you're part right - it's not about being "leet" but there's 2 trackers for music that I'm a "member" of that have pretty much everything you could ever ask for.
Checking the stats on the front page just now, the better of the two has 1.3 million torrents on it - 611K unique releases. The numbers are different because many releases are available in multiple formats (FLAC, 320k mp3, 256k mp3, etc)
You do need an invite, and that can be problematic if you don't know anyone personally that is already a member. But like Trent Reznor once said about the precursor to these sites that was rudely taken down by the UK (USA?) gov't, "I’ll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made **** a great place was that it was like the world’s greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If **** cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. "
So it's well worth it to put in a little effort to find an invite. if you're into that kind of thing, and worried about getting a nasty RIAA letter.
I don't know why anyone bothers responding to these "apple stock is a bubble OMG!!!!" guys. They've been saying this for years and the fact is, if they knew anything at all for certain, they'd have shorted the stock to make tons of money off the "bubble" bursting.
Of course, if they had done that, they'd have lost their shirts as the stock kept rising instead. In other words, they're morons, including this guy Colin.
Complete lie. You could make an argument that Japan would've surrendered after the first bomb, and the bombing of Nagasaki wasn't necessary (we made no attempt to secure a surrender in the few days in between). However, to say they were looking to surrender before the bombing of Hiroshima is a fabrication, plain and simple. You deserved to get modded down for that and I'm glad you were.
There's nothing new about old people comparing "today's society" to the utopia that supposedly existed in their own youth, and proclaiming the end of civilization as we know it.
I doubt anyone would care if no loose change was accounted for. The frickin' budget of the TSA is over $8 billion. Who cares about $400,000? That amount (.005%) could be added or dropped from their budget by an intern in Congress.
No, he's right. 52" was big 5 years ago, when I bought my 50" plasma. Once that dies I'm certainly going up in size to about 60". Anyway, I think what he really meant was that 52" is small when you're talking about it in the context of showing something in 3D - as the summary said, it makes way more sense in a movie theater.
Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.
It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.
Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.
There is no doubt that the best movies were made in the late 60s and 70s -- when I was still a child...... But to reiterate the point, most people who know something about cinema and watch a lot of movies will agree that the best movies were made in the late 60s and 70s.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. But if you're not, I take back what I said to the poster below this: YOU, sir, are the grand champion of all time, of proving the point I made above, while simultaneously attempting to refute it.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
Wow, very selective reading of history there. From the second sentence of the article you cited: "Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established by the Treaty of Versailles following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, sought to secure territories it had lost at the time of partitions; the Soviet states aimed to control those same territories." So more accurately, the Soviets were taking territory that had been taken back by the Poles because it was theirs (the Poles') in the first place.
Bullshit. XP was 2001, Vista was 2007. And he did say "like a decade", so fine, he rounded up. 6 years is like an eternity in between OSes anyway; it certainly felt like a decade by the time the long-promised "Longhorn" became reality.
And Vista was a huge success too.
Laughable. Probably the most hated OS released by anyone since Windows Millenium.
How long between vista and 7? how long between 7 and 8? How about windows 98, me, and 2000?
He was specifically only talking about the lag between XP and Vista. And you're missing his point entirely - even though it took 6 years, negating the "speed to market" point, the OS still sucked, so "quality of software" not really a valid point either. Basically what I'm saying is he ripped you apart in two short sentences, it went over your head, and I just wasted 3 minutes of my life explaining it to you.
Or maybe I think, like most of the civilized world, that beating your kid will, in the long run, do more harm than good. I'd submit that the case of the judge and his now-23-year-old daughter is pretty good evidence toward that point. Maybe you were just trying to be funny; sorry, I don't find child abuse amusing.
I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again.
There are people who are going to think Apple were first to do it for the masses, just like they do with GUIs, smartphones and tablets.
And they were.
Okay, that's probably not what you meant, but it's more accurate. At the end of the day, if the nerds don't care for Apple and would rather use something else, fine. But to argue that there's some value in being first when your product "exceeded consumers' fiddle tolerance" (great way to put it earlier, sarhjinian, I thank you) and not enough people bought it to make it huge... well, that's just silly.
How did all of you miss his (satirically stated) point? Was it too obvious when he word-for-word parodied the GP's post? Jeezus. News for nerds, my ass.
So you're saying that both metro areas are huge. Yeah, we know. Anyway, 600 sq miles is not double 482 sq miles. In fact, when you take into consideration the fact that you have to go over and thru a half-dozen bridges and tunnels to get from one end of New York City to the other (try it sometime during rush hour, it's fun), those choke points make it much more of a pain in the ass to do than driving thru London.
1) Value of a stock is based on what investors think it will be worth in the future, not growth models of future cash flows.
2) No shit. So what?
