Uhh, no it's not. You didn't even bother to actually read what you linked.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, except in certain specific cases.
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
I want to watch it in hi-def. I don't own a Blu-Ray player as I've never needed one. Anything I want to watch in high-def I get digitally. I currently don't have cable or satellite at all because there's just not enough shows I'd watch to make it worth my while. When I last had cable, I watched less than 5 hours over the course of three months. So I'm not going to get cable or satellite AND subscribe to HBO for just one show.
I'd gladly pay $5 (maybe even a little more) per episode to get it legally DRM-free in high-def. But it's not available to buy that way.
Of course, today it'd be so easy for them to sell it that way, so why don't they do that? I'm guessing it's because they crunched some numbers and decided they probably make more money from people who currently subscribe to the channel rather than just selling individual episodes of shows, even if they'd get rid of some piracy by doing the latter.
Yeah, because Microsoft always does a great job telling you exactly what all their software does, right?/sarcasm
A full format has always been necessary to build the file structure on an unformatted drive. It has always done more than a quick format + checkdisk, because a quick format only clears the journal and a check disk only checks and does repairs. In Vista and later, a full format also does a low-level format.
Even a "full format" just does a normal format, after full disk surface check (which is why it takes so long).
Not true. It's a lot harder to recover data after a full format than a quick format. All the data recovery apps that work on a quick format or delete won't do squat if you do a full Windows format.
Also, a single low-level format or even zeroing a drive does not make it unreadable. I've already recovered data from such a drive. Granted, it wasn't very complete, but it certainly wasn't all gone.
The only way to be 100% certain none of your data is recoverable is to melt it down or grind it into a fine powder.
I'm not sure, but it certainly sounds like "cloud gaming" is basically companies that provide the heavy hardware to stream games to PCs, for people who can't afford good gaming rigs. I wouldn't have guessed there's that big a market there yet to warrant special graphics cards though.
Still seems a bit excessive. Back when I was on Verizon for... eh, 5 years? I had to call in once, twice at the most. Since I'm on prepaid I've had to call in never. You're right, it's not worth complaining, and I wouldn't. But I'd still take my business elsewhere.
I like and approve your attitude... but good god your carrier sucks. I've never had any kind of service, of any type, ever where I had to call in that often, nevermind go in to their b&m location. I'd have long since moved on so I could enjoy my life even more.
That's fine with me. The prepaid third-party carrier I'm using is cheaper and still gets a cut too, so that means the carrier(s) whose network(s) I'm using get FAR less money than they would if I'd be going direct. So if they can sell service to a third party, who sells it for cheaper than direct customers get it, what does that tell you?
I've been using prepaid for a few years now. Tried Boost first, didn't like it. Switched to Straight Talk which was OK. Then just recently I switched over to Page Plus. Liking it a lot better. Page Plus uses Verizon's network and just about any Verizon phone can be activated on their service without being unlocked (though 4G/LTE phones can be a pain). That said, all of the prepaid carriers I tried were a fine replacement for a contract carrier, and far less expensive.
If you click on the first link you'll see that out of Mexico's 11.07 firearm-related-deaths per 100K 10.0 of them are homicides and.67 are suicides. Meanwhile, of the US's 10.2, 3.2 are homicides and 6.3 are suicides.
As of 2010, Mexico had 11.07 firearm-related deaths per 100K people, compared to 10.2 for the US. As of 2007, Mexico had 15 guns per 100 people, compared to 88.8 for the US. So slightly higher firearm-related deaths percapita, but far fewer guns.
The violence, obviously. Violence predates guns by millennia. So do laws against violence. But almost certainly the violence came first, as there's really no reason to make laws to prevent something that doesn't exist.
First, the US is not Germany. What works in Germany won't work the same way in the US. The US is a much bigger country and has far more different ethnicities mixed up in one big pot - which leads to lots of homicides all on its own, with and without firearms. There's also many other factors.
Second, the statistic on firearm homicides as releates to gun control means absolutely nothing if you don't also have the statistic on how many of those homicides were commited with illegal firearms. I'd be willing to bet a nice chunk of change on the speculation that the vast majority (I'd bet possibly 90% or better) of those homicides in the US are with illegal firearms. I'd also posit that's a far more reasonable assumption than the inverse.
So find me a statistic that clearly shows the US has more homicides per capita with legal firemarms than Germany does. Until then, your argument for more restrictive gun control means nothing.
I know many people who own firearms - several hundred at least. (Hint: in rural areas, many people hunt... using firearms.) I don't know anyone who's ever been involved in any kind firearm tragedy.
