That's exactly why I only have the free base-channels. I'm not offered the channels I want individually, only in bundles, so I choose not to buy any extra channels since I refuse to pay for channels I don't want.
If enough people did this, the cable companies would be forced to offer channels à la carte. Unfortunately, most people simply pay up and shut up.
On the other hand, if people actually stopped paying for crappy channels, the cable companies would probably cry piracy instead of correcting their flawed business practice.
On a side note: What the hell is ESPN, why don't they sell their service on a "per customer" basis instead of on a "everyone pays weather or not they are a customer or not" and why would any ISP agree to that kind of idiotic way of selling a service?
There's other concerns with coal, besides the CO2. The ash and particle-filters are full of heavy-metals and radioactive substances that mustn't be released into the environment.
The fun thing about Denmark as a wind-power user, is that most of what they don't produce with wind are produced with coal, which is just about the worst energy-source there is. =)
Actually, I've never even heard of "New Coke". Sounds like something akin to "Crack Heroin" though. ^_^ No, I was referring to hype in general and the repetition of hype that people tend to fling as their opinions about the hyped product, which tend to be more like mass hallucinations than a usable source of informed opinions.
Would Microsucks deliberately introduce a shitty product to make the next one look better?
That raises the interesting question of; Have the people who praise Windows 7 as the OS god created made side-by-side comparisons with XP as well? All you hear is "7 is soo much better than Vista!" Well, since Vista seems to carry the title "Worst OS ever" in the public-mind, the praise "much better than Vista" doesn't say much. Is it better than XP? Is so much better than XP that it's worth buying if you run XP?
You seem to have underestimated the power of hype, media gullibility and consumer gullibility.
It was expected of both people and media to rant about how bad Vista was and thus everyone was ranting about how bad Vista was. Anyone saying otherwise was wrong, regardless of any facts. Today, it is expected to rant about how much better than 7 is, and therefore people and media does it and facts are not being involved.
My personal opinion, after using the 7b, is that it isn't as good as the hype would have me believe, just as Vista wasn't as bad as the hype would have me believe.
In short: Never listen to hype, it is always wrong.
Everything I like about Windows 7 could have been done with Vista and the taskbar improvements.
I've also tried out Windows 7, and I don't really understand exactly what it is people find so much better about W7 over WV. Most things I don't like about Vista is more or less identical in 7.
On the other hand, I don't think Vista is as bad as people claim either. It feels like there was a huge anti-hype that lots of people bought into about Vista. Now it feels like MS has managed to get more or less the same people to buy into a huge hype the other way about 7, even thought the differences in reality is rather small.
Vista wasn't as bad as the hype claimed. 7 isn't as good as the hype claims.
They should have a tool that gives you a list of software that is available for free and that automatically downloads and installs them for you if you select them.
I hated Vista with a passion, but so far I am really happy with Windows 7.
But what does that have to do with not replacing IE? I assume W7b comes with IE8b, unless they're developing a new W7-browser alongside IE8. Personally, I think both IE7 and IE8b sucks more than IE6 ever did, in an interface point of view.
Exactly. If I could buy, say, a laptop that can't be bought without an OS or with a free OS bundled with a Starter Edition at a reduced price-point, I'd gladly go it. I have several Vista and XP licenses already that aren't OEM licenses and thus not bound to any specific hardware, even in the eyes of Microsoft. It makes no sense for me to pay for yet another full version of an OS when buying a new OEM computer.
Problem is, the lowest version you can usually get is Home Basic... =(
Or suppose it was medicine -- you'd have people dying because they couldn't afford the prices of the main supplier, and their competitors couldn't use the formula.
I mean, look at this. It's clearly Apple's IP. It's clearly a new invention.
What is the new invention? The interface itself? Hmm. Maybe, but an idea of how to arrange graphical objects on a screen shouldn't be patentable.
The actual touchscreen? Well... I haven't seen many solid glass touchscreens before, but I have seen them, only bigger. It might be an evolution or adaption of an old invention. If it's a new way of designing touchscreens, that exact design is indeed something that should be patentable.
The act of registering more than one finger at once on a touchscreen? Might be a new idea, but hardly a new invention and it should definitely not be patentable.
they're just amazingly dense collections of huge quantities of matter
Nope. A black hole is simply any kind of mass compressed until the particles collapse into a size smaller than the event horizon of that mass. The actual amount of mass is of no consequence.
What gravitational pull can a handful of particles have no matter how dense they are?
This is also why such a black hole would be harmless. If you create a black hole with the mass of two protons, it will have the gravitational pull of two protons. If it absorbs another proton, it will have the gravitational pull of three protons.
A black hole of this mass would be very, very tiny, and it would need to actually get close enough to a particle to start interact with it. On these scales, the distance between atoms is huge and so is the distance between the nucleus and electrons, so this would be a rather rare event.