I know you haven't shorted them because guys that gamble on stocks by buying and shorting them don't pontificate on Slashdot about investment strategy that they know just enough about to be dangerous to themselves if they ever did short a stock. And saying "And it will correct" - well, congratulations, Warren Buffett. You just told me that stocks go up and down. Wow, what a revelation.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
Greater London may be 600 square miles (New York is actually 482 sq miles, if you include the water, which you should, since you have to go over it to get from one part of the city to another) but Greater New York is 11,842 sq miles.
And by the way, Apple fanboy??? This was a comment on stock prices, not Apple. Whether or not Apple is cool has zero to do with the FUTURE stock price. Whether or not Apple is cool in the FUTURE can affect the stock price, but you don't know which direction that's going, either.
They don't need to maintain 24% growth indefinitely for their current stock price to accurately reflect its value. Anyway, it's pointless to argue about that because you're missing my entire very simple point. A share of Apple stock is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it right now.
If you're 100% sure it's overvalued, why wouldn't you short the stock with whatever money you have saved up right now? You'd make a killing, if you're right. Point is, you're NOT 100% sure it's overvalued. No one is sure whether it's over or undervalued - that's the nature of the stock market, by definition, really.
Slashdot Mirror
you're part right - it's not about being "leet" but there's 2 trackers for music that I'm a "member" of that have pretty much everything you could ever ask for.
Checking the stats on the front page just now, the better of the two has 1.3 million torrents on it - 611K unique releases. The numbers are different because many releases are available in multiple formats (FLAC, 320k mp3, 256k mp3, etc)
You do need an invite, and that can be problematic if you don't know anyone personally that is already a member. But like Trent Reznor once said about the precursor to these sites that was rudely taken down by the UK (USA?) gov't, "I’ll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made **** a great place was that it was like the world’s greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If **** cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn’t the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. "
So it's well worth it to put in a little effort to find an invite. if you're into that kind of thing, and worried about getting a nasty RIAA letter.
I don't know why anyone bothers responding to these "apple stock is a bubble OMG!!!!" guys. They've been saying this for years and the fact is, if they knew anything at all for certain, they'd have shorted the stock to make tons of money off the "bubble" bursting. Of course, if they had done that, they'd have lost their shirts as the stock kept rising instead. In other words, they're morons, including this guy Colin.
Complete lie. You could make an argument that Japan would've surrendered after the first bomb, and the bombing of Nagasaki wasn't necessary (we made no attempt to secure a surrender in the few days in between). However, to say they were looking to surrender before the bombing of Hiroshima is a fabrication, plain and simple. You deserved to get modded down for that and I'm glad you were.
..., to I Love Jeannie, .....
Am I the only one that thinks a show combining I Love Lucy and I Dream of Jeannie would be a great idea?
There's nothing new about old people comparing "today's society" to the utopia that supposedly existed in their own youth, and proclaiming the end of civilization as we know it.
Or, failing that, maybe he just never actually said it.
I doubt anyone would care if no loose change was accounted for. The frickin' budget of the TSA is over $8 billion. Who cares about $400,000? That amount (.005%) could be added or dropped from their budget by an intern in Congress.
No, he's right. 52" was big 5 years ago, when I bought my 50" plasma. Once that dies I'm certainly going up in size to about 60". Anyway, I think what he really meant was that 52" is small when you're talking about it in the context of showing something in 3D - as the summary said, it makes way more sense in a movie theater.
Your kids agree with you probably because you're a good parent. Kudos to you on that; nothing wrong with it. No brainwashing required; you feel strongly on the subject, they subconsciously want to please you, and so they agree. Also, I never said kids won't like older movies; I like the classics too that I watched as a kid. The pattern of behavior I described doesn't fully realize itself until after one hits 30, I notice.
It's not nostalgia, either. It's a genuine like of the stuff you saw as a young adult. Even your one-off example of Aliens actually proves my point - I was young when that came out and I think it was awesome (saw it before I saw Alien, too). But I was old enough already to read reviews, and I distinctly remember the reviews of the day - some of them, at least - complaining that they'd taken the masterfully suspenseful Alien, done a lame sequel to it and filled it with action sequences so that you wouldn't notice what a bad movie it was. And who wrote those reviews? Old people that enjoyed Alien a whole lot when it came out.
Battle: Los Angeles is bad, of course. But then again, there's a shitload of bad movies from the late 70's and early 80's that you and I have already forgotten. A tangential point to my original is that every decade produces some great movies and a ton of bad ones, and the older you are, the more likely you are to pooh-pooh even the good movies from the current decade.
There is no doubt that the best movies were made in the late 60s and 70s -- when I was still a child...... But to reiterate the point, most people who know something about cinema and watch a lot of movies will agree that the best movies were made in the late 60s and 70s.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. But if you're not, I take back what I said to the poster below this: YOU, sir, are the grand champion of all time, of proving the point I made above, while simultaneously attempting to refute it.