If anything, Glass could make texting less dangerous. Texting is currently highly dangerous because you have to completely look away from driving and focus on the phone. And you can't and never will stop such cell phone use from happening and creating accidents because it's way too difficult for law enforcement to see and prove. (Hint: it's not just texting, it's also things like phone GPS.) So we're going to legislate away something that could make it less dangerous? Brilliant.
If simple distractions really were that high-risk, we shouldn't be driving at all because they happen all the time. Even things like road signs or checking something on the dashboard can be as distracting as Glass would be.
Using our current system: sun's overhead - what time is it? Roughly noon, no matter where you are on the globe, it's roughly noon, local time.
No it's not. DST takes care of that. For example, right now, in Indiana, the sun will be at high noon when the clock shows somewhere between 1:30-1:45, depending on your exact location in the state. Clock time in California is closer to sun time in Indiana than Indiana's clock time is during DST. The same will be true for any areas on the far edges of time zones.
So again, why bother with time zones at all if your clocks are going to be off by as much as an hour and forty-five minutes? May as well go with GMT as 12:00 means nothing. It's not noon and not midnight, not even close.
And other studies done when DST was increased a few years ago showed increased energy use due to more home AC use. AC uses a lot more power than artificial lighting, and home AC is generally a lot less efficient than commercial AC.
But that's all moot, because you can achieve the same thing as DST simply by having places of business open and close an hour earlier. Except, of course, without the downside of stupidly forcing everyone to change their clocks and adjust to a different time twice a year.
So how about this: just switch to DST year-round. Maybe then people will realize how stupid it is to set clocks off by an hour. I mean really, if we're going to do this it makes more sense to simply use GMT everywhere and forget about time zones all together. After all, we're already not using the best time for our time zones so having clocks for any purpose other than keeping track of time is already gone.
Slashdot Mirror
All the April Fools jokes suck this year. Even Google's is obvious and lame. I seriously think the fact that it's on Monday has a lot to do with it.
Uhh, no it's not. You didn't even bother to actually read what you linked.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, except in certain specific cases.
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
It's not always as simple as that.
I want to watch it in hi-def. I don't own a Blu-Ray player as I've never needed one. Anything I want to watch in high-def I get digitally. I currently don't have cable or satellite at all because there's just not enough shows I'd watch to make it worth my while. When I last had cable, I watched less than 5 hours over the course of three months. So I'm not going to get cable or satellite AND subscribe to HBO for just one show.
I'd gladly pay $5 (maybe even a little more) per episode to get it legally DRM-free in high-def. But it's not available to buy that way.
Of course, today it'd be so easy for them to sell it that way, so why don't they do that? I'm guessing it's because they crunched some numbers and decided they probably make more money from people who currently subscribe to the channel rather than just selling individual episodes of shows, even if they'd get rid of some piracy by doing the latter.
Yeah, because Microsoft always does a great job telling you exactly what all their software does, right? /sarcasm
A full format has always been necessary to build the file structure on an unformatted drive. It has always done more than a quick format + checkdisk, because a quick format only clears the journal and a check disk only checks and does repairs. In Vista and later, a full format also does a low-level format.
Even a "full format" just does a normal format, after full disk surface check (which is why it takes so long).
Not true. It's a lot harder to recover data after a full format than a quick format. All the data recovery apps that work on a quick format or delete won't do squat if you do a full Windows format.
Also, a single low-level format or even zeroing a drive does not make it unreadable. I've already recovered data from such a drive. Granted, it wasn't very complete, but it certainly wasn't all gone.
The only way to be 100% certain none of your data is recoverable is to melt it down or grind it into a fine powder.
Probably because the "cloud" parts are basically the same stuff, just clocked way down to run cooler? Just a guess.
I'm not sure, but it certainly sounds like "cloud gaming" is basically companies that provide the heavy hardware to stream games to PCs, for people who can't afford good gaming rigs. I wouldn't have guessed there's that big a market there yet to warrant special graphics cards though.
So, just my guess, take it for what it's worth.
Considering that we don't even know what carrier he's using...
Obviously an AC troll.
Nothing to see here folks.
Still seems a bit excessive. Back when I was on Verizon for... eh, 5 years? I had to call in once, twice at the most. Since I'm on prepaid I've had to call in never. You're right, it's not worth complaining, and I wouldn't. But I'd still take my business elsewhere.
I like and approve your attitude... but good god your carrier sucks. I've never had any kind of service, of any type, ever where I had to call in that often, nevermind go in to their b&m location. I'd have long since moved on so I could enjoy my life even more.
