There is no need for 1080p, there is no consumer media. DVD doesn't do it, NTSC is stuck at 480i or 480p. The singular benefit of 1080p over 480p is that it doesn't need as large of black bars to show standard cinema content.
because you're spending $60+ on the cost of entry, and when the reviewers are embargoed there's just no way to tell if you're going to get screwed
I didn't realize that playing a game the day (or week, or month, or year) that it is released in any way shape or form increases the enjoyability of the game. It's not like the content of the game changes, does it?
Not that it excuses Ubisoft from releasing a shit product, I'm just saying that (in my opinion) there is no reason to play the game the day it is released. I'd rather wait a year till the price of the games come down, and the hardware to play them on gets cheaper.
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.
I respectfully disagree. They are entitled to get their money back, per the contract that was signed. All debtors of the company have the same entitlement to get their contractually obligated money back.
Now, where that money comes from is a different story. Not a dime of it should come from anybody that wasn't directly involved in the fraud. Any executive/board level people that were involved should be stripped of any and all assets, then the company should be liquidated, restructured, or whatever it takes to satisfy the debtors. If someone wants to pick up the pieces and build Zalaman 2.0, that's for them to decide.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor
Normally, I would agree with you, with the exception of Medical bills. A garnishment that takes1/3 of your net income for medical bills pretty damn close to an "undue hardship". I don't care who you are, when someone takes 1/3 of your income as the result of an incident you have no control over (unforeseen medical problem) there is something wrong with the system.
Yes, this is a personal experience. Yes, we had medical insurance ($3,500 individual deductible) and a company sponsored "Flex Spending" account ($1,000) and a steady job (Been there for 17 years). Too bad it's a 17 year job at Walmart, and pulling $2500 out of your ass for unforeseen medical issues isn't a trivial problem to solve. And contrary to popular belief, if you don't pay your medical bills they don't just magically become the hospital or insurance company's problem. They will come after you, and they will get their money.
It's news because Apple finally figured something out that their customers want. Options. Not everybody wants the same thing. Some people want a small phone that fits in their pocket. Others want a larger phone with a bigger screen.
That really is an excellent question. It's tough to answer, beyond the usual "Why SHOULDN'T we have free healthcare, you a heartless asshole."
My initial though is, I am entitled to healthcare because we live in a civilized country, and it is the moral thing to do. And people have a basic right to live out their natural life alive. If someone gets dragged into the hospital dying, your choices are to help him or let him die. Human beings, for the most part, are designed to be compassionate. The "I'd rather just let him die" people are in the definite minority. (Again, leaving the financial argument out of it) Now you just have to figure out how to pay for keeping that person alive.
And to me, it only makes sense, purely from a financial perspective. I pay $XXX per month, my employer pays $YYYY for "Health Insurance". I use quotes because it's not really insurance. I carry car insurance because if something catastrophic happens to my car I will need a new one. If I don't have car insurance I don't get a new car. If I don't get a new car, my life will be significantly inconvenienced, but I'll still be alive. I carry health insurance because if I don't carry it and something catastrophic happens they will still do what is reasonable and necessary to make sure I don't die. Wait, what? Yup, it still gets paid for. They will ruin me financially if I don't have insurance, but they aren't going to lock me out of the hospital, and SOMEONE is going to end up paying for it.
So, now we have the insurance companies. Their job is solely to sit between me and my hospital. And they "earn", collectively, over $13B in profit annually to do so. That's a shit load of money. And that is just the profit. That come's after they have paid their thousands and thousands of employee's salary. I know it's the norm to hate on insurance companies, but holy shit, what value do they add to this equation?
This whole argument revolves around Obamacare. You can argue its effectiveness till you are blue in the face and never get anywhere. You would be more successful arguing about religion or programming languages.
It boils down to one simple question that you have to get consensus on before you can move forward: Is healthcare a basic human right? I specifically left out words like "affordable" and "quality" because they dilute the conversation. It is simple, if I am sick am I entitled to get better? I would love to hear somebody answer "no" to that question, and offer a reasonable justification without using any terms related to affordability, money, insurance companies, or quality of care.
