My thoughts exactly...
RIP Nokia
I and my trusty old 3210 salute you.
1421 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jan 2008
The excuse used by those in power for taking away the rights of their citizens during the naughties was 'The War On Terror™'. This decade the excuse looks as if it's going to be 'cyber threats'. The threats may be real, but inevitably they'll be blown out of proportion to force through legislation that does away with those pesky civil liberties.
I do wonder if those in power have made a bit of an error with this one though. I'm sure the whole idea of 'cyber threats' sounded nicely vague and ominous when they were hatching these plans but whereas the public generally know f--- all about the middle east and can be made to fear it, they're slightly more clued up when it comes to the internet.
I'm off to go line my house with tinfoil in case cyberwarfare breaks out.
There's some very bizarre logic being used here. I feel sympathy for parents, we all know that realistically you can't be vigilant 24/7 and that kids will do silly things. That said, if you turn your back for 5 minutes and little johnny does do something silly it's still your responsibility. Not because the rest of us expect you to have super-human parenting abilities but because they're your kids.
I still think in app purchases in games aimed at young children should be banned though. There's no need to make parents' lives more difficult than they already are.
Your post brought a smile to my face until my thoughts meandered off and I wondered how long it'd be before some sort of virtual object tax was applied to in app purchases. I imagine it to be conjured up by some MP with no clue about technology and therefore the amount of tax applied is based on the perceived weight of the virtual object in the virtual world. Oh, and if it's coated in virtual chocolate it becomes a 'cyber-luxury' and will cost you extra.
Ok, so investors was the wrong word to choose and I'm not saying people shouldn't club together to fund a production run of a device they all want. What I was commenting on was that such a device isn't likely to have a particularly big market, anybody who wants one has likely already paid up.
This is the core of what I'm getting at, if Casio et al had started integrating more tech into their watches at the turn of the millennium they could have tapped into several generations of working people who had grown up wearing watches, people who were used to checking their wrist when they needed information. Instead they procrastinated and mobile phone manufacturers stole the lead integrating more features into their devices. Now current and future generations of working adults won't even wear a watch for time keeping let alone anything else. It's hard to sell somebody a smart watch when all you're offering them is duplication of their phone's features.
You're right in that the watch wearing over 45s still represent a large percentage of the population and they do have money to spend but it's a market that is only going to decrease in size as time goes on.
This company may have found a novel way to finance it's first production run but I doubt they'll want to do it this way forever. So, in my first post I was asking what future does a company have when they're selling to a market that's only ever going to get smaller and smaller? The James Bond style smart watch is only ever going to be a fad toy for the older generation.
--
As a sidenote, there's a delicious irony in being accused of ageism by somebody who in their previous sentence describes everybody under the age of 45 as 'kiddeez'. As for upvotes and downvotes, unless they're qualified with a comment they mean nothing really. For all I know everybody has been skim reading, assumed I was having a go at people for being old, picked a side based on their bias and then the upvotes and downvotes are simply a representation of the age spectrum of el reg's readership. It hardly matters.
At the risk of sounding age-ist I have to ask when was the last time you saw anybody under the age of 45 wearing a watch for a purpose other than jewellery? It seems to me like this company has received financial backing from investors because they're of the older generation and aren't aware that the watch is a dying form factor.
This is so very true. Also, to the new parents out there, whilst I'm sure you're very excited to spend your first Christmas with your offspring it is neither wanted nor necessary for you to share that excitement with everybody you know, everyday single day for the entire 4 months leading up to said event.
That might have been true when Google+ first launched but Facebook's content permissions system is equally as powerful these days. Teenagers could easily assign their parents to a group that doesn't have permission to view most of their posts. The reason they're not doing this I think has more to do with not wanting uncle s and granny b to be able to bombard them with messages on,a service these kids are known to check regularly. Atleast with email they could just tell granny they haven't signed into hotmail recently but they'll check out that hilarious chainmail ASAP.
I know quite a few professional photographers but not any who use instagram so my knowledge of their current T&C's is nil. That said, I am wondering if they'll now adopt something similar to facebook's terms and conditions which is pretty unpleasant reading for anybody who has to make a living licensing/selling their IP.
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
If we're going for conspiracy theories then I'd suggest he was placed in the bag to aid rapid decomposition of the body obsfucating the events around his death. The bag was then placed in the bath to stop the decomposing body leaking through the floor into neighbouring apartments. This would have extended the length of time the body went undiscovered aiding the decomposition.
Creationist logic concerning 'transitional' species has always confused me and not just because they seem to think evolution works like pokemon. Consider this:
1) They believe that everything in the world was created at the beginning (all at once, 7 days, it doesn't make too much difference)
2) They believe all species are static, i.e. that one can't become another through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc.
