What I want to know is: If a piracy site wants to pay to place their ads in this box, will Google allow it?
Probably, but I guess those on the anti-piracy side figure they'll now have more of a paper trail to follow to find and deal with those paying to get those ads up.
There is a way to "self censor" the app, which is to download it, mark it 1 star and give a crappy review. Enough people do that, and the app fades into obscurity.
Depending on how the store works, downloading to crappy rate it may just boost it's popularity, which gives it more visibility, not less.
At least, that's how it works on the Apple App Store (which I believe has popularity which uses downloads/time, and grossing which uses revenue/time). Not sure if Android's equivalents use that or just have lists that are just based of ranking alone.
Apple has sold over 600 million ios Devices.
I'm sorry, you were saying?
600 million devices in the states? Or worldwide?
The 5 and 5s have the exact same dimensions so cases are interchangeable.
Same dimensions, not necessarily same button positions.
At least, the 4th gen iPod Touch I had doesn't have the same volume button positioning as the new 5C. Perhaps the 4/4S iPhones match the 5's, but the subtle difference in my case meant the case couldn't be closed without attempting to crush the volume buttons (which would be quite worthless).
There isn't anyone better than the parent to decide what his/her kid can handle.
Is that so? I don't think you're as categorically correct as you state.
(Pardon the terrible wikipedia page; the point is in the concept, not necessarily the content of the page, and all Google is returning for me is Canadian pages that seem to be too Canadian-centric.)
Moderators should be identified.
I disagree. Moderators who must be identified would just lead to harassment of moderators. There's always going to be asshats who moderate stuff down they disagree with (and I doubt every asshat who does that being exposed for doing that would change their tune), but I'd foresee that exposing the handles of moderators would be like not allowing anonymous posting; it'd try to cut down on the problem, but also cut out a lot of moderation that doesn't follow the conventional groupthink.
Much like commenting, at least the choice of moderating anonymously should still be kept (at least for Slashdot's method). Similar to non-anonymous posting, though, non-anonymous moderations being weighted differently could be a possible avenue for improvement.
The link he posted showed a grand total of 23 games.
For what it's worth, that search link doesn't filter at all when viewing the page with NoScript (it just shows a list of... all of the games on steam, I think?).
How did the parent get to +5 Informative? The GP said...
almost all their newer games like Portal 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive weren't available on Linux
...which is two of Valve's five most recent games, and they're not on this list.
When the only recent games a company releases on a platform are a free-to-play game and a sequel, I think it's safe to say said company isn't taking the platform seriously.
How about this:
It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.
It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility.
Except this isn't a perfect analogy.
The judge ruled:
that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.
The key is "if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving." As in, you know or have reason to know that you are putting the recipient at risk.
So the perfect analogy would be as you describe only if you add the knowledge that the gifting person knows Fred has a history of drinking and driving and knows that he will do so with the beer you've provided, or that Fred mentioned he will drink it as he's driving.
Knowledge that the risk is (or almost certainly is) increased is key. This does go hand in hand with reducing the responsibility for a given party to less than 100%, but it is not the completely stripping it that you have stated.
Well clearly it requires materials and effort.
But when the first caveman skinned a bear and sat on it he didn't make anyone else's arse any colder.
Except for... you know, the bear.
For some people, that doesn't matter. For others, there's concerns about the long-term that may not be obvious; for example, the survivability of the bison... I mean bear.
If a video of somebody playing a game is a good, or even adequate, substitute for that game, I think that it's fair to say that the game must really suck, badly.
Some games aren't trying to be good games, or at the very least aren't defined by good gameplay. The Uncharted series is a good example; a lot of people don't care about the gameplay, but the story (and it's execution while playing) is considering quite enjoyable. Watching a video of a game will never be a perfect substitute for playing it, but it can be good enough for some people, and that shouldn't speak poorly of the game itself if it's trying to be entertainment outside of just being game-y.
Erm, there may be a whole host of differences, but there's no point ignoring the fact that:
[...]
- it's pretty easy to find lots of pairs of cases where the circumstances are very similar, but the punishments are different, and the black kid gets the more severe punishment
If it's so easy, why do we get stories like this one that compare non-violent punished case to resulted-in-death non-punished case? If we're supposed to compare apples to apples, we've got some really different fruits here, at best.
With all the negative PR that this whole mess is generating, wouldn't Microsoft want to publicly contradict what he said if it wasn't true?
But then anything they don't publicly contradict you'd know (or at least rightfully assume) is true. That's why companies don't want to comment on speculation or rumor; they have little to gain for positive news and much to lose for negative news.
Can't let people hurt themselves, now can we?
Not when there's sufficient risk they will cost others, yes (stealing to support habit, health insurance costs, psychological issues for friends/family).
In theory, letting people do whatever to themselves is fine. In practice, connections run deeper than that.
The short answer is no.
The long answer is probably no, as you need a certain mix of incredibly talented people with very specific attributes. Valve is notorious for only hiring the absolute best, going for those with wide specialist knowledge (but shallow knowledge of all other aspects of game development... some kind of "T" metaphor is used by them?), and ensuring everyone they hire can be an effective leader/is capable of following an effective leader when needs be. And you can't just have a few people with those attributes; everyone in the company has to be like that.
If you can hire only people that meet the above qualifications, then sure, you could make another Valve. But it's a very difficult (or at least expensive) proposition, and no doubt incredibly challenging to scale.
To do nothing is to be nothing.