So, assuming you are all with me on the basic right to healthcare, we dive into the money part of it. Which is what all of the bitching is actually about. Everybody has the right to get well, who pays for it? The current solution is that everybody has to buy health "insurance". If you can't "afford" it the gov't will help you pay for it. This is where the current administration looses me. And since this is Slashdot, why not use a car analogy. The gov't assumes that at some point, everybody in the country is going to have to get from one place to another, so they make it mandatory that everybody must own a vehicle. If you can't afford a car, they will help you buy one. Some people will drive their car every day, some cars will sit in the garage all day every day. Yes, in theory, everybody will be able to get where they need to go when they need to go there. But what about all of the money wasted on the cars sitting around not being driven, where has that gone? You can bet the guys at GM, Ford, Toyota, et al. are happier than pigs in shit. They just broke every sales record they have ever set. That is my frustration with Obamacare, the gov't just handed truck fulls of money to the insurance companies (who have been continuously turning record profits.)
I don't feel as though it is the gov'ts job to be running interference for it's constituents. Actively sabotaging somebody else's constituents, so that their constituents have an easier path to success, is not the American way. Well, it is the American way, but it isn't supposed to be.
Surprisingly, IN MY EXPERIENCE (In Minnesota), the DMV was an absolute nightmare, even compred to Comcast.
I have lived in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and now Minnesota. MN has BY FAR the worst DMV. It took me 3 hours and four trips to two different buildings get my drivers licenses and vehicles registered.
Comcast, on the other hand, was insanely painless. I stopped in their store, grabbed a cable modem, went home and plugged it in. Now, let's not talk about the time that they shut my internet off for no reason, blamed it on "security" (apparently someone had walked into the store using my address to start up a new account). Since it was after 8PM the sales office was closed and they couldn't turn my internet back on. It took an hour, but eventually I got through to a call center in CA that was able to turn it back on.
How about we just get the gov't out of the way? If a company chooses to sell their cars directly from a website, or a gallery, or a dealership then that is their prerogative. If their chosen distribution model isn't what the consumer wants then they either adapt the model or they go away.
I was reading a similar article that came through yahoo news today. I got down to the comments (which are the best part about Yahoo news) and the first one was from an investor bitching about Tesla "giving away" their technology. It was basically a "won't somebody please think about the shareholder" comment. Just dumbfounded that someone can be that shortsighted...
You have a good point there. Being the technologically inclined type, I get a certain level of both amusement and frustration of watching someone struggle with technology. It's like people see a computer screen and just freeze. 'Cause it's pretty hard to figure out to touch a flavor, then push the giant flashing button that says "press here" My first experience with one was standing behind a 40 year old biker-type watching him cuss out the machine because he couldn't figure it out. lol.
And then you have the soccer mom with 14 kids, none of which can make a decision on what kind of diabetes water they want...
Not gonna lie, I was hoping you had some insight into any technical problems with it. I used to work for the CM that helped them build it, I left before they started this project though.
I know I'm just feeding the troll here, but I can't help it.
Full disclosure, I'm a gun owner. I wouldn't call myself a "gun nut" by your standards, but I believe I have a right to on the hunting rifle and shotgun I own.
My question to you, my obviously excessively "liberal" friend, is what the fuck is the point of owning and carrying a weapon if you aren't going to carry it all the time? You carry it all the time because situations that arise that may require you to use you chosen form of protection aren't exactly scheduled. A rapist isn't going to say "Oh, sorry Ma'am. I didn't realize today wasn't rape day. Meet you tomorrow at the same time? Don't forget your gun."
I realize this is probably a bad example for you, but let's look at another form of protection. A condom. It's used to protect consenting adults from problems that tend to arise from sexual intercourse. It doesn't do you any good when you're on your way to the girls house and the condom is sitting in your fucking sock drawer at home, does it! I realize it's tough to compare avoiding getting an STD or unwanted pregnancy to getting forcibly raped because you are un-armed that day...
