIP handsets.
The thing itself can run on pretty much any 32 or 64 based Linux system and I believe it can run on Windows
There are several specific distros - Digium's own, Trixbox, PIaF, Elastix and many more
On top of that there is FreeSwitch as an alternative software stack for VoIP.
I can't think of many more open markets.
This, PABX hardware didn't fail because of Asterisk, it failed because of the take up in VOIP. Why should I deploy a separate cable infrastructure for phones when I could just buy a bunch of IP handsets and use VLANs on my existing network?
If you look at single solution PABX's they've done the exact same thing. A 10 user licensed PABX now comes with one Ethernet port for all handsets.
Meanwhile, I can run Asterisk on a VM, connect it to any number of VOIP handsets and have a fully operational PABX that is cheap to run, works on my existing HW and being a VM, easily recoverable (it also sucks a lot less then Nortel PABX's). Asterisk Now is a piece of cake to set up.
Gruber is normally full of shit and here he does not disappoint me.
In case we've forgotten, there was a time where IBM controlled almost all of the PC market. They didn't dominate Microsoft.
Right now Intel has 60% + of the Windows CPU market (probably above 75%, but I dont have numbers on hand) and they dont dictate terms to MS. There are only three GPU vendors, Intel, Nvidia and AMD. Do any of them dictate terms to MS?
So, Grubers point is pretty much bollocks.
There is no platform infighting here. HTC are competing with, not fighting against Samsung. Same with Motorola, LG, SonyEriksson and others. Samsung dont hold anything over Google or other vendors.
As they continue to watch the Iphone fall behind in features and market share. Even with the majority of Android phones being sold with 2.3.x they are still outselling Iphones. People are choosing Android, as much as the Iphone fans like to pretend otherwise.
I mean isn't this one of the things layers in GIS meant for: describing characteristics for points and areas on a map? Simplifying this but after you have done that, doesn't it just come down to some sort of switch or if statements. If so, it sounds like the patent is just too general. Or not? It sounds ridiculous if you ask me though.
Exactly, This is what GIS is, putting data into maps.
But I think MS might be trying to patent the algorithm used to determine what is a bad neighbourhood. Which is just as retarded on several levels (1. patenting an algorithm which is just a mathematical function, 2. thinking that the same algorithm applies to different cities). Often in GIS, the mapping part is just the UI for the actual mathematical process, like taking a bunch of drill hole results and estimating where a gold seam is by the traces of gold in those samples.
The NSA never sleeps.
They know who's naughty and nice. I leave them cookies and milk so I don't get coal in my stocking.
Carry on citizen.
BTW: No more choc chip, Agent Peters is on a diet.
Curtain University of Technology was originally Curtain University of New Technology until someone pointed out the acronym.
Because of the open nature of Android. Motorola was already a competitor, Google buying them didn't change anything as Google still needs other OEM's.
Now the likes of HTC and Samsung aren't going to complain if M$ buys out Nokia because the only one not doing a completely half arsed effort on WP7 is Nokia. HTC's bread is buttered by Android. Samsungs bread is buttered by Android and non-smartphones. They fear ZTE, Huawei and Meizu more then MicroNokia because WP7 is a non-starter.
If she's only a "ruling" monarch, then why do you tolerate her title? Why aren't you embarrassed to have a queen?
Because unlike US leaders, she actually does good things. organises a lot of charities, promotes good acts across the world.
The queen is the leader I'm least embarrassed of, even if she is leader in name only.
Also, as the GGP said, the Monarchy is a tourist attraction. One that earns quite a bit of coin.
As a side note, the only people I've ever heard having a problem with the Queen are those who dont have one. Even the most militant Irish I've met dont loathe her personally, they just dont want British rule (which as we've established, is the parliament, not the Queen) and if anyone has cause to hate the Queen, it's the Irish.
China not a threat? I would call BS. They have been a major threat to the US since they found they are good at wars by proxy.
The Korean war was a stalemate.
Erm, Chinese troops actually participated in that conflict, so it wasn't by proxy.
It was actually Stalin who was pulling the strings on that one, which is why the war ended shortly after he died.
