deveac

32 ms·

241.
by deveac 14y ago
>A purely empirical description of reality would, of course, regard the notion of "rights", "government", and "society" as mere abstractions that have no autonomous existence, This is completely consistent with what I've been saying. Th
242.
by deveac 14y ago
>If you take this position, what's the use of defining a concept of "rights" at all? It's not a position to take as much as a description of reality. I think you're confusing my observation of the reality we live in with some sort of
243.
by deveac 14y ago
>The Bill of Rights says the Government "can't restrict your freedom of speech", not that you have the right to free speech. There's a difference. So you already have freedom of speech. That's very idealistic, and I'm glad I live in
244.
by deveac 14y ago
>For the second quote you go off on a tangent about costs. Tanjent? That's funny. I was responding directly to your citing cost as a factor for arcades dying: >But the arcades started dying when somebody had the silly idea that p
245.
by deveac 14y ago
>I disagree, those are not arcades, they are bars and nightclubs that happen to have retro games spread throughout. Agree. They are arcade-themed bars. They admit in the article that the revenue stream from their arcade games can't pa
246.
by deveac 14y ago
A great article talking about the increased tension between quality and convenience that the single serve market is introducing, and the potential inevitability of single serve erasing the divide between the two. The closest I come to being
247.
Disruptive Innovation: Anticipating Effects of the Single Serve Coffee Market(scaa.org)
1 points by deveac 14y ago|1 comments
248.
by deveac 14y ago
Yes they do. It's a sobering truth to reflect on.
249.
by deveac 14y ago
Their model of going in lean, quickly deploying, and quickly iterating, all the while doing so with good communication and transparency is something I'm surprised is getting as much flak as it is from HN of all places...
250.
by deveac 14y ago
>Is that a fact? My interpretation of the Christensen version of disruption (which I'm told is pretty much official since he wrote the book on it- literally) His definition of disruptive technologies actually appeared first in his art
251.
by deveac 14y ago
Step 1) Code features for a large platform that is actively iterating and implementing new features at an incredibly rapid pace. Step 2) Complain when there is eventual feature overlap.
252.
by deveac 14y ago
>at a price point that doesn't really seem any better. $70/mo for gigabit speeds and a terabyte of cloud storage and a wifi router? Or a one time installation fee for free internet comparable to what people are paying $50/mo for
253.
by deveac 14y ago
Considering I am the one that said the patent system is broken and I also code, I think I realize what sense it makes, thanks.
254.
by deveac 14y ago
Did you even read that? Tell me what method is prescribed to promote that progress. It's written right there. I think you've had enough to eat.
255.
by deveac 14y ago
>to make Flickr a garbage dump of whatever you export from your digicam. Sounds like a potential (massive) advantage to me. Having your service be ground zero for export from your cam and contain all your content? That can be exploit
256.
by deveac 14y ago
>It was designed to prevent companies from keeping new inventions to themselves as trade secrets. That is one interpretation of the intent of patent law. In the USA, our Constitution spells out the intent pretty clearly: >"to p
257.
by deveac 14y ago
You do realize that the patent system was designed for the express purpose of granting individuals and companies a legal monopoly on technology that they can exploit in the marketplace, with the goal of using that carrot to encourage innova
258.
by deveac 14y ago
>However, in the case of Android Apple sued first and has been continuing to be the aggressor. I'll just note that depending on your point of view, it is effortless to argue that the entity stealing the IP could be viewed as the aggre
259.
by deveac 14y ago
I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where either of the links you provided demonstrated that Apple is "abusing" the patent system lieu of competing like you claimed, unless you define competing as letting your competitors help themselves
260.
by deveac 14y ago
Cool. Despite what the naysayers may think, Fiat is taking a very 'smartphone' approach to the car. Instead of viewing a phone as just a phone, OEMs realize that with innovation, it can be a device that meets many common, everyday needs at
261.
by deveac 14y ago
Can you cite that? I was under the impression that Apple only litigated on patents they legitimately held and did not want to licence. This in contrast to some of their opponents who are litigating against Apple on FRAND patents. I think yo
262.
by deveac 14y ago
I'm not sure that it comes down to whether or not Apple has innovated to make glue easier to recycle than screws, but rather if the use of the glue violates any required criteria of the ratings standard: >How products qualify for EPE
263.
by deveac 14y ago
Google has a lot to learn about selling hardware to consumers. This has never been an area they've demonstrated competence in. That being said, I think they are improving, and I think that all of the sins the author listed will be easily fo
264.
by deveac 14y ago
But the rating is less surprising if you consider how EPEAT ratings are awarded. Manufacturers voluntarily register their products with EPEAT, listing which of the required and optional criteria the devices meet. EPEAT then reviews the reg
265.
by deveac 14y ago
How? Because they have a large market share in certain product categories? I see that kind of out of the box thinking and pure passion in many of their most recent designs. The iPhone is a perfect example. Look at where that paradigm shifti
266.
by deveac 14y ago
"How is this possibly true? Nothing Apple makes can be easily opened, upgraded, or have their batteries replaced. " It can be true if ease of opening and component swapping aren't the sole factors in determining the environmental impact of
267.
by deveac 14y ago
We will see. I hear what you are saying, but in practice what Apple seems to have done is used the massive groundswell of iOS adoption as a mechanism for converting these users to their other platform products. Rather than competing with iO
268.
by deveac 14y ago
Well, it's kind of specific, but r/TheoryofReddit is a very interstitial sub that often deals with the questions we're talking about here. I find it to be quality. Here is an interesting comment regarding the submission problem: http://www
269.
by deveac 14y ago
>I can see such a scenario playing out, I think iOS is by a gaping chasm the proven consumer OS for Apple. That's assuming the contest is a mutually exclusive OSX vs iOS game and not OSX vs Windows. If you assume the latter, OSX is also
270.
by deveac 14y ago
" I don't think they'll put something on the market that doesn't have attention grabbing value." I would submit that having attention grabbing value isn't remotely enough. It has to have actual value, hopefully in a way that goes beyond p

More ›