Doesn't that show your Bias? If you are a miner you have huge amounts of money invested in sha-256 specific ASICs. Perhaps ten of thousands of dollars worth.
Also by inflating the value of btc you hope to gain more money per liquidation.
Most of my hardware is already paid off. My effective cost per BTC has been well below market prices. Sure I have continued revenue to gain, but I'm only in this position because I believe in bitcoin and want to see the world become a better place.
Blame the piracy laws. These games are, of course, inherently worthless but the current policies are propping them up when innovation should be in other places.
People only pay for them because they don't have any other choice. If it was legal to sponsor an Android fork that had a pirate version of the Play Store, I'm sure all of the hardware manufacturers would be shipping it with their phones.
Unfortunately "worth" in any functional sense is defined by the demand for it, so in that sense these are immensely valuable. That is my lament, that something with so little functional utility (outside of a dopamine reward loop) has captured so much voluntary worth.
Yeah, it's sad to see someone use their last few breaths to threaten to kill somebody else. Only in the tech industry would this be considered a sign of a successful life.
He was not threatening to kill someone. He was proposing to take marketshare from another (very successful) business. Maybe he used the word "kill" but it definitely wasn't in reference to a person.
That did cross my mind, but his/her history looks legitimate. I think it's just an instance of the tendency that some people have to overly personify businesses.
For the record, the delay has absolutely nothing to do with Apple withholding the Google Music iOS app. Google didn't decide to start developing it until early October [1].
"nothing to do with Apple withholding the Google Music iOS app"
Correct. It had everything to do with the music labels demanding Flash DRM, and Apple deciding not to support Flash at all. From your article:
"The company had previously closed the door on iOS users because Flash was needed to enforce DRM restrictions set by music labels. Now, Google appears to have overcome that issue and is nearly ready to launch."
Talk about bad journalism. That is not true. Google's All Access music streaming has _never_ been blocked by flash DRM restrictions. The raw MP3 streams have been available ever since its inception, as it has been included in Simon Weber's python google music API implementation [1] for about 5 months (which is a few weeks after All Access was announced). From that API it has been implemented in those 3rd-party apps like GMusic and Cloud Play.
So, the only "bad guy" here is Google for not making an iOS app sooner.
Agreed. Ever since they added the feature to send a snapchat to multiple people, it turned into a narcissistic cesspool. After a while I couldn't even tell if the snapchats I was getting were even for me or for everyone on that person's list. The new "Snapchat Stories" was the nail in the coffin that made me uninstall it.
That's mostly a problem with the current laws in place, which encourage the creation of these frivolous services.
For example, let's say piracy was legal, who would need to get a new job?
Software developers, filmmakers and musicians, mostly.
If you think about it, the only reason why musicians/software developers make any money at all is because threat that we will be thrown in jail if we pirate the product (and the culture that "piracy is bad"). Given, there are trivial ways of getting around this barrier, but the fact of the matter is that nobody can officially sponsor a centralized service that you pay for that pirates content and make it extremely convenient.
If piracy was legal, the free software movement would have the most ground, because most people wouldn't be making any money off of the software anyway. Microsoft would go bankrupt. Apple probably would suffer a huge hit, but they would probably survive due to the fact that they manufacture their own hardware. So both would likely release the source code to the public if they want to hold any market share at all.
People would be able to legally sell jailbroken iPhones and Android phones with cyanogenmod installed by default for a fraction of the cost. And provide support.
Nobody would be making these shitty iPhone game apps like Candy Crush because there would be no money in it. Instead they would be making software for individual companies that are solving actual problems, like those self-checkout machines at the grocery stores for example. Most software development would instead be a hobby instead of being completely overvalued the way it currently is.
I did not get any new information out of this article. Not only does the title basically tell you everything that the article is going to talk about, but the statement is obvious. Of course an autonomous driver is safer than a human.
I think this was the main thing that hasn't been shown with data before: "One of those analyses showed that when a human was behind the wheel, Google’s cars accelerated and braked significantly more sharply than they did when piloting themselves. Another showed that the cars’ software was much better at maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead than the human drivers were."
They were known to be very safe with a very low (almost non-existant) accident rate, but I believe this was the first presentation of some of the more detailed driving data such as acceleration and braking.
