|
So if uber is burning cash from vc's what is their end game to be profitable? I thought people create businesses to make money through profit?
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Gabe Newell always said that the way to beat piracy was to be more convenient than piracy, and goddamn if he wasn't right. Don't forget a lot of games released these days have always online, leader boards, community play etc etc. Id say that does more to deter pirating then other stuff. I know I used to pirate games but now most games I play are connected to a server for whatever reason so it's far easier to just buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
The gaming industry can solve it self by keeping most of its poo poo connected to an online database of achievements, being able to play together, etc etc. Look at all of blizzards games. I highly doubt any of their games are pirated because they all have massive online features.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Yup like we have all said convenience will make people want to pay and stop being illegal. Netflix has somewhat harnessed this but not all the way nor can it. Until there is a "Netflix" for all current seasons of tv shows that isn't ad riddled like hulu or cost an arm and a leg and setup like cable I'll be sticking to  for what I can't get on netflix.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
MechanicalTomPetty posted:If nothing else no modern product placement is ever going to be as blatant as it was in the Race to Witch Mountain remake. Have you seen the Honda fit episode of community lol.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
I'm on a cell phone so no quotes from the article but lmao at recent zenifits craziness. quote:Calif. startup asked workers to stop having sex in stairwells. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-startup-asked-workers-stop-sex-stairwell-article-1.2542042
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Having to rub one out to the wavy green lines of a tit from a premium channel you didn't get. Teenagers these days are so lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Don't people like her love being ceo? So parachuting off into the sunset with her gold wouldn't be her thing. And ending yahoo on a bad note would hurt her chances at being ceo of another big company no?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Are these people all extremely smart? And then pair that with being rich after PayPal means the world is their playground? Like how do you found so many popular successful companies? Like what sets them apart from your average smart Google engineer or w/e else takes intelligence to work at but is more of a cog type job?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The Military-Unicornial complex just got tighter: Former Google CEO Schmidt to head new Pentagon innovation board. Google one step closer to umbrella Corp?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Remember how folks here were trying to convince us that being critical of LBGT policies in places like North Carolina was nothing more than regional chauvinism? "Banned LGBT Non-Discrimination Policies" No it doesn't. It's one specific law, aimed at allowing people to use the bathroom of their choice, by saying they "identify" as the other sex. Unfortunately, kids as expected, abused that, resulting in a huge distraction and set of unforeseen issues, such as sexual harassment. And no, it doesn't do anything special for minimum-wage laws, it forces ordinances to follow the state laws, and those states have to follow the federal laws. That's just the way it works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why did you ignore that, it was sitting right there? "Why did you ignore that, it was sitting right there?" Because it's dishonest, and does what most of these articles do. It sensationalizes the information to upset people so they'll share the information. "It also prevents any local governments from passing their own non-discrimination ordinances." Know what else it does? Stops them from passing their own DISCRIMINATION ordinances. See what I did there? I took what it does, and turned it into a different orientation, by changing the message. Look at the following two statements, and tell me which one is accurate: It also prevents any local governments from passing their own non-discrimination ordinances. It also prevents any local governments from passing their own discriminating ordinances. Which one is true? Which one upsets people? Yeah, they're both true. Basically what this law does is REINFORCE not create the fact that a local government can't make an ordinance that breaks the state law, just as a state law can't pass a law that breaks the federal law. They decided to sensationalize it because if you want to make a loose connection, you can. They're saying "Local governments can't pass an ordinance that allows men to use the women's restroom simply because they've stated that that's their gender identity." Why would they say that? Because otherwise, they'd have to do this every single time an ordinance is passed by any local government. This way, they prevent it from happening in the first place. So if you think that it's discrimination to tell a man "You're not allowed to use the women's restroom just because you claim you identify as a woman." then yes, you can get away with saying "It also prevents any local governments from passing their own NON-DISCRIMINATION ordinances." It's dishonest, and misleading. Yes, there were examples of guys who would go into women's restrooms, and walk around with their penis out because they have a fetish of being seen naked. Imagine your daughter goes into the restroom, and some guy is in there flashing pre-teen girls his cock. Oh but you can't tell him anything because he says "Nope. I identify as a woman. Sorry." This is why they're doing this. The restroom thing is a huge, overwhelming issue. On one hand, it sucks that a transsexual would have to use a men's restroom. But, do you really think that this is an issue? If they're not acting like men, and being creepy, and genuinely are just transsexual women who are using the restroom, there won't be an issue. But when you pass a law that makes people feel good, with REAL consequences, you have to understand that there will be some negative blow back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 01:47
|
|