You could not have provided a better example of proving my point if you had tried.
I hate it when I look past the summary for insightful commentary on what Ebert said, and all I see for the next 1000 comments is old people complaining how movies were much better when they were in their childhood and possibly early 20's.
Of course, what decade that was totally depends on just HOW old the person commenting is. People never seem to realize that one universal constant - while you're growing up, you watch a bunch of stuff (and listen to a bunch of music), and some of it you think is pretty awesome. Then you get old, and you complain EVERYTHING now sucks. It's been true for decades, if not centuries.
They would be the wrong ones to ask. Rather ask Wikipedia and you shall receive: USSR was just taking back what was theirs in first place so that one was not a valid rebuke.
Wow, very selective reading of history there. From the second sentence of the article you cited: "Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established by the Treaty of Versailles following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, sought to secure territories it had lost at the time of partitions; the Soviet states aimed to control those same territories." So more accurately, the Soviets were taking territory that had been taken back by the Poles because it was theirs (the Poles') in the first place.
Vonnegut's overrated.
Only if you don't like his work.
Who cares?
A decade? Windows XP was 2003,
Bullshit. XP was 2001, Vista was 2007. And he did say "like a decade", so fine, he rounded up. 6 years is like an eternity in between OSes anyway; it certainly felt like a decade by the time the long-promised "Longhorn" became reality.
And Vista was a huge success too.
Laughable. Probably the most hated OS released by anyone since Windows Millenium.
How long between vista and 7? how long between 7 and 8? How about windows 98, me, and 2000?
He was specifically only talking about the lag between XP and Vista. And you're missing his point entirely - even though it took 6 years, negating the "speed to market" point, the OS still sucked, so "quality of software" not really a valid point either. Basically what I'm saying is he ripped you apart in two short sentences, it went over your head, and I just wasted 3 minutes of my life explaining it to you.
Or maybe I think, like most of the civilized world, that beating your kid will, in the long run, do more harm than good. I'd submit that the case of the judge and his now-23-year-old daughter is pretty good evidence toward that point. Maybe you were just trying to be funny; sorry, I don't find child abuse amusing.
I was spanked with a razor belt more times than I care to count when I was growing up. Not radically different than this. You can bet I didn't do whatever caused the whipping again.
Oh, that makes it okay then. Fuck you, asshole.
There are people who are going to think Apple were first to do it for the masses, just like they do with GUIs, smartphones and tablets.
And they were.
Okay, that's probably not what you meant, but it's more accurate. At the end of the day, if the nerds don't care for Apple and would rather use something else, fine. But to argue that there's some value in being first when your product "exceeded consumers' fiddle tolerance" (great way to put it earlier, sarhjinian, I thank you) and not enough people bought it to make it huge... well, that's just silly.
How did all of you miss his (satirically stated) point? Was it too obvious when he word-for-word parodied the GP's post? Jeezus. News for nerds, my ass.
So you're saying that both metro areas are huge. Yeah, we know. Anyway, 600 sq miles is not double 482 sq miles. In fact, when you take into consideration the fact that you have to go over and thru a half-dozen bridges and tunnels to get from one end of New York City to the other (try it sometime during rush hour, it's fun), those choke points make it much more of a pain in the ass to do than driving thru London.
1) Value of a stock is based on what investors think it will be worth in the future, not growth models of future cash flows.
2) No shit. So what?
I know you haven't shorted them because guys that gamble on stocks by buying and shorting them don't pontificate on Slashdot about investment strategy that they know just enough about to be dangerous to themselves if they ever did short a stock. And saying "And it will correct" - well, congratulations, Warren Buffett. You just told me that stocks go up and down. Wow, what a revelation.
Or just try to get from where I am in London to the Olympic area. I can get to France quicker. Yes, Greater London is over 600 square miles, about twice the area of New York City.
Greater London may be 600 square miles (New York is actually 482 sq miles, if you include the water, which you should, since you have to go over it to get from one part of the city to another) but Greater New York is 11,842 sq miles.
And by the way, Apple fanboy??? This was a comment on stock prices, not Apple. Whether or not Apple is cool has zero to do with the FUTURE stock price. Whether or not Apple is cool in the FUTURE can affect the stock price, but you don't know which direction that's going, either.
They don't need to maintain 24% growth indefinitely for their current stock price to accurately reflect its value. Anyway, it's pointless to argue about that because you're missing my entire very simple point. A share of Apple stock is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it right now.
If you're 100% sure it's overvalued, why wouldn't you short the stock with whatever money you have saved up right now? You'd make a killing, if you're right. Point is, you're NOT 100% sure it's overvalued. No one is sure whether it's over or undervalued - that's the nature of the stock market, by definition, really.