Could be good
I think games like say Splinter Cell do have a very good chance.
3466 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Historically, investors have regarded dividends and buybacks as admissions that the company did not know how to use the cash effectively. This is considered as a terrible failure.
Look at RIM: they bought back their stock last year... You would think this indicates confidence, and that market force should make the stock prize rise... But that has very much not been the case.
iRobot has offered a fully programmable version of their vacuum cleaner for years...
In fact, a team at IBM has made a robot detecting hot spots in data centers out of it:
BTW, I believe the "turtle" thing is meant to appeal to old fans of LOGO...
Who needs to be productive and actually invent things, when you can just patent known techniques, wait ten years, and sue in hope that the company will pay?
A sum of $5 millions is calculated so that Google might just pay to get rid of the problem and hope they will go away bother somebody else.
I did not try it, but people seem to say you cannot overlap windows...!?
Maybe *you* don't multitask, but I have seen people writing code while watching a video on youTube. And checking at the same time the stock market minute by minute in a third window. My question is: Can you do all that without alt-tabbing continuously?
Example: FLOWER ICON
"The color(s) yellow, blue, green, brown, black, gray and white is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a gray, white, and blue rectangle with rounded corners depicting a stylized flower in the colors green, yellow, brown, black, white and gray."
You mean lawyers get paid to do this??
I thought that you needed to claim that a patent or something was infringed in order to sue...
I mean yeah, they do look very much the same, and the iThingies were inspiration but I am not sure that is illegal in any way... (and it is not clear to me that the design had never been used before)
I take it that aiming at a semi-friendly furnisher is a preparation for the big target starting with G.
It may be me, but I think that you underestimate the difficulty here, both of unlocking the platform and of developing a platform that cannot be unlocked at all.
Anyway, Apple has probably done a cost-analysis and estimated how much money they were willing to stop people from unlocking their iThings. I believe users are not that bothered by the patching... Except those that do want to unlock their toys, but that is the point, innit?
Well, not completely, but one should not sweat the details of who is just behind whom... This takes into account various stuff such as "broadband penetration" and "smartphone ownership" which can plumb a country without having much influence on the actual work conditions of IT employees.
I was commenting on the creative spelling of the OP, not on the correct one. This is precisely why I said Hippocrates had nothing to do with it, because as you said, his name is very different from the *correct* spelling.
Next: The subject of the article is not an internal military memo, so your experience in the service is irrelevant. It is a legal filing. I fail to see how the disclosure of a request for Twitter records of WikiLeaks supporters can result in dead armed force personnel; but maybe you can imagine a contrived scenario for this?
This already exists to some point... There are paying services out there, that are used by companies who don't mind spending money and like to have technical support. I understand you can even get support from Google if you pay for it.
But unless you find a way to make them illegal, there will always be free email on the web, and it is very likely that the general population will flock to it. And THIS is what Google is good at, not making people pay for its services.
Even the article linked did not offer a definition.
Vendor... Affiliate... R... R... Rebate? Nah. Robot? That would be for android. Reseller? Ah, Vendor And Reseller? Weird. Ok, googled it: Value Added Resellers.
Funny, of the three words I had, Reseller is the one I would have doubted the most. I would think that the whole idea of "reseller" does not sit well with Apple. The way they see it, there is only one company allowed to sell anything to their customers; and anybody else is a parasite trying to leech off of their success. Maybe that could be why they don't encourage it?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019