Depends on what you think of when you think of a city. Almost any city on the east coast will have public transportation, it isn't even second guessed; same with California. Midwest "cities" tend to be more car-oriented. As for why rural places have "better" air quality, it's simple take 1,000,000 people who burn, let's say 10 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about and compare it to say...1,000 who live in the same size area but burn 50 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about. Which burns up more carbon total? The 1,000,000 of course. These are made up numbers, but I think you get the point.
As for water quality, well I think that may be a matter of taste; I've never gotten sick from any water from a tap, so I can't answer that one for you.
And finally, artificial light, in the modern day, burns up the least amount of energy of our various electrical appliance. Things like computers, washers, dryers and others burn up 100 times or more the electricty in an hour than the average modern day light.
Also, take note that since more city dwellers use mass-transit, they drive fewer vehicles per capita than rural livers. Also, fewer work at jobs that require motorized vehicles; if you live on a farm, not only do you burn fuel driving when you need supplies (usually a gas-guzzling truck, though you do need it) but you burn it when you run your tractor or the variety of other gas-powered farm equipment that you may have.
Finally, generally I've found that opponents of mass-transit tend to be opposed to it more due to the fact that they don't want to pay for it, with "it won't be used" as an excuse, rather than a solid argument. Take, for example, the TRAX light rail system put in Salt Lake City, Utah a few years ago; many said it wouldn't be used, but I've found that the route I regularly ride is packed in each car when I use it. What's more, a variety of studies have found that public transporation unclogs highways that those who don't use public transportation.
...more at 11. The fact that the Sega Genesis controller and Wii controller aren't up there at all is a good indication that these guys have no idea what they are talking about.
It doesn't, the DC Snipers never even played video games, to my knowledge. One of them was a trained military sniper, hey, wait! We should ban the mliitary because they cause violence!
No, Linux's market share is a matter of vender lockin, monopoly abuse, aligned with the fact that Linux is still quite a bit younger than windows. I call bullshit; I can give you three very good reasons why Linux isn't widely used:
1. Confusion amongst those without computer knowledge: If somebody who isn't a computer geek has heard of Linux, at most they know it's another operating system that you can use aside from Windows. Ubuntu? Red Hat? Which version should they use? If they wander onto a Linux forum they'll probably see 20 different answers.
2. Not all programs work on Linux: Let's face it, not every PC program will work on Linux; and if Bob's game or work program won't work on Linux, why the hell should he use Linux? I know that many Linux junkies like to argue that if a company doesn't provide support for Linux that users should complain, but honestly most users don't give a flying fuck. If their programs won't work on Linux then they won't use Linux, end of story.
3. No support: There's no central company backing Linux, and usually there isn't a company backing one of the many flavors of Linux either. If something goes wrong with a Linux installation, users only have one place to look: the internet. Your computer doesn't work now though so you can't check the internet; well now you're going to have to go user your neighbor's computer, if they'll let you. If something goes wrong with your Windows XP installation though, not only do you have the option of using the internet, but there's also a company with phone services that can help diagnose your problem and work through it with you; this, in my opinion, is the biggest reason why the average user will use a Mac or a Windows PC. The average user is a clueless bastard, anybody who has worked in IT will tell you this; the average user wants somebody to contact in case problems arise, which means a company with the cash to put forward support centers for people to call.
I'm not saying Linux is bad in any way, shape or form (of course, there are some rather shitty versions of Linux); I'm just saying that I don't think Linux will hit the mainstream until the problems listed above are overcome. Ubuntu is already a step in the right direction, it's much more average user friendly, if someone put some money behind Ubuntu to set up call support centers and the like, Ubuntu could be a decent contender against Windows.
Sony's stock overall just hit a five year high due to their exceeding sales in other departments. Wonder if that 80 GB PS3 will come over here? Guess it doesn't matter that much, as you can purchase your own drives to put in the PS3.
Texting is the dumbest form of communication I have ever seen in my life. You have a phone precisely so you don't have to type to people, you can CALL THEM! Spending half a minute to type out one word when you could call said individual and talk to them directly is stupid. And what parent gives their kid a phone with no boundaries? I know I'd sure as hell tell my kid that if he/she ran up the phone bill, he/she would pay for the extra charges and they sure as hell wouldn't have a phone to use in the meantime; at the least.
Actually, if you paid attention to the article, they write up a fix, but they don't test it fully (which is where most of the time goes in trying to fix bugs, making sure you don't introduce new ones as much as possible). Have you ever worked on a major software project? Half the time you fix one error only to introduce two more errors, and the only fix is to recode the two sections of code you broke completely. Okay, so that's an exaggeration, but that's how it feels; that's just how frustrating it can be.
