HN user
I suppose this looks like a great idea on the face of it. U2 is suddenly on millions of devices. However, wouldn't this mean that they've essentially made it impossible to make it onto the music charts which are based off sales?
The issue is you're paying money to a third party for mojang's work, more precisely something which you have already paid for by purchasing the game. If you ignore the game itself and look at it from a purely technical view, what people are essentially doing is running code on their own servers (Which is allowed) but then charging people for bits of the code written by mojang (Which is not allowed).
For most private servers you see, they will have a list of "donation" amounts and a "reward" for each, however this is quite clearly a sale since you are exchanging a commodity for money. To be classed as a donation, you would need to donate money without the requirement of something in return.
I think Mojang are clearly right here, but not to the advantage of the minecraft community.
People seem to assume that the Hoogle glass is going to be stapled to people's heads. Obviously they are not going to be suitable in every situation, would I wear it while driving? No. Would I wear it if I was having a conversation with someone? No. However I wouldn't have my phone out while doing these things either. I can see Google glass filling a function. I'd love to be able to watch Youtube while I'm stuck in a waiting room or record business meetings for later review. I have no idea if it will do end up doing what I hope, however I'm not going to jump to a conclusion like this article without even touching one.
Felt like I was reading some random girl's facebook status.
Research finds that people who can afford to buy macs have more money.
Next up, people who breath tend to live longer.
"Source: Internet"
I found this the only funny part of the article.
I can see their viewpoint, however I don't agree. If I were to rent a computer to do my work on, should the rental company seek a portion of any profit I make using that machine?
A bigger issue would be where would you stop the charges. They would be quite happy to charge the big names such as google and facebook for when people connect to them, but what about small websites? Where would the distinction lie?
You're not missing much. Author bought an out-dated phone, loaded it with terrible apps then proceeds to complain. The entire article is of no real interest.
Anyone know how good their privacy is? I don't want to go leaking my personal details.
I use the same kind of system, however I also have a tv card and torrents set up on the same machine for a more complete media solution.
It looks lovely and pretty, but does seem like they're trying to re-invent the wheel.