When looking at the fossil record these two points are obviously contradictory. If you believe species can't evolve then the only logical conclusion is that certain species popped into existence, were around for a couple of million years and then popped out of existence again (sometimes disappearing shortly after a remarkably similar species has just popped into being). This of course is at odds with God creating everything in the beginning.
Creationists do like to only view the fossil record selectively though. I've seen arguments where the fossil record is described as incomplete (which it is), but implying that all species were created at once and we simply haven't found the fossils of [insert species here] (usually Homo Sapiens) that stretch all the way back to the beginning. We do however have lots of fossils of creatures from the past which certainly don't exist today. If what the Creationists say is true then the Earth has been undergoing one giant extinction event for the last 3.7 billion years (or even more terrifyingly, 6000 years).
I really can't get my head around this way of thinking...
Just what we need, a bank 84% owned by the British public buying up a bunch of stores likely located right next to another Game store. That combined with rumours that the next gen of consoles will sell most of their software through downloads makes this a very stupid investment surely?
I don't know about the rest of you but i quite often won't open a link because it has a TLD i don't recognise (or is from a country favoured by malware peddlers).
If i've heard of your company i'll visit your .com, if i haven't heard of you there is no way in hell i'm going to visit your .brand address.
Beat me to it.
Not that I mind though, I like to pretend their websites are actually full of science-fiction about a shadowy and oppressive world government. If it weren't for all the spelling errors I might actually be tempted to buy some of this stuff in paper back. It's certainly no worse than the stuff Dan Brown spews out.
Why would they be lower outside the US? According to Wikipedia's confusingly arranged data the US is only ranked 17th in the world when comparing percentages of the population with fixed broadband connections or 28th if you compare percentages of the population that are 'broadband internet users'*.
*I'm not sure if this just means they're including people with mobile broadband or if they've decided you're a broadband internet user if you have an internet cafe around the corner from your home.
Why? You're not likely to be running any games on Linux that require such expensive mice. I guess you could be running Windows in a VM but then you'd be able to install the drivers in the VM as well. The only time I can think of where you'd need Linux drivers for a gaming mouse is if you're running your game in WINE, in which case you should seek psychiatric help immediately...
Fluke wasn't asking for contraceptives on the college's insurance so she could have sex. She was giving testimony about another student at her college who required medication to stop her losing an ovary. The college refused to let this other student claim the medication on their insurance because it also had a contraceptive effect. The contraceptive effect would not have facilitated the student in having more sex because she's a lesbian.
Limbaugh deliberately misrepresented the issue, presumably to get conservative christians frothing at the mouth.
If you can't make a point without distorting the facts then you have no valid point. It's no wonder he has to resort to petty insults.
The placebo effect is indeed useful in treating patients. This doesn't mean however that the NHS should be subsidising a quack industry that produces nothing but very expensive sugar pills.
Maybe the NHS should just take on Tate & Lyle as an alternative supplier for this 'medicine', they could save themselves a packet.
I'm really sick of seeing this bollocks about the price. Consider this; very few people on this site complain about the latest and greatest smartphones costing in excess of £400. If people are willing to pay that much for a phone it's not because of it's ability to make calls (they could quite easily get a decent phone for a tenner if all they cared about was call quality). The reason people are buying these smartphones is for their ability to play music, movies, games and browse the web. The Vita is better specced than these phones, has dedicated gaming controls and is half the price.
If the Vita made phone calls you'd be calling it the bargain of the century. There's no pleasing some people.
I agree that you will find that most people - no matter how vocal in their support for nuclear - do not wish to have a reactor built next door. Then again you will also find that most people don't wish to have any sort of power station built next door even though they're likely to agree that power stations in general are a good idea.
Is it really any surprise that people don't want massive industrial sites built near their homes?
You are aware that modern elephants did not evolve from mammoths right? To say fauna has changed remarkably in 30,000 years whilst this species of plant has not is fairly ridiculous. The example you give is in fact two distinct species rather than an evolutionary progression of a single species.
I'm not going to pretend I have any in depth knoledge of this field. From what I understand though they're manufacturing transparent solar cells to be applied to the windows of large glass buildings. The question I have is, if you keep increasing the efficiency at which these solar cells capture light, surely your window becomes a wall?
Nintendo may have sold more units but I haven't read anything recently about SCE(1) or MS's xbox division(2) running at a loss. Unit sales are all well and good but profit is everything.
Before the downvotes flood in from fanboys, I'm a PC gamer. The last console I bought was a second hand Game Cube about 6 years ago.
1) http://uk.gamespot.com/news/sony-posts-317-billion-loss-playstation-division-sees-434-million-profit-6315481
2) http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36011/Microsofts_Xbox_360_Division_Sees_132_Billion_Profit_For_Fiscal_Year_2011.php