Why choose? Buy both like I do; I love my PC games and I love my PS2 games(the Wii and PS3 are upcoming purchases). Why is this some sort of either-or situation? New console "generations" only come up every few years, and PC upgrades only need to be purchased every few years as well if you do major upgrades or every year or so if you do small upgrades. After that, you just have to buy the games (which is what the goal is, after all); as long as you have a job you're fine.
But gameplay is hardly the only selling point of a game. Storyline (where applicable, since not all games have a real story), graphics, sound and how much gameplay you get out of a game all factor into what makes a good game. Graphics and sound can help you immerse yourself in a good storyline-based game, and they're part of what keeps you there. Would Half-Life 2 be nearly as good without the graphical leap forward that made people's faces so detailed and their speech natural-looking? No. Would Mario 64 have been as big as it was without 3D graphics that were (for the time) very good? Not likely. Gameplay is important, but so is everything else that goes into the modern game, and if you believe otherwise you're kidding yourself. I'm not saying the Wii is a bad system or anything, but I am betting that it will have some trouble with long-term staying power; unless it gets an upgrade of some sort in the future (likely, I get the feeling that Nintendo might treat the Wii similar to how it treats its Gameboys, release a new one every couple of years).
I was interested in Hellgate: London, but if there's some sort of subscription fee to get the good stuff, I'm not interested. I wonder how many other folks will think the same way as me?
I hope Live dies; it's a ridiculous idea to pay money for something that you already get for free with every damn game with multiplayer. Achievement points? Who gives a fuck? If that's what amuses the X-Box monkey then good for them, but I certainly don't care. I just want to play my games on multiplayer for free, and that's what I'm already getting.
If you don't have the balls to stand behind your words, don't say them. Whether it's on the internet or spoken to a friend, live up to what you've said and done in the past, what you are doing now and what you plan to do in the future; that's what having balls, honor and/or integrity is all about. Personally, I think this guy is dead wrong, computers shouldn't forget things; data being forgotten or lost is often times the cause of modern problems (forgot about Vietnam perhaps? Well no wonder we got into Iraq.).
The difference is that (most) Christian churches don't say "you must pay us money to be a Christian"; most Christian churches request donations but none of them (exception: Christian "cults") require you to pay money.
In fact, I think that's the biggest difference between most cults and a real religion; real religions don't require you to spend money, they just ask you and if you can't spare the money, you can't.
Yes, but when you put the picture on a fake ID, said ID (and any image of it) is not copyrighted; it's an (illegal) derivative of a state or national identification and can be posted anywhere for any reason. This just sounds like some rich asshat trying to find a sneaky way around having been caught with an illegal ID.
Not very, tinfoil tends to conduct heat and has a relatively low melting point which means it won't help against the fire; brimstone will simply fill your lungs through the air, avoiding the tinfoil hat completely. My advice would be to invest in a fire resistant suit and a rebreather; find them now at Crazy Talgrath's! 50% off! You can't beat these prices with a demon!
Yes, a computer program is just a series of 1's and 0's in the end; but his point is that the AACS key is a number that doesn't do anything on its own. If you added it to a computer program (yes, I know it's just a number) that cracks HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, then the number is actually dangerous, to some extent. Chances are though, if you have a program to crack HD-DVDs and BDs that only needs that number, then getting that number isn't that big of a deal anyway; basically, the AACS key by itself is a number with no purpose.
Uhhh...right. Perhaps it's just me, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck what people on the internet think of me; I'll never meet them in real life. I don't necessarily act like an asshole to everyone online, but I certainly couldn't care if someone online is angry at me or annoyed with me.
Dare I point out that championing a cause doesn't necessarily mean you are completely certain of the cause? I'm pretty sure that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is real, and I support legislation and initiatives to try and limit the activities that lead to human-caused Global Warming; am I 100% sure that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming? No; but that doesn't mean I can't champion the cause.
There's this certain thing you can do to prevent this, you know; log out, exit and/or turn off your computer, unplug it if you have to. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and I hope that the article is right and it a hoax.
Actually, the issue is that they want the author of the question to do something ILLEGAL that could very well land the author in jail with fines up to his eyeballs for the rest of his life. Don't believe for a moment that company brass will take the flak for a decision like this, they'll pawn it off on the IT guy to save their own asses. I agree with Twitter here, tell them to do it the legal way (buy more licenses or use OpenOffice) or quit; any company that is willing to send you to jail to save a buck is not a company you want to be with.
