HD manufactures have not "Always" used base 10. They started out using base 2 and converted to base 10 when some marketing genius figured out you could cut costs by mislabeling your merchandise.
A bit is not an SI unit. A Byte is not an SI unit. A GB and a Gb are not accepted SI notation. Each has its own accepted context. A bit is a base 10 unit a byte is a base 2 unit. If you want to report your storage space in bytes it is accepted that you are reporting in base 2. If you would rather report in base 10 thats fine. You can advertise 8Gigabits, You can advertise 1 Billion Bytes, but you can not say that a GB is anything other then 2^30 bytes.
A Byte is not an accepted SI unit of measurement therefore there is not a reasonable expectation that a gigabyte be 1 billion bytes. Since a byte is 2^3 bits to begin with its is even more unacceptable to think of as a base 10 operation. If seagate was advertising 8 Gigabits instead of 1 Gigabyte that would be more acceptable. 1 Gigabyte has always been accepted to mean 2^30 Bytes. 1 gigabit has always been 10^9 bits. They could have advertised as 1 Billion Bytes as well. You can not change the accepted notation just because it suits you. A mile is 5280 feet if you are in a car but 1852 meters if you are in a boat. Context matters.
Actually some people have made a lot of money on the fact that roulette wheels have an intrinsic bias because they are physical mechanisms. By the same token it may be possible that the lottery machines have some sort of physical bias. For example. The balls with 1 painted on them might be slightly heavier then the balls with 8 painted on them causing 1 to show up slightly more often then 8.
Intel caters to high end users because there is no profit in low end users. The gains made in CPU power in the last 5 years have had little effect on your average user. Most of the computers sold today don't do anything that an old PIII couldn't do back in 1999. People surf the internet, read email, use productivity apps, listen to music, watch movies, maybe some photo albums. That covers the vast majority of users. The last 10% of science, engineering, gaming, and server apps is where Intel makes its bread a butter.
Your not really on rails. You can at anytime release the guy, shoot the guy snap his neck, drag him anywhere you want. You can do pretty much anything. Most of those things will automatically fail your mission but that is very different. Splinter Cell is a linear game for the most part. There are things you must do to continue but that is a totally different compliant.
The strategy in a game should come from choosing your cards correctly, not from buying tons of cards looking for a game winner. I will never play these "collector" games because they are only a gimmick to get you to shell out tons of money. Any good game is balanced so that when two people play together the game itself isn't biased towards one or the other. There are many hundreds of games like this and many have been played for hundreds of years. I see no reason to buy a game that is intentionally flawed in order to extract money from you.
Only in the US. In many other markets you can walk in and get a contract with no strings attached. Then you buy a phone with more features then the "free" ones you get in the US. You walk out the door paying significantly less then you do in the US. Its anti-competitive practices that flourish in the US that keep prices high and features low. Good for Big Business bad for you.
Apple has of course missed the boat as well. Why make $800 on 2 million handsets when you could have been making $250 on 10 million handsets + licensing the API + selling software. I think Apple killed the goose that laid the golden egg on this one. Sure they might be eating well right now but its nothing compared to what they could have had.
Its funny how the only console maker to consistently make money is the one who doesn't do that. Nintendo just revised earnings to $3.7 billion for this year.
The shuttle is much larger and can carry far more of a payload. The shuttle can carry up to 24,400 kg to low earth orbit, that is substantially more then the Soyuz can carry. Many of the segments of the ISS were only able to be lifted into orbit with the Shuttle.
The cost of a 1Mbps network does not differ drastically from the cost of a 100MBps network. The cost of internet service is not at all proportional to the quality of service. Fundamentally, once you have any network already built the only cost you have left is the maintenance of the network. Maintaining a 100MBps network is not anymore costly then maintaining our current network. Prices only go up when you begin to reach network capacity demanding more build out. This is the fundamental reason other countries have better internet then we do. They built thier networks later then we did and they are capable of handling more bandwidth then our are.
We have been piggybacking on old infrastructure for too long. The problem is that few are willing to take the risk to build out a new network. One of the few companies actually rolling out a new network is Verizon. The problem here is that they have a monopoly on that network and The risk for building the network is quite high. This leads to Verizon trying to leverage their FIOS network as far as it can go. If Verizon succeeds they will ultimately earn many times what it cost to build an maintain the FIOS network in the first place. What this means for you is higher prices for less service.
What needs to be done is the US government needs to set up an independent not for profit company to build an maintain a national internet backbone. It would be run similar to the USPS in that it would be self sufficient but not for profit. It would most likely be funded by Bonds so that the full cost of the network can be amortized over many years. This USNet would then whole-sell bandwidth to ISP's and content providers at set rates. These fees would be used to pay back the bonds used to build the network and to pay for the continued maintenance of the network. Ideally the entire cost of building and maintaining the network for its entire usefull life would be covered by these fees and not a penny more. In reality the network would probably pay itself off before it becomes obsolete. These additional funds can be pushed back into expanding capabilities to extend the use able life.