That's fine with me. The prepaid third-party carrier I'm using is cheaper and still gets a cut too, so that means the carrier(s) whose network(s) I'm using get FAR less money than they would if I'd be going direct. So if they can sell service to a third party, who sells it for cheaper than direct customers get it, what does that tell you?
I've been using prepaid for a few years now. Tried Boost first, didn't like it. Switched to Straight Talk which was OK. Then just recently I switched over to Page Plus. Liking it a lot better. Page Plus uses Verizon's network and just about any Verizon phone can be activated on their service without being unlocked (though 4G/LTE phones can be a pain). That said, all of the prepaid carriers I tried were a fine replacement for a contract carrier, and far less expensive.
Yeah that was my first thought too.
If you click on the first link you'll see that out of Mexico's 11.07 firearm-related-deaths per 100K 10.0 of them are homicides and .67 are suicides. Meanwhile, of the US's 10.2, 3.2 are homicides and 6.3 are suicides.
As of 2010, Mexico had 11.07 firearm-related deaths per 100K people, compared to 10.2 for the US. As of 2007, Mexico had 15 guns per 100 people, compared to 88.8 for the US. So slightly higher firearm-related deaths percapita, but far fewer guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yeah, because one "mass" murder of 20 people is worse than a hundred individual muggings/stabbings, right?
Your arguments are based on nothing but emotion and FUD, and it's becoming more and more apparent.
By far the majority of deaths on American soil from mass murders did not involve guns at all.
The violence, obviously. Violence predates guns by millennia. So do laws against violence. But almost certainly the violence came first, as there's really no reason to make laws to prevent something that doesn't exist.
Honestly, did you even think before you asked?
Wish I had mod points for this post. Needs to be voted up.
First, the US is not Germany. What works in Germany won't work the same way in the US. The US is a much bigger country and has far more different ethnicities mixed up in one big pot - which leads to lots of homicides all on its own, with and without firearms. There's also many other factors.
Second, the statistic on firearm homicides as releates to gun control means absolutely nothing if you don't also have the statistic on how many of those homicides were commited with illegal firearms. I'd be willing to bet a nice chunk of change on the speculation that the vast majority (I'd bet possibly 90% or better) of those homicides in the US are with illegal firearms. I'd also posit that's a far more reasonable assumption than the inverse.
So find me a statistic that clearly shows the US has more homicides per capita with legal firemarms than Germany does. Until then, your argument for more restrictive gun control means nothing.
I know many people who own firearms - several hundred at least. (Hint: in rural areas, many people hunt... using firearms.) I don't know anyone who's ever been involved in any kind firearm tragedy.
If anything, Glass could make texting less dangerous. Texting is currently highly dangerous because you have to completely look away from driving and focus on the phone. And you can't and never will stop such cell phone use from happening and creating accidents because it's way too difficult for law enforcement to see and prove. (Hint: it's not just texting, it's also things like phone GPS.) So we're going to legislate away something that could make it less dangerous? Brilliant.
If simple distractions really were that high-risk, we shouldn't be driving at all because they happen all the time. Even things like road signs or checking something on the dashboard can be as distracting as Glass would be.
Using our current system: sun's overhead - what time is it? Roughly noon, no matter where you are on the globe, it's roughly noon, local time.
No it's not. DST takes care of that. For example, right now, in Indiana, the sun will be at high noon when the clock shows somewhere between 1:30-1:45, depending on your exact location in the state. Clock time in California is closer to sun time in Indiana than Indiana's clock time is during DST. The same will be true for any areas on the far edges of time zones.
So again, why bother with time zones at all if your clocks are going to be off by as much as an hour and forty-five minutes? May as well go with GMT as 12:00 means nothing. It's not noon and not midnight, not even close.
Some of us don't have garages you insensitive clod.
And other studies done when DST was increased a few years ago showed increased energy use due to more home AC use. AC uses a lot more power than artificial lighting, and home AC is generally a lot less efficient than commercial AC.
But that's all moot, because you can achieve the same thing as DST simply by having places of business open and close an hour earlier. Except, of course, without the downside of stupidly forcing everyone to change their clocks and adjust to a different time twice a year.
So how about this: just switch to DST year-round. Maybe then people will realize how stupid it is to set clocks off by an hour. I mean really, if we're going to do this it makes more sense to simply use GMT everywhere and forget about time zones all together. After all, we're already not using the best time for our time zones so having clocks for any purpose other than keeping track of time is already gone.
He probably admitted to it himself, completely underestimating the sheer stupidity our justice system is capable of.