Oculus served their purpose; there will be good competition now. I suppose the donors got their "money's worth" in that regard.
BULLSHIT
The kickstarters were ripped off. Simple like that.
They take the risks by using their money funding an idea. Now Facebook buys for themselves a successful product, and the kickstarters aren't getting any reward from that. Not a single one had agreed on a "Facebook Oculus".
I don't think the problem is the "social", but the way Facebook does "social".
Why one would use Facebook (and pay him a share of his incoming) to allow his users to play his games?
Facebook just hasn't thrown enough money at him yet.
When they do...then we'll see.
The day Mr. Zuck decides to throw money in Minecraft, it will be the day that the present owner will not risk HIS money on Facebook.
Until there, I think Mr. Notch is right. Let Zuckerberg risk his own money on Facebook games.
Why not just shutdown the site? I would hurt less, and the results will be exactly the same.
Even if this could be ethic, what I seriously doubt, what about the side effects of being drug for so long time?
If this is the kind of justice we are pursuing, why not just killing the criminals? Cheaper.
I read the paper, I checked in the Fluke site.
90% of all hand multimeter's looks like the sketch in that damned trademark. Almost half of the multimeters I see on stores around here (Brazil) looks like a Fluke. Almost half of the multimeters I saw on sale when I was a teenager (hell way before 2000) looks like a Fluke device.
It's just the best design for the job.
Thank you, Fluke. Now I have one more reason to avoid north-american products (that use to be pretty good, but not so good it can't be replaced).,=
Ok, you can't send em back, and the gov't says they aren't legal here. Why not a third destination?
Perhaps because it's illegal to export from EUA goods illegal on EUA. The material was already on EUA, technically it was delivered and it's on the importer's responsibility.
(IANAL, by the way - I may be wrong)
Nobody purchasing a $15 Prada bag confuses it with the real one either -- but it hurts Prada sales and weakens their brand.
Yep. Now please pinpoint us where the multimeter has the brand "Fluke" on it.
Email was developed before this form of data-monetization was considered and with the intent that it would be used by serious researchers rather than idiot consumers.
Being that the reason no single Internet company (but one) does something *serious* to get rid of SPAM and other email annoyances.
Everybody wants to be next Big Thing to connect people (and gain access to their privacy), and a good, reliable and usable email would hurt such initiative.
We can see now that big money doesn't want such a decentralized, relatively private system to exist, hence the development of systems like Gmail which works much differently from the original email system design.
Yep, this is the one exception I mentioned above. At least, we have a "de facto" working email solution. But the privacy is gone nevertheless.
Why limit our choices to only Two Evils?
Because I'm an inveterate optimist!!
Maybe just spray the entire area with a strong defoliant, like Agent Orange or something even more nasty.
The damned thing must dissolve the leafs and dead trees into something that doesn't catches fire.
Interesting how things can change.
We, brazilians, have a harsh view from our managers. I wonder if our best ones didn't did as our best technicians - fled from the country to pursue a better future.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4905665&cid=46503045
Email is harder to mine.
There's no reliable cross-linking, there's no "Like" button. You cant count how many times it was read.
And, moreover, you can't prevent third parties to read it (and do the same you are doing) once the sender clicks on the send button.
Data is important and valuable, but it can only be sell if nobody else's have it.
So you're saying that Facebook loses when sells the daily answer to "what are guys between 20-25yr old that are male caucasian and like hot girls are buying"?
No. I'm saying Facebook would loose money it provides an API that allow any third party to miner the database to answer that question. Please read the GP.
Why can't there be an API for social networks? Kind of like email, where everyone follows the same set of rules?
Because there's no money on sharing information.
All the customer's activities generates data that are stored and cross analysed with other people's interactions. How exactly this data is useful it's beyond me, but I guess Facebook is full of smarter guys that know what to do with it.
Sharing this information will allow third partners to take access to some (if not all) of these data, and then Facebook will lose its monopoly on such data.
The smoke spreading is not linear to the size of the fire - the more the heat, stronger and stronger hot air will go up.
Hundreds of sequential (and mutually exclusive) small fireworks will spread smoke in a smaller area.
Not a good solution, I know. But probably the lesser of two evils.
We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.