The Vietnam conflict was an easy victory for them.
The Vietnam war was lost due to US incompetence and complete failure to understand the causes of the war nor motivation of the people fighting it on both sides.
The driver for this was was the Vietnamese people wanting independence from foreign powers.
Other places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries where insurgents "mysteriously" get ammo and explosives from somewhere also show this.
Utter bollocks.
China sells arms on the open market. Same as Russia, France, Brazil and the United States. Hell, you can even buy German weapons and they do discriminate on who they sell to. US soldiers in Iraq have been shot at with US made munitions, most notably 80mm mortars and 5.56 mm bullets.
Does this make the US a state sponsor to terrorists?
China is doing a damn good job at keeping the US stuck on fighting in shithole countries to keep the foreign oil flowing while they are going to a post oil economy.
The only thing keeping the US in these countries is the US, not China, the US should never have invaded Iraq. That was where the problem started.
The US is still stuck there because no-one has the guts to admit how much of a failure the Invasion of Iraq was. There was never any chance of "winning" and the war is going to continue for years, if not decades after the US finally grows up and leaves. Just today there was another flare up of sectarian violence as Shiites were targeted in several attacks. Yes Shiites, not Americans, all the invasion of Iraq did was create a relgious civil war.
The US can pick up and leave Iraq any time it wants to, you dont need China's permission.
The US is responsible for it's current ills, not China. Get your facts straight.
IBM makes its money selling servers, supercomputers, infrastructure services, microchip designs, etc., not selling software to end users.
Spoken like a man who's never licensed AIX.
Companies like IBM support Open Source because their customers demand it. IBM can prevent Linux from running on their System X and System P's forcing customers to license AIX or Windows but it would be suicide for the System P's and near suicide for the System X line. Even Microsoft has to support FOSS programs in Windows, why, because MS's customers demand it.
So I say, why not just call it EngineX.
Just be thankful it's not named Libre Nginx.
Yes,
People would think it's a new pad.
3) You eventually figured out the pronunciation. Most of the people I know that use GNU/Linux and LaTeX ca't pronounce GNU or LaTeX, but they work great so they get used. What's the problem?
So it's not pronounced "lay tex" like people expect it to be.
Hell, we're still having the "Lynn-ix" vs "Line-ix" argument where I am.
Anyway, Vietnamese may be having trouble with it, Ng is sometimes pronounced Ngyen.
Should have been written as N-ginX so people understood it.
There goes my Atheism!
Wait, no-one said there was a god involved.
One does not need to be non-religious to be Atheist.
their holy scripture?
No, But when you die, your soul goes to Pirate Bay.
Laptops?
Smartphones?
White goods?
Cars?
All of these things have become cheaper over the last 10 years. Contrary to your assertions. For nations that had well regulated and functioning banking system, things are still cheaper hence people tend to have more disposable income. Well up until your banking system fell over.
Also you're failing to take into account consumption. How many computing devices including phones, laptops, desktops and tablets did you have in 1998? How many do you have now? How many long distance phone calls did you make in 1998, how many do you make now?
It's not as cut and dry as you think.
$15 dollars today = $10.72 when DNF development began.
A pack of cigarettes back then cost ~$1.25, and gas was around a dollar a gallon. So it was quite possible, in 1997, to fill your tank and buy a pack of cigarettes for an amount of money equivalent to $15 today.
(Reason being that cigarettes and gasoline have both seen their prices rise at far more than the average rate of inflation.)
Good.
There's half the equation, now tell me what the difference in avg wages was between now and then (in Australia it's grown by about 25%) then compare disposable income. Once again, in Australia we have more disposable income then ever before.
But if we are going to cherry pick products, why dont we pick the ones at the other end of the scale. in 1997 a new laptop cost me along the lines of A$4-5000. Today I can buy one for A$500, top of the line costs about $1500-2000. So using this metric, I can buy 2.5 to 10 2012 laptops for the price of one
There is a massive flaw in comparing prices of a single product. It's gamed to present readers with a false conclusion.
At the assumed price of $1 per gallon. The real price was $1.30-1.50 but I'll run with it.