In a round-about way, yes, I believe he is saying that Samsung ripped off Apple. But in the same breath implied that Apple is stealing Samsung's shit. Which, as he said, everybody already knew that.
So, in the end, they trade a shit ton of money, neither of them change what they are doing, and the price you and I pay for a smartphone goes up by 10c to subsidize the lawyers.
Great system we have going.
Doesn't it make more sense to word this more as "Pay per quality"?
You want a 480p, which will probably still look pretty good an a smart phone but look like garbage on a projector, its X dollars. 1080? Well, thats 2X. Don't ask what 4K will cost.
To me, that makes most sense. It doesn't matter what the display quality of your device of choice is, you pay for your desired level of quality. (Quality, in this case is referring to the number of pixels, compression ratios, etc... let's not bring up the "quality" of the actual content, plot, acting, etc.)
Because they were the least "oil company" of the oil companies.
That's the functional equivalent of dating the prettiest waitress at Denny's. She may be best-of-breed compared to her surroundings, but looking at the big pictures she's probably more of a "participation ribbon" kinda gal than a "trophy wife.
I guess this is what I get for browsing at -1...
While I do agree with you on your point about rebooting to apply networking config (I'm assuming it's a true statement) I think if that's the best argument you can come up with for why Ubuntu/Shuttleworth suck you are pretty far off-base with your evaluation.
I like it because it gives me access to a linux server environment that is literally child's play to install, and it gives the non-techy person a decent alternative to Windows. It is the first distro that I have seen that you don't need a deep understanding of a computer to install it. (My 12 year old was able to install it by himself) Considering where the Linux world was 10 years ago, I'd say that's a pretty damn good contribution to the open source community.
Are there better distros out there? Yeah, there probably are. Has one company done as much as Canonical to push Linux to the masses? Probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need for 1080p, there is no consumer media. DVD doesn't do it, NTSC is stuck at 480i or 480p. The singular benefit of 1080p over 480p is that it doesn't need as large of black bars to show standard cinema content.
Not that I'm aware of. New e-mail address, new steam account, and $15 to purchase a new copy of CS and you are good to go.
because you're spending $60+ on the cost of entry, and when the reviewers are embargoed there's just no way to tell if you're going to get screwed
I didn't realize that playing a game the day (or week, or month, or year) that it is released in any way shape or form increases the enjoyability of the game. It's not like the content of the game changes, does it?
Not that it excuses Ubisoft from releasing a shit product, I'm just saying that (in my opinion) there is no reason to play the game the day it is released. I'd rather wait a year till the price of the games come down, and the hardware to play them on gets cheaper.
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.
I respectfully disagree. They are entitled to get their money back, per the contract that was signed. All debtors of the company have the same entitlement to get their contractually obligated money back.
Now, where that money comes from is a different story. Not a dime of it should come from anybody that wasn't directly involved in the fraud. Any executive/board level people that were involved should be stripped of any and all assets, then the company should be liquidated, restructured, or whatever it takes to satisfy the debtors. If someone wants to pick up the pieces and build Zalaman 2.0, that's for them to decide.
But we also have legal protections to insure that punitive and fiduciary measures don't create undue hardship. We have a pretty good system that does alright at balancing the risk-mitigating concerns of the creditor with the basic needs of the debtor
Normally, I would agree with you, with the exception of Medical bills. A garnishment that takes1/3 of your net income for medical bills pretty damn close to an "undue hardship". I don't care who you are, when someone takes 1/3 of your income as the result of an incident you have no control over (unforeseen medical problem) there is something wrong with the system.
Yes, this is a personal experience. Yes, we had medical insurance ($3,500 individual deductible) and a company sponsored "Flex Spending" account ($1,000) and a steady job (Been there for 17 years). Too bad it's a 17 year job at Walmart, and pulling $2500 out of your ass for unforeseen medical issues isn't a trivial problem to solve. And contrary to popular belief, if you don't pay your medical bills they don't just magically become the hospital or insurance company's problem. They will come after you, and they will get their money.