I'd actually say the comparison is somewhat valid. If you (somehow) built a building that had absolutely no access points (doors, windows), it would certainly be secure, with no reason for security, right? Of course, said building is completely useless, nobody can go in or out and nothing can get done; it just sits there taking up space. The same could be said of a computer with no floppy or CD drives, essentially no way to do anything with it.
Now, let's say we give it a couple of entrances, but we place them up on the third floor so that only people with a tall ladder can get to the doors; the doors of course, have locks on them as well so only people with keys can enter. I'd compare this (somewhat roughly) to a computer with a floppy drive and a CD drive; people can mess with your computer, but only if they have physical access to it (generally rather difficult).
However, the previous idea is pretty awkward if you want people to be able to get work done. The UPS guy won't deliver packages to your building because he doesn't have a ladder, so you have to go down and get them, then bring them back up, it's hard to meet with other people to discuss business at your building because your business partners don't have a ladder, and of course, employees don't like just sitting in a windowless building all day under fluorescent lighting. So you now you give the building ground-floor entrances and windows; now people can enter the building more easily and employees don't get depressed from not seeing sunlight at all during work.
Of course, now you have a problem; burglars can easily get into your building by smashing the windows; they can easily reach the door and pick the locks. So now you need some security, an alarm system on the windows, security cameras and some security guards to watch the doors and the building in general. This is comparable to hooking your computer or network up to the internet and opening up the necesary ports; you can now get your work done easily, and even play around a bit, but at the same time your computer is less secure by nature. Sure, there are ways to make your computer more secure when connected to the internet, much like there are ways to building with security in mind; but ultimately security software is necessary if you're doing any serious business with your computer connected to the internet.
As to your point, I wouldn't say that software is inherently insecure, I'd say that software is inherenetly breachable. Can anyone point me to an OS that has never had a reported security breach and has been out at least one year? And while I agree that companies need to be more focused on security in their software, they also want to make sure their software convenient to use (particularly if it is meant for users with little technical knowledge); and in the end, when selling to many/most people, functionality and convenience trumps security. Perhaps if your business is serious about security, security trumps convenience, but I highly doubt it trumps functionality. And in the end, software isn't just breached due to errors in the programmer's thinking, but because a hacker has come up with a way to exploit the programmer's error, or to actually twist the functionality of the product itself.
Erm right...what was the last major Gamecube title you saw? Oh yeah, the latest Zelda which is also on the Wii. And before that? Resident Evil 4 released over two years ago. Let's face it, Gamecube has been mostly dead for years and it has been completely dead since it was announced that the Wii would have the latest Zelda. Granted, the GBA has had a rather long run in its various forms, but that is the handheld market.
What the analyst is saying is that largely the third party developers have fueled the massive growth of the industry the past decade or so; Nintendo's current upper-hand puts them at a disadvantage as (traditionally) Nintendo's first party developed games have dominated on their consoles with little room for third party developers. In other words, third party developers may be at a major disadvantage if the Wii continues to have the upper hand; this trend can be broken though, nothing says Nintendo will dominate the sales on its own consoles forever if a large number of third party developers start paying attention to it. I can see the point of the analyst although I disagree with him on a variety of points.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on what you think of when you think of a city. Almost any city on the east coast will have public transportation, it isn't even second guessed; same with California. Midwest "cities" tend to be more car-oriented. As for why rural places have "better" air quality, it's simple take 1,000,000 people who burn, let's say 10 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about and compare it to say...1,000 who live in the same size area but burn 50 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about. Which burns up more carbon total? The 1,000,000 of course. These are made up numbers, but I think you get the point.
As for water quality, well I think that may be a matter of taste; I've never gotten sick from any water from a tap, so I can't answer that one for you.
And finally, artificial light, in the modern day, burns up the least amount of energy of our various electrical appliance. Things like computers, washers, dryers and others burn up 100 times or more the electricty in an hour than the average modern day light.
Also, take note that since more city dwellers use mass-transit, they drive fewer vehicles per capita than rural livers. Also, fewer work at jobs that require motorized vehicles; if you live on a farm, not only do you burn fuel driving when you need supplies (usually a gas-guzzling truck, though you do need it) but you burn it when you run your tractor or the variety of other gas-powered farm equipment that you may have.
Finally, generally I've found that opponents of mass-transit tend to be opposed to it more due to the fact that they don't want to pay for it, with "it won't be used" as an excuse, rather than a solid argument. Take, for example, the TRAX light rail system put in Salt Lake City, Utah a few years ago; many said it wouldn't be used, but I've found that the route I regularly ride is packed in each car when I use it. What's more, a variety of studies have found that public transporation unclogs highways that those who don't use public transportation.