Second, a proton here and an electron there every once in a while, when it gets close enouch, would increase the mass of the hole very little. How long would it take for a 1 microgram hole to reach 2 microgram, even if you add a whole atom every second or so?
This is also disregarding the possible existence of Hawking radiation, which makes black holes loose mass and which would probably make a small black hole lose mass faster than it can absorb it.
Why? Do you think they've monopolized the desktop OS market or the Web browser market? Or do you just not understand antitrust law at all and haven't bothered listening to the dozens of explanations people write every time this issue comes up?
One could make the argument, though, that they should offer their computers without an OS or with Windows or Linux as an option instead of forcing them to be bundled with OS X. I know some people who only run Linux on their Macs, and I'd say they'd gladly be able to buy them without the "OS X tax". (Apple do charge for their OS, so it would be logical that one without it would be cheaper)
I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox.
1. This would only affect those who use stand-alone Windows licenses or unlicensed Windows, since OEM's would bundle some kind of time-limited trial-version of a commercial browser, making it possible to download Firefox or such.
2. Windows comes bundled with a command-line ftp-client. Also, unless this goes away if you remove Internet Explorer, you can also use a regular Explorer windows as an ftp-client. Most browsers are available as ftp downloads, so there really is no major problems getting a browser anyway.
It might not be a question of either wired or wireless.
Personally, I view wireless networks as a very useful complement to wired. I'd never go completely wireless, especially not for stationary computers or for doing any larger file transfers, but I'd loathe to go back to being completely wired too...
are these molecules simply patterned energy and not teeny atomic particles orbiting a nucleus?
You seem to have misunderstood several concepts regarding mass, energy, light, matter and how they relate to one-another. A startingpoint would be to skim through the wikipedia-entries on subjects like: The theory of relativity Mass Matter Energy and also read up on subjects that relate to those subjects.
The question is; Why is hardware-manufacturers who don't make computers bundled with Vista aiding MS in it's quest to make modern hardware hard or impossible to use on most systems currently in use?
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly why I only have the free base-channels.
I'm not offered the channels I want individually, only in bundles, so I choose not to buy any extra channels since I refuse to pay for channels I don't want.
If enough people did this, the cable companies would be forced to offer channels à la carte.
Unfortunately, most people simply pay up and shut up.
On the other hand, if people actually stopped paying for crappy channels, the cable companies would probably cry piracy instead of correcting their flawed business practice.
On a side note: What the hell is ESPN, why don't they sell their service on a "per customer" basis instead of on a "everyone pays weather or not they are a customer or not" and why would any ISP agree to that kind of idiotic way of selling a service?
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
Making everyone pay for something that only a some use sounds very much like socialism to me. (BTW: I live in a socialistic country)
There's other concerns with coal, besides the CO2.
The ash and particle-filters are full of heavy-metals and radioactive substances that mustn't be released into the environment.
And the low cost of coal is exactly why many nations rely heavily on coal, even though it is one of the worst power-sources available.
The fun thing about Denmark as a wind-power user, is that most of what they don't produce with wind are produced with coal, which is just about the worst energy-source there is. =)
Are you making an anology to "New Coke"?
Actually, I've never even heard of "New Coke".
Sounds like something akin to "Crack Heroin" though. ^_^
No, I was referring to hype in general and the repetition of hype that people tend to fling as their opinions about the hyped product, which tend to be more like mass hallucinations than a usable source of informed opinions.
Would Microsucks deliberately introduce a shitty product to make the next one look better?
That raises the interesting question of; Have the people who praise Windows 7 as the OS god created made side-by-side comparisons with XP as well?
All you hear is "7 is soo much better than Vista!"
Well, since Vista seems to carry the title "Worst OS ever" in the public-mind, the praise "much better than Vista" doesn't say much.
Is it better than XP?
Is so much better than XP that it's worth buying if you run XP?
You seem to have underestimated the power of hype, media gullibility and consumer gullibility.
It was expected of both people and media to rant about how bad Vista was and thus everyone was ranting about how bad Vista was. Anyone saying otherwise was wrong, regardless of any facts.
Today, it is expected to rant about how much better than 7 is, and therefore people and media does it and facts are not being involved.
My personal opinion, after using the 7b, is that it isn't as good as the hype would have me believe, just as Vista wasn't as bad as the hype would have me believe.
In short: Never listen to hype, it is always wrong.
Everything I like about Windows 7 could have been done with Vista and the taskbar improvements.
I've also tried out Windows 7, and I don't really understand exactly what it is people find so much better about W7 over WV.
Most things I don't like about Vista is more or less identical in 7.
On the other hand, I don't think Vista is as bad as people claim either.
It feels like there was a huge anti-hype that lots of people bought into about Vista.
Now it feels like MS has managed to get more or less the same people to buy into a huge hype the other way about 7, even thought the differences in reality is rather small.
Vista wasn't as bad as the hype claimed.
7 isn't as good as the hype claims.