It's news because Apple finally figured something out that their customers want. Options. Not everybody wants the same thing. Some people want a small phone that fits in their pocket. Others want a larger phone with a bigger screen.
My initial though is, I am entitled to healthcare because we live in a civilized country, and it is the moral thing to do. And people have a basic right to live out their natural life alive. If someone gets dragged into the hospital dying, your choices are to help him or let him die. Human beings, for the most part, are designed to be compassionate. The "I'd rather just let him die" people are in the definite minority. (Again, leaving the financial argument out of it) Now you just have to figure out how to pay for keeping that person alive.
And to me, it only makes sense, purely from a financial perspective. I pay $XXX per month, my employer pays $YYYY for "Health Insurance". I use quotes because it's not really insurance. I carry car insurance because if something catastrophic happens to my car I will need a new one. If I don't have car insurance I don't get a new car. If I don't get a new car, my life will be significantly inconvenienced, but I'll still be alive. I carry health insurance because if I don't carry it and something catastrophic happens they will still do what is reasonable and necessary to make sure I don't die. Wait, what? Yup, it still gets paid for. They will ruin me financially if I don't have insurance, but they aren't going to lock me out of the hospital, and SOMEONE is going to end up paying for it.
So, now we have the insurance companies. Their job is solely to sit between me and my hospital. And they "earn", collectively, over $13B in profit annually to do so. That's a shit load of money. And that is just the profit. That come's after they have paid their thousands and thousands of employee's salary. I know it's the norm to hate on insurance companies, but holy shit, what value do they add to this equation?
It boils down to one simple question that you have to get consensus on before you can move forward: Is healthcare a basic human right? I specifically left out words like "affordable" and "quality" because they dilute the conversation. It is simple, if I am sick am I entitled to get better? I would love to hear somebody answer "no" to that question, and offer a reasonable justification without using any terms related to affordability, money, insurance companies, or quality of care.
So, assuming you are all with me on the basic right to healthcare, we dive into the money part of it. Which is what all of the bitching is actually about. Everybody has the right to get well, who pays for it? The current solution is that everybody has to buy health "insurance". If you can't "afford" it the gov't will help you pay for it. This is where the current administration looses me. And since this is Slashdot, why not use a car analogy. The gov't assumes that at some point, everybody in the country is going to have to get from one place to another, so they make it mandatory that everybody must own a vehicle. If you can't afford a car, they will help you buy one. Some people will drive their car every day, some cars will sit in the garage all day every day. Yes, in theory, everybody will be able to get where they need to go when they need to go there. But what about all of the money wasted on the cars sitting around not being driven, where has that gone? You can bet the guys at GM, Ford, Toyota, et al. are happier than pigs in shit. They just broke every sales record they have ever set. That is my frustration with Obamacare, the gov't just handed truck fulls of money to the insurance companies (who have been continuously turning record profits.)
I don't feel as though it is the gov'ts job to be running interference for it's constituents. Actively sabotaging somebody else's constituents, so that their constituents have an easier path to success, is not the American way. Well, it is the American way, but it isn't supposed to be.
A picture is worth a thousand words?
And 12 pictures spread across 12 pages that force a complete reload between every one of them is worth three words. "Fuck you guys" comes to mind.
Dammin that "article" was painful.
On that list, Hershey (SAP), Nike (i2), HP (SAP), etc, etc, etc.
Is it illegal to abuse legally obtained drugs?
Um.... Yeah, it is.
Taking it in any way that is contrary to the written prescription is illegal.
Surprisingly, IN MY EXPERIENCE (In Minnesota), the DMV was an absolute nightmare, even compred to Comcast. I have lived in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and now Minnesota. MN has BY FAR the worst DMV. It took me 3 hours and four trips to two different buildings get my drivers licenses and vehicles registered. Comcast, on the other hand, was insanely painless. I stopped in their store, grabbed a cable modem, went home and plugged it in. Now, let's not talk about the time that they shut my internet off for no reason, blamed it on "security" (apparently someone had walked into the store using my address to start up a new account). Since it was after 8PM the sales office was closed and they couldn't turn my internet back on. It took an hour, but eventually I got through to a call center in CA that was able to turn it back on.
