Maybe the NFL isn't fighting it for a reason. It's been pointed out here many times that they're vary uptight about anyone referring to their over-sized sporting event that happens once a year. Maybe they don't fight it because if they did and won, they wouldn't gain the trademark. ESPN would lose it and then anyone could use it.
I agree with everyone that posted before (except that one AC who only posted insults).
I follow the Nerd³ philosophy of early access games: Is the game worth the money now because that's all you're guarantied to get. That's something only the person who will be playing the game can decide.
Plus, if you give an early access game (or a game that should be in early access) to someone who's not an early access kind of person, you ruin their experience of the game. I could be gifted an early access game and it would be find. But if I gave my sister an early access game, she would play it for five minutes, call it a broken mess, and probably say that to anyone who asks.
"There's nothing wasteful about a DVD shoved in a box."
You may think that way, I think that way, but that doesn't mean that Dave thinks that way. He may be one of those consumers that watches things once or twice and moves on to the next thing. I know quite a few people like that. They will enjoy the old stuff if it happens to be available, but they have no attachment to it. I know a guy who will watch The Princess Bride every single chance he gets, but he just doesn't buy the DVD.
Netflix doesn't have to keep track of individual shows because that information doesn't matter in their much more dynamic advertising system. Advertisers don't pay to be viewed at a specific time during a specific show, any advertisement can be viewed at any time by any one.
It doesn't matter to Netflix what people are watching, only that they are watching. This frees up Netflix to include the lowest common denominator show as well as take risks on the niche shows.
My Android phone has layers of security that would allow me to unlock only a specific set of applications. However, that and a guided access won't stop anything if Whoever is right with the first post. Doesn't matter how the other apps are blocked if the one allowed app is allowed to access everything.
The size of the site does matter. Ever use noscript? You'll learn really quickly that larger sites access a lot of domains. Techdirt alone accesses 18 domains. All of which have to be secured. This is why people were complaining about old, imbedded videos and why they won't embed new videos unless the video's domain is HTTPs.
I use Google as a spell check. Really useful as I can check the definition and make sure it's the exact word I want to use. Just last week I searched a word (don't remember which one) who's misspelling was the correct spelling of a nuclear bomb.
That was an interesting few seconds while I debated on clicking the Wikipedia link.
Making a dynamic trading system is relatively simple. Set a basic value on each type of cargo and in each area set variable modifiers for what is needed and what isn't. Each area is calculated when that chunk of the universe is loaded, update the modifier variables based on time and cargo delivered.
I'd lay odds that is the way the servers do it now. No reason to keep active the thousands or millions (depending on the size of the universe and how many types of cargo) of variables needed if they're not being used most of the time.
Unless there's a central stock market and cargo costs the same no matter what trading post the player is at. If that's the case, then all the variables do have to be loaded at all times, but it limits the variables needed to a few dozen to a few hundred.
Basically I'm saying that any technical limitation would exclusively be in the coding of the client software, not hardware. Limitations that were intentionally put in the client software, probably while it was originally planed as online only. They probably couldn't put in the code required for offline only in time.
Time is a perfectly acceptable limitation. Too bad they had to pull the one thing that drew in the most money, and will piss off customers the most. Sucks to be them.
You're making the mistake of limiting "TV" to the 12 or so shows available by surfing the channels. If you limit yourself like that, then yes, a choice of every single book past or present would be better. But limiting yourself like that would be like limiting yourself to only the books available in that one aisle in Giant Eagle. You know, the one with all those children's books and romance novels. If you limit yourself to some arbitrarily small selection, you're going to have a bad time.
I enjoy a good book every now and then, and I agree with you about the Walking Dead (a main character died? This is new?), but TV can provided just as much entertainment and stimulation as a book.
They have software (that you have access to right now) that can give a yes/no answer on if an address can get service or not. It would be just a matter of coding the software (that their marketing company probably already has) to make a map more accurate than most government work.
Hell, they already have software that tells their sales specialists how much cable would need to be run to provide service to a specific location and how much it would cost.
How many houses they currently have cable to or how many houses they could run cable to. Take your pick, they should have both (especially after a year of supposedly getting it).
"at the minimum broadband transmission speed as defined by the FCC."
Oh, so that's why they keep pushing the FCC to not raise the minimum requirements for broadband. Well played, multi pronged attack there, AT&T. Sun Tzu would be proud. I thought it was just because you were lazy and cheap, but it was a part of a larger attack plan. I'm impressed. Disgusted, but impressed.