They should have a tool that gives you a list of software that is available for free and that automatically downloads and installs them for you if you select them.
I hated Vista with a passion, but so far I am really happy with Windows 7.
But what does that have to do with not replacing IE? I assume W7b comes with IE8b, unless they're developing a new W7-browser alongside IE8.
Personally, I think both IE7 and IE8b sucks more than IE6 ever did, in an interface point of view.
Exactly.
Last time I heard, the film and music industries still made huge profits.
Exactly.
If I could buy, say, a laptop that can't be bought without an OS or with a free OS bundled with a Starter Edition at a reduced price-point, I'd gladly go it.
I have several Vista and XP licenses already that aren't OEM licenses and thus not bound to any specific hardware, even in the eyes of Microsoft. It makes no sense for me to pay for yet another full version of an OS when buying a new OEM computer.
Problem is, the lowest version you can usually get is Home Basic... =(
I'd think it would have be faster than 7.88MHz... =)
There is, basically, no real difference between multitouch gestures and singletouch gestures.
And the Apple interface isn't only multitouch. It is also singletouch. There is only limited use of multitouch in the Iphone/Ipod
And, anyway, that is simply a interface-design idea. Shouldn't be patentable in any sane system.
Where by "creating", we mean "copying the thing apple created for us"?
Exactly. Apple, who have never copied what others created.
By the way, I was being sarcastic. ^_^
Or suppose it was medicine -- you'd have people dying because they couldn't afford the prices of the main supplier, and their competitors couldn't use the formula.
This is happening all the time.
I mean, look at this. It's clearly Apple's IP. It's clearly a new invention.
What is the new invention?
The interface itself? Hmm. Maybe, but an idea of how to arrange graphical objects on a screen shouldn't be patentable.
The actual touchscreen? Well... I haven't seen many solid glass touchscreens before, but I have seen them, only bigger. It might be an evolution or adaption of an old invention. If it's a new way of designing touchscreens, that exact design is indeed something that should be patentable.
The act of registering more than one finger at once on a touchscreen? Might be a new idea, but hardly a new invention and it should definitely not be patentable.
they're just amazingly dense collections of huge quantities of matter
Nope. A black hole is simply any kind of mass compressed until the particles collapse into a size smaller than the event horizon of that mass.
The actual amount of mass is of no consequence.
What gravitational pull can a handful of particles have no matter how dense they are?
This is also why such a black hole would be harmless. If you create a black hole with the mass of two protons, it will have the gravitational pull of two protons.
If it absorbs another proton, it will have the gravitational pull of three protons.
A black hole of this mass would be very, very tiny, and it would need to actually get close enough to a particle to start interact with it. On these scales, the distance between atoms is huge and so is the distance between the nucleus and electrons, so this would be a rather rare event.
Second, a proton here and an electron there every once in a while, when it gets close enouch, would increase the mass of the hole very little.
How long would it take for a 1 microgram hole to reach 2 microgram, even if you add a whole atom every second or so?
This is also disregarding the possible existence of Hawking radiation, which makes black holes loose mass and which would probably make a small black hole lose mass faster than it can absorb it.
Why? Do you think they've monopolized the desktop OS market or the Web browser market? Or do you just not understand antitrust law at all and haven't bothered listening to the dozens of explanations people write every time this issue comes up?
One could make the argument, though, that they should offer their computers without an OS or with Windows or Linux as an option instead of forcing them to be bundled with OS X.
I know some people who only run Linux on their Macs, and I'd say they'd gladly be able to buy them without the "OS X tax". (Apple do charge for their OS, so it would be logical that one without it would be cheaper)
I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox.
1.
This would only affect those who use stand-alone Windows licenses or unlicensed Windows, since OEM's would bundle some kind of time-limited trial-version of a commercial browser, making it possible to download Firefox or such.
2.
Windows comes bundled with a command-line ftp-client.
Also, unless this goes away if you remove Internet Explorer, you can also use a regular Explorer windows as an ftp-client.
Most browsers are available as ftp downloads, so there really is no major problems getting a browser anyway.
It might not be a question of either wired or wireless.
Personally, I view wireless networks as a very useful complement to wired.
I'd never go completely wireless, especially not for stationary computers or for doing any larger file transfers, but I'd loathe to go back to being completely wired too...
are these molecules simply patterned energy and not teeny atomic particles orbiting a nucleus?
You seem to have misunderstood several concepts regarding mass, energy, light, matter and how they relate to one-another.
A startingpoint would be to skim through the wikipedia-entries on subjects like:
The theory of relativity
Mass
Matter
Energy
and also read up on subjects that relate to those subjects.
Which is why PC gaming will always be better than console gaming.
And board games will always be better than either PC or console gaming, at least for multi-player gaming. =)
The question is; Why is hardware-manufacturers who don't make computers bundled with Vista aiding MS in it's quest to make modern hardware hard or impossible to use on most systems currently in use?