How about we just get the gov't out of the way? If a company chooses to sell their cars directly from a website, or a gallery, or a dealership then that is their prerogative. If their chosen distribution model isn't what the consumer wants then they either adapt the model or they go away.
I was reading a similar article that came through yahoo news today. I got down to the comments (which are the best part about Yahoo news) and the first one was from an investor bitching about Tesla "giving away" their technology. It was basically a "won't somebody please think about the shareholder" comment. Just dumbfounded that someone can be that shortsighted...
And then you have the soccer mom with 14 kids, none of which can make a decision on what kind of diabetes water they want...
Not gonna lie, I was hoping you had some insight into any technical problems with it. I used to work for the CM that helped them build it, I left before they started this project though.
.... those horrible new coke machines!
Just curious, what's your problem with them? I thought they were pretty damn awesome.
Now you sir, need to lay off the caffeine.
Full disclosure, I'm a gun owner. I wouldn't call myself a "gun nut" by your standards, but I believe I have a right to on the hunting rifle and shotgun I own.
My question to you, my obviously excessively "liberal" friend, is what the fuck is the point of owning and carrying a weapon if you aren't going to carry it all the time? You carry it all the time because situations that arise that may require you to use you chosen form of protection aren't exactly scheduled. A rapist isn't going to say "Oh, sorry Ma'am. I didn't realize today wasn't rape day. Meet you tomorrow at the same time? Don't forget your gun."
I realize this is probably a bad example for you, but let's look at another form of protection. A condom. It's used to protect consenting adults from problems that tend to arise from sexual intercourse. It doesn't do you any good when you're on your way to the girls house and the condom is sitting in your fucking sock drawer at home, does it! I realize it's tough to compare avoiding getting an STD or unwanted pregnancy to getting forcibly raped because you are un-armed that day...
In a round-about way, yes, I believe he is saying that Samsung ripped off Apple. But in the same breath implied that Apple is stealing Samsung's shit. Which, as he said, everybody already knew that. So, in the end, they trade a shit ton of money, neither of them change what they are doing, and the price you and I pay for a smartphone goes up by 10c to subsidize the lawyers. Great system we have going.
You've just arrested and locked up every cop, the IRS, and half a dozen Federal agencies.
That sounds like a pretty good start to me. Can we find a way to include patent lawyers, or just lawyers in general, in that mix somehow?
Doesn't it make more sense to word this more as "Pay per quality"? You want a 480p, which will probably still look pretty good an a smart phone but look like garbage on a projector, its X dollars. 1080? Well, thats 2X. Don't ask what 4K will cost. To me, that makes most sense. It doesn't matter what the display quality of your device of choice is, you pay for your desired level of quality. (Quality, in this case is referring to the number of pixels, compression ratios, etc... let's not bring up the "quality" of the actual content, plot, acting, etc.)
Because they were the least "oil company" of the oil companies.
That's the functional equivalent of dating the prettiest waitress at Denny's. She may be best-of-breed compared to her surroundings, but looking at the big pictures she's probably more of a "participation ribbon" kinda gal than a "trophy wife.
I guess this is what I get for browsing at -1... While I do agree with you on your point about rebooting to apply networking config (I'm assuming it's a true statement) I think if that's the best argument you can come up with for why Ubuntu/Shuttleworth suck you are pretty far off-base with your evaluation. I like it because it gives me access to a linux server environment that is literally child's play to install, and it gives the non-techy person a decent alternative to Windows. It is the first distro that I have seen that you don't need a deep understanding of a computer to install it. (My 12 year old was able to install it by himself) Considering where the Linux world was 10 years ago, I'd say that's a pretty damn good contribution to the open source community. Are there better distros out there? Yeah, there probably are. Has one company done as much as Canonical to push Linux to the masses? Probably not.
I'm curious why the licenses are so expensive? Kind of a rhetorical question, the gov't is involved, that's why.