I guess it's how you define successful, but Eddie Murphy had a better career, especially in his prime. But like Murray, he bottomed out too. Murphy had the donkey in Shrek, anyways, and Murray had the leading role in Lost in Translation. That's about it for anything of note for the two of them for a long time.
Do you have a bridge you'd like to sell me too?
The only one of those that is innovative is the self-driving cars and maybe glass (wearables aren't new...just less clunky now).
Self-driving cars aren't "new" either, just better now. I still give Google credit for investing in cutting edge research, though I have no idea how self-driving cars fits into Google's business expertise.
Bill Murray used to be able to carry a movie. Now he's a bit player in small movies. It's good that he's working, though.
The zerocoin proposal is akin to an agreement that everyone should trade their bikes one for one upon request. Sure, that'd be great for bike thieves - that hot bike you just stole you can just trade for some else's clean bike! [..] The question is what the hell would be in in for legitimate bike owners?
This is a very stupid analogy. Bikes are not a medium of exchange. Currency is. There are "legitimate" reasons to send money without government or some other third party tracking you, whether it is simple privacy or being able to spend money on something the government doesn't approve of, like Wikileaks or online poker.
From a practical perspective, anonymous payment would legalise corruption, legalise money laundering (to the disadvantage of everyone having more money in the legitimate economy than in the criminal one), and legalise tax evasion. You got to be a pretty kooky libertarian type to think that's a good idea.
And you must be a kooky Big Brother type to present the if-you've-got-nothing-to-hide... argument.
Buying extra space is tempting, because I hate throwing out stuff I may need later (I know I'm never going to need it, honestly).
Yeah, but you never know if you may need it later. I've already seen a post by a person on this story that was trashing stuff that turned out he could make a use of. Extra inventory is neither UI nor cosmetic. Maybe it won't give you a big advantage, but it weighs heavy on the gameplay by forcing you to make decisions about what you carry.
The microtransactions are all cosmetics and UI convenience. I consider myself quite discriminating about this sort of thing, and it doesn't bother me any. You have a limited inventory shared between all your characters, and it is possible to purchase more inventory. You could argue that this is a kind of pay to win, based on the statistical nature of the loot drops and the fact that a larger inventory could give an advantage in terms of retaining potentially valuable items. FWIW I dropped $20 and got max inventory and a cosmetic.
Serious case of cognitive dissonance going on here. You managed to contradict yourself in one paragraph. Inventory increase is not a cosmetic or a UI convenience. You admit picking up loot is a big part of the game, and you also admit you spent money on this capability!
Yeah, the developer has to make money, but I don't see how this is fundamentally any different than other schemes that in some way level you faster, either in stats or gear.
I gave the facts related to the post I was replying to. You guessed wrong
You can't blame me for poor reading comprehension when you present the lawyer's case and leave it at that. It's poor writing if you don't want to be associated with the position. I'd bet most people thought similar.
But none of that matters to the question of "can you fight it". To that the answer is"no",.You will not be able to successfully fight a tarnish on your report for less than paying it and getting it removed.
That's what one lawyer said (or rather, what you said one lawyer said). The person you responded to you say court costs come out of the defendant. But even if the lawyer is 100% right, your plain answer here to "can you fight it" is wrong. You can fight it, it just might cost you more money than otherwise. Some people value principle more than giving money to a bully or suffering a poor credit report.
That's a lot of text to justify your pussy remark.
But I never paid the bill.
You didn't state that originally.
The question wasn't about paying it.
You made it so by giving the lawyer's suggestion. You even furthered that by saying, " I also didn't buy any cars or houses on credit for 10 years. Well, I did, but in a different country, so my credit was clean. "
The really amazing part is that the neighbor (who filed the charges) testified that she noted that the rabbit was not getting fed, and yet she didn't actually do anything about it either. The food was not under lock and key.
For that matter, she could have just thrown the poor thing a carrot.
Can I have your name and address? There's a bill I need to send you.
The question is why continue to support companies that do this? In the '90s, people boycotted companies like Nike for the labor practices of their sub-contractors
And how well did that work out? It got lip service in the press, but people still bought Nike. And where, exactly, are you going to buy your e-gadget that isn't made in a place like Foxconn or worse, and how much extra are you willing to pay? That's the free market.
The problem is that the api to widgets is far larger than the images themselves. Remote widgets would actually increase bandwidth, not decrease it.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Just consider the number of pixels that would be rendered in an editor window with a scrollbar. Now imagine all the painting a remote host would do if it wasn't native and you scrolled down.
The difference is night and day between a non-native widget and a native one. I've done professional work using remote desktop, and I always knew when an app wasn't using native widgets.
Best yet, when the user customizes fonts, colors and whatever else, your program adapts like other truly native applications.
It also makes a huge difference if you're using an app via a remote desktop. Native widgets can be efficiently mirrored without sending all the pixels over.