Seeing as I'm not from an archaic place that still uses imperial measurements, I'll convert that to metric, $1/3.78 = $0.26 per litre. For $10.72 in 1997 that would buy you 41.23 litres. Now the tank of a 1997 Honda Civic (a quite small car) holds 45 litres, an average sedan would hold about 65 litres whilst a proper 4 Wheel Drive such as a Toyota Landcruiser or Nissan Patrol can have tanks up to 100 litres. So $15 today wouldn't fill your tank in 1997 even if petrol was at US$1 per gallon.
After all this, I still don't have a pack of durries.
But when DNF was supposed to come out, $15 could fill your gas tank AND have enough left over for a pack of cigarettes.
You also earned less then you do now. I really hate this argument as it never takes into account the rise of wages. $15 in 1998 != $15 in 2012 as it fails to account for changes in wages, purchasing power, inflation, cost of living et al. Yep life cost less dollars in the past but we had _a lot_ less disposable income.
Aslo
When DNF was supposed to come out WE HAD NINE PLANETS IN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM.
in a serious shooting match between First World (and here we include the Ruskkies and the Chinese) powers the US would have its ass handed to it on a platter.
Seriously? You need to go and review the US naval force relative to China or Russia. It's not even close. In a nonnuclear fight the US loses battles but will inevitably win the war. If it then goes nuclear, well, we can bounce more rubble than anyone.
First point, army sizes are inconsequential. Other factors are more important. China or the US may have larger armies/air forces/navies but give either incompetent leadership and they'll quickly succumb to an inferior (on paper) force. Vietnam is a prime example, the US had every advantage on paper except they lost the war because they didn't fight according to what the enemy did, they fought according to what the textbook said.
In a war between US and China, I wouldn't make any bets based on the size of navies. One wrong move by bad admirals and that size could cut itself in half.
Second point, if it goes nuclear, it doesn't matter who has the most bombs, you'll lose anyway. It doesn't matter if China cant nuke the US thirteen thousand times as you only ever need to nuke anything once.
This article is bupkis. ChromeOS is based on Chrome, which is based on WebKit. Seems to work just fine.
ChromeOS is not trying to be a full OS like WebOS was, it openly acknowledges it's designed to be limited and recommends you go elsewhere if you need anything more. ChromeOS is an example of a limited purpose OS, designed that way from the very start.
First there was KHTML,
Then Apple took KHTML and made it into a browser. They called this WebKit
Then Google took WebKit and made it usable.
Chrome has grown faster then Safari ever did (despite Apple shoehorning it into Itunes Microsoft style) because Safari is a pain to use and Chrome is a pleasure to use.
It's his claim that we shouldn't listen to Stallman because Stallman is a nut-job. It's a sort of reverse argument from authority, where he claims that the other side is so insane, you should listen to him (he's comparatively authoritative). Stallman's general utter lunacy isn't a legitimate test of the validity of any specific argument he makes.
Thats more reductio ad absurdum not to mention, ad hominiem as others pointed out.
Funny how the police did nothing where the protesters were armed.
Fixed that for you.
Arming everyone only results in a mob rule, this only ends in a bloodbath. This is why the US has so many mass shootings, such a childish and unsafe attitude to firearm ownership.
Also the Tea Party is a astroturf for the Republican party. Like the Nationals here in Australia, a vote for National is a vote for the Liberal Party (conservatives), same as the US, a vote for the Tea Party is a vote for the Republicans. It's just a ploy to get disenfranchised Republican voters to vote Republican without realising it. Just follow the funding as to who was funding the Tea Party....
Also remind me again who was funding the Occupy movement?
'd like to see if there's a a correlation between most pirated game and top selling game.
Except that that does not take into account that Crysis 2 was shit.
Forget DRM, publishing that game was punishing paying customers.
I'm willing to bet the more pirated a game is the better its sales generally are as well.
9 times out of 10 you'd be right. The highest selling PC games are also the highest torrented. I'd also like to know the correlation between advertising and illegitimate downloading. Saints Row the Third I'd think would be an ideal case.
.. for once.
[Disclaimer: I live there]
The most important state in Australia, I think not.