Really, it is just not wise to leave vital infrastructure in the hands of private business. One of the reasons the US emerged as a world power after WWII was government funding of critical pubic infrastructure. If you look at our history most of our infrastructure was built with public funding. Our roads, telecommunications, power, postal service and more are all either government projects or a government/private cooperative effort. We have reaped the dividends of those efforts for many years and they are, in no small part, responsible for the economic power of this country.
Algae can double its mass every few hours under the correct conditions. Just add Sunlight, heat, and some fertilizer and you can grow a pond full of algae in an afternoon. Algae is essentially a group of simple organisms that live in water and are capable of photosynthesis. They are as much bacteria as they are plants and they reproduce frighteningly fast.
90% of computers in the business world don't need anything better then Windows 2000. Heck, Most business computers would be fine running Windows NT. Most PC's in the business world are set up to do basic data entry and retrieval and don't need to do anything else. The Bank teller doesn't need DirectX 10. The call center worker doesn't need an advanced GUI. The Mechanic doesn't need a Quad core CPU. What businesses do need is a reliable long term solution that runs with minimal trouble.
Also, interesting to note that it is a Christian group that is opposing the sale of the video game. I can completely understand that because, frankly, If I were Cristian I would probably be very offended to be portrayed in that type of light.
#1) I never said the game was better or worse then any other. I simply said that its hypocritical of the religious right. They put out an "incredibly violent video game" but it is fine so long as you play the Christians. Killing is wrong but killing in the name of God is fine. In GTA, at least, you are never given the illusion that what you are doing in acceptable or moral in any way.
Just to be clear I do not have a problem with the game itself; Free speech and all. What I do have a problem with is the religious right taking the moral high ground and then coming out with hateful intolerant drivel like this. GTA might be a horrible, violent video game about gang wars and killing hookers but it at least has the decency to not pretend that murder is right.
Among other choice quotes:
When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game.
"That is so obvious," he said.
But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior Thats right folks. Its OK to kill Muslims because they don't believe in Jesus. Its tons of fun for the whole family. Thats right Little Johny, shoot those non-believers.
Slashdot Mirror
So you use Sony's hardware to steal software from Nintendo and Sega. Thats a shining example of why people should buy the PSP alright.
HD manufactures have not "Always" used base 10. They started out using base 2 and converted to base 10 when some marketing genius figured out you could cut costs by mislabeling your merchandise.
A bit is not an SI unit. A Byte is not an SI unit. A GB and a Gb are not accepted SI notation. Each has its own accepted context. A bit is a base 10 unit a byte is a base 2 unit. If you want to report your storage space in bytes it is accepted that you are reporting in base 2. If you would rather report in base 10 thats fine. You can advertise 8Gigabits, You can advertise 1 Billion Bytes, but you can not say that a GB is anything other then 2^30 bytes.
A Byte is not an accepted SI unit of measurement therefore there is not a reasonable expectation that a gigabyte be 1 billion bytes. Since a byte is 2^3 bits to begin with its is even more unacceptable to think of as a base 10 operation. If seagate was advertising 8 Gigabits instead of 1 Gigabyte that would be more acceptable. 1 Gigabyte has always been accepted to mean 2^30 Bytes. 1 gigabit has always been 10^9 bits. They could have advertised as 1 Billion Bytes as well. You can not change the accepted notation just because it suits you. A mile is 5280 feet if you are in a car but 1852 meters if you are in a boat. Context matters.
SI was set as an agreed standard in 1960. ENIAC was first run in 1946. Care to try again?
No, the reason they rejected him is because he was not trying to be a legitimate candidate.
Actually some people have made a lot of money on the fact that roulette wheels have an intrinsic bias because they are physical mechanisms. By the same token it may be possible that the lottery machines have some sort of physical bias. For example. The balls with 1 painted on them might be slightly heavier then the balls with 8 painted on them causing 1 to show up slightly more often then 8.
Intel caters to high end users because there is no profit in low end users. The gains made in CPU power in the last 5 years have had little effect on your average user. Most of the computers sold today don't do anything that an old PIII couldn't do back in 1999. People surf the internet, read email, use productivity apps, listen to music, watch movies, maybe some photo albums. That covers the vast majority of users. The last 10% of science, engineering, gaming, and server apps is where Intel makes its bread a butter.
Your not really on rails. You can at anytime release the guy, shoot the guy snap his neck, drag him anywhere you want. You can do pretty much anything. Most of those things will automatically fail your mission but that is very different. Splinter Cell is a linear game for the most part. There are things you must do to continue but that is a totally different compliant.