...more at 11. The fact that the Sega Genesis controller and Wii controller aren't up there at all is a good indication that these guys have no idea what they are talking about.
It doesn't, the DC Snipers never even played video games, to my knowledge. One of them was a trained military sniper, hey, wait! We should ban the mliitary because they cause violence!
Sony's stock overall just hit a five year high due to their exceeding sales in other departments. Wonder if that 80 GB PS3 will come over here? Guess it doesn't matter that much, as you can purchase your own drives to put in the PS3.
Texting is the dumbest form of communication I have ever seen in my life. You have a phone precisely so you don't have to type to people, you can CALL THEM! Spending half a minute to type out one word when you could call said individual and talk to them directly is stupid. And what parent gives their kid a phone with no boundaries? I know I'd sure as hell tell my kid that if he/she ran up the phone bill, he/she would pay for the extra charges and they sure as hell wouldn't have a phone to use in the meantime; at the least.
Actually, if you paid attention to the article, they write up a fix, but they don't test it fully (which is where most of the time goes in trying to fix bugs, making sure you don't introduce new ones as much as possible). Have you ever worked on a major software project? Half the time you fix one error only to introduce two more errors, and the only fix is to recode the two sections of code you broke completely. Okay, so that's an exaggeration, but that's how it feels; that's just how frustrating it can be.
Why choose? Buy both like I do; I love my PC games and I love my PS2 games(the Wii and PS3 are upcoming purchases). Why is this some sort of either-or situation? New console "generations" only come up every few years, and PC upgrades only need to be purchased every few years as well if you do major upgrades or every year or so if you do small upgrades. After that, you just have to buy the games (which is what the goal is, after all); as long as you have a job you're fine.
But gameplay is hardly the only selling point of a game. Storyline (where applicable, since not all games have a real story), graphics, sound and how much gameplay you get out of a game all factor into what makes a good game. Graphics and sound can help you immerse yourself in a good storyline-based game, and they're part of what keeps you there. Would Half-Life 2 be nearly as good without the graphical leap forward that made people's faces so detailed and their speech natural-looking? No. Would Mario 64 have been as big as it was without 3D graphics that were (for the time) very good? Not likely. Gameplay is important, but so is everything else that goes into the modern game, and if you believe otherwise you're kidding yourself. I'm not saying the Wii is a bad system or anything, but I am betting that it will have some trouble with long-term staying power; unless it gets an upgrade of some sort in the future (likely, I get the feeling that Nintendo might treat the Wii similar to how it treats its Gameboys, release a new one every couple of years).
I was interested in Hellgate: London, but if there's some sort of subscription fee to get the good stuff, I'm not interested. I wonder how many other folks will think the same way as me?
No, you're not "readint" this right, if you did, you would have gotten: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
I hope Live dies; it's a ridiculous idea to pay money for something that you already get for free with every damn game with multiplayer. Achievement points? Who gives a fuck? If that's what amuses the X-Box monkey then good for them, but I certainly don't care. I just want to play my games on multiplayer for free, and that's what I'm already getting.
If you don't have the balls to stand behind your words, don't say them. Whether it's on the internet or spoken to a friend, live up to what you've said and done in the past, what you are doing now and what you plan to do in the future; that's what having balls, honor and/or integrity is all about. Personally, I think this guy is dead wrong, computers shouldn't forget things; data being forgotten or lost is often times the cause of modern problems (forgot about Vietnam perhaps? Well no wonder we got into Iraq.).
The difference is that (most) Christian churches don't say "you must pay us money to be a Christian"; most Christian churches request donations but none of them (exception: Christian "cults") require you to pay money.
In fact, I think that's the biggest difference between most cults and a real religion; real religions don't require you to spend money, they just ask you and if you can't spare the money, you can't.
Actually, she's legally required to keep the ID; posting it on her blog is perhaps an extra deterrent, and well within her rights.
Yes, but when you put the picture on a fake ID, said ID (and any image of it) is not copyrighted; it's an (illegal) derivative of a state or national identification and can be posted anywhere for any reason. This just sounds like some rich asshat trying to find a sneaky way around having been caught with an illegal ID.
And I personally didn't find Civilization all that interesting; it's a matter of taste.
Not very, tinfoil tends to conduct heat and has a relatively low melting point which means it won't help against the fire; brimstone will simply fill your lungs through the air, avoiding the tinfoil hat completely. My advice would be to invest in a fire resistant suit and a rebreather; find them now at Crazy Talgrath's! 50% off! You can't beat these prices with a demon!
Yes, a computer program is just a series of 1's and 0's in the end; but his point is that the AACS key is a number that doesn't do anything on its own. If you added it to a computer program (yes, I know it's just a number) that cracks HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, then the number is actually dangerous, to some extent. Chances are though, if you have a program to crack HD-DVDs and BDs that only needs that number, then getting that number isn't that big of a deal anyway; basically, the AACS key by itself is a number with no purpose.
Uhhh...right. Perhaps it's just me, but I really couldn't give a flying fuck what people on the internet think of me; I'll never meet them in real life. I don't necessarily act like an asshole to everyone online, but I certainly couldn't care if someone online is angry at me or annoyed with me.
Dare I point out that championing a cause doesn't necessarily mean you are completely certain of the cause? I'm pretty sure that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is real, and I support legislation and initiatives to try and limit the activities that lead to human-caused Global Warming; am I 100% sure that humans are the primary cause of Global Warming? No; but that doesn't mean I can't champion the cause.
There's this certain thing you can do to prevent this, you know; log out, exit and/or turn off your computer, unplug it if you have to. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and I hope that the article is right and it a hoax.
Actually, the issue is that they want the author of the question to do something ILLEGAL that could very well land the author in jail with fines up to his eyeballs for the rest of his life. Don't believe for a moment that company brass will take the flak for a decision like this, they'll pawn it off on the IT guy to save their own asses. I agree with Twitter here, tell them to do it the legal way (buy more licenses or use OpenOffice) or quit; any company that is willing to send you to jail to save a buck is not a company you want to be with.
I'd actually say the comparison is somewhat valid. If you (somehow) built a building that had absolutely no access points (doors, windows), it would certainly be secure, with no reason for security, right? Of course, said building is completely useless, nobody can go in or out and nothing can get done; it just sits there taking up space. The same could be said of a computer with no floppy or CD drives, essentially no way to do anything with it.
Now, let's say we give it a couple of entrances, but we place them up on the third floor so that only people with a tall ladder can get to the doors; the doors of course, have locks on them as well so only people with keys can enter. I'd compare this (somewhat roughly) to a computer with a floppy drive and a CD drive; people can mess with your computer, but only if they have physical access to it (generally rather difficult).
However, the previous idea is pretty awkward if you want people to be able to get work done. The UPS guy won't deliver packages to your building because he doesn't have a ladder, so you have to go down and get them, then bring them back up, it's hard to meet with other people to discuss business at your building because your business partners don't have a ladder, and of course, employees don't like just sitting in a windowless building all day under fluorescent lighting. So you now you give the building ground-floor entrances and windows; now people can enter the building more easily and employees don't get depressed from not seeing sunlight at all during work.
Of course, now you have a problem; burglars can easily get into your building by smashing the windows; they can easily reach the door and pick the locks. So now you need some security, an alarm system on the windows, security cameras and some security guards to watch the doors and the building in general. This is comparable to hooking your computer or network up to the internet and opening up the necesary ports; you can now get your work done easily, and even play around a bit, but at the same time your computer is less secure by nature. Sure, there are ways to make your computer more secure when connected to the internet, much like there are ways to building with security in mind; but ultimately security software is necessary if you're doing any serious business with your computer connected to the internet.
As to your point, I wouldn't say that software is inherently insecure, I'd say that software is inherenetly breachable. Can anyone point me to an OS that has never had a reported security breach and has been out at least one year? And while I agree that companies need to be more focused on security in their software, they also want to make sure their software convenient to use (particularly if it is meant for users with little technical knowledge); and in the end, when selling to many/most people, functionality and convenience trumps security. Perhaps if your business is serious about security, security trumps convenience, but I highly doubt it trumps functionality. And in the end, software isn't just breached due to errors in the programmer's thinking, but because a hacker has come up with a way to exploit the programmer's error, or to actually twist the functionality of the product itself.
Erm right...what was the last major Gamecube title you saw? Oh yeah, the latest Zelda which is also on the Wii. And before that? Resident Evil 4 released over two years ago. Let's face it, Gamecube has been mostly dead for years and it has been completely dead since it was announced that the Wii would have the latest Zelda. Granted, the GBA has had a rather long run in its various forms, but that is the handheld market.
What the analyst is saying is that largely the third party developers have fueled the massive growth of the industry the past decade or so; Nintendo's current upper-hand puts them at a disadvantage as (traditionally) Nintendo's first party developed games have dominated on their consoles with little room for third party developers. In other words, third party developers may be at a major disadvantage if the Wii continues to have the upper hand; this trend can be broken though, nothing says Nintendo will dominate the sales on its own consoles forever if a large number of third party developers start paying attention to it. I can see the point of the analyst although I disagree with him on a variety of points.