The strategy in a game should come from choosing your cards correctly, not from buying tons of cards looking for a game winner. I will never play these "collector" games because they are only a gimmick to get you to shell out tons of money. Any good game is balanced so that when two people play together the game itself isn't biased towards one or the other. There are many hundreds of games like this and many have been played for hundreds of years. I see no reason to buy a game that is intentionally flawed in order to extract money from you.
Only in the US. In many other markets you can walk in and get a contract with no strings attached. Then you buy a phone with more features then the "free" ones you get in the US. You walk out the door paying significantly less then you do in the US. Its anti-competitive practices that flourish in the US that keep prices high and features low. Good for Big Business bad for you.
Apple has of course missed the boat as well. Why make $800 on 2 million handsets when you could have been making $250 on 10 million handsets + licensing the API + selling software. I think Apple killed the goose that laid the golden egg on this one. Sure they might be eating well right now but its nothing compared to what they could have had.
Its funny how the only console maker to consistently make money is the one who doesn't do that. Nintendo just revised earnings to $3.7 billion for this year.
The shuttle is much larger and can carry far more of a payload. The shuttle can carry up to 24,400 kg to low earth orbit, that is substantially more then the Soyuz can carry. Many of the segments of the ISS were only able to be lifted into orbit with the Shuttle.
Actually, Labels usually give artists an advance. They have to pay that back out of their royalties.
The cost of a 1Mbps network does not differ drastically from the cost of a 100MBps network. The cost of internet service is not at all proportional to the quality of service. Fundamentally, once you have any network already built the only cost you have left is the maintenance of the network. Maintaining a 100MBps network is not anymore costly then maintaining our current network. Prices only go up when you begin to reach network capacity demanding more build out. This is the fundamental reason other countries have better internet then we do. They built thier networks later then we did and they are capable of handling more bandwidth then our are. We have been piggybacking on old infrastructure for too long. The problem is that few are willing to take the risk to build out a new network. One of the few companies actually rolling out a new network is Verizon. The problem here is that they have a monopoly on that network and The risk for building the network is quite high. This leads to Verizon trying to leverage their FIOS network as far as it can go. If Verizon succeeds they will ultimately earn many times what it cost to build an maintain the FIOS network in the first place. What this means for you is higher prices for less service. What needs to be done is the US government needs to set up an independent not for profit company to build an maintain a national internet backbone. It would be run similar to the USPS in that it would be self sufficient but not for profit. It would most likely be funded by Bonds so that the full cost of the network can be amortized over many years. This USNet would then whole-sell bandwidth to ISP's and content providers at set rates. These fees would be used to pay back the bonds used to build the network and to pay for the continued maintenance of the network. Ideally the entire cost of building and maintaining the network for its entire usefull life would be covered by these fees and not a penny more. In reality the network would probably pay itself off before it becomes obsolete. These additional funds can be pushed back into expanding capabilities to extend the use able life. Really, it is just not wise to leave vital infrastructure in the hands of private business. One of the reasons the US emerged as a world power after WWII was government funding of critical pubic infrastructure. If you look at our history most of our infrastructure was built with public funding. Our roads, telecommunications, power, postal service and more are all either government projects or a government/private cooperative effort. We have reaped the dividends of those efforts for many years and they are, in no small part, responsible for the economic power of this country.
Because dogs eat protein so that would defeat the purpose.
Algae can double its mass every few hours under the correct conditions. Just add Sunlight, heat, and some fertilizer and you can grow a pond full of algae in an afternoon. Algae is essentially a group of simple organisms that live in water and are capable of photosynthesis. They are as much bacteria as they are plants and they reproduce frighteningly fast.
This is, of course, a version of the broken window fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken _window
In short money spent upgrading old systems that work fine is just wasted money.
90% of computers in the business world don't need anything better then Windows 2000. Heck, Most business computers would be fine running Windows NT. Most PC's in the business world are set up to do basic data entry and retrieval and don't need to do anything else. The Bank teller doesn't need DirectX 10. The call center worker doesn't need an advanced GUI. The Mechanic doesn't need a Quad core CPU. What businesses do need is a reliable long term solution that runs with minimal trouble.
Also, interesting to note that it is a Christian group that is opposing the sale of the video game. I can completely understand that because, frankly, If I were Cristian I would probably be very offended to be portrayed in that type of light.
#1) I never said the game was better or worse then any other. I simply said that its hypocritical of the religious right. They put out an "incredibly violent video game" but it is fine so long as you play the Christians. Killing is wrong but killing in the name of God is fine. In GTA, at least, you are never given the illusion that what you are doing in acceptable or moral in any way.
Just to be clear I do not have a problem with the game itself; Free speech and all. What I do have a problem with is the religious right taking the moral high ground and then coming out with hateful intolerant drivel like this. GTA might be a horrible, violent video game about gang wars and killing hookers but it at least has the decency to not pretend that murder is right.
If they made a MX518 in a wireless version I would be all over it. Until then I just cant seem to find a mouse I like as much as my MX700.