Ok, warning, I'm about to be kind to Microsoft. Further warning, its about the Zune.
iTunes completely blows, which we all know. However Microsoft's Zune gets blasted all the time for the hardware, which I won't argue, though I do own one (and thought it had a slight edge over the iPods that were out when it came out, thickness aside). But has anybody used the Zune software? Its really pretty good, especially when next to iTunes. Now that they've discontinued the hardware, I hope they don't end up scrapping the whole music library altogether. My instinct is that if I ever used Rhapsody or the new Napster that I would probably like their software as well. Does anybody know how they all stack up against each other when running on windows?
I remember when the iPod came out and I felt it didn't come close to the elegance and beauty of my Sony Minidisc players. Immediate storage capacity was an obvious feature, although I never found carrying a few minidiscs around to be annoying. However, a major reason I've owned two iPods in my life and never bought a Minidisc player after the MZ-N1 is the point you bring up: software. Whatever bad things anyone has to say about iTunes, it cannot be compared negatively to SonicStage. I could even have lived with it's "convert from MP3s on the fly or convert your whole library to something nothing else could play" aspect, if it wasn't so riddled with bugs I'd be lucky to have all the graphical components of the interface show up at once (if it didn't crash).
That said, given the disposable income, I'm sure I'd buy (or import) one of the latest Sony Minidisc players, if only for the joy of great portable hardware.
I assume this was article was submitted by an Australian, and to that person I would say you need to get a little self-respect.
It's not insulting, it's a compliment.
I'm an Aussie, and I bear the term proudly. I am also proud of our long, rich heritage of not having sticks up our collective arses. Now an expat, I often refer to home as "Oz" and fondly tell stories like that of Bob Dwyer having to apologise to the Queen in 1991.
But, refering to the highest office in the land or any other official goverment entity for that matter as being 'aussie' is just insulting.
PM or not, she bloody well better be an 'Aussie' first.
No, you would refer to him as the US President or more likely just the President, or Obama, even if you hated his guts. To do otherwise is to insult the American people.
According to large portions of the American people, Obama is a terrorist and G.W. Bush was retarded, so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to convey to that Australian who needs "a little self-respect".
I'll just quote the first sentence from that article:
"Despite intensified competition from fierce rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc.’s iTunes store in 2010 managed to hold onto its dominance in the U.S. market for movie electronic sell through (EST) and Internet video on demand (iVOD), new IHS Screen Digest research shows."
Wait, one more quote from the 3rd paragraph:
“The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/iVOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with an dramatic expansion for the overall market,” said Arash Amel, research director, digital media, for IHS. “Apple faced serious competition from Microsoft's Zune Video and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Store, as well as from Amazon and—most significantly—Wal-Mart."
Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, you're talking about competition in the market. If iTunes has managed to attract a majority of consumers in a market rife with competition, then one can only cry monopoly after digging up anti-competitive practices that specifically play a larger factor than normal consumer choice.
I'm a vegetarian, and I can't agree with them. Humans are naturally omnivores, and we've been cooking meat over fire for several hundred thousand years (rather long than I'd have expected), and, well, cooked meat is tasty. I don't eat it because of the ethical issues with killing animals for food, but that doesn't make them stop tasting good.
Now, they might be able to cure you of disliking vegetables, if they've got any cooking skills, but that's really a separate problem.
Interestingly, I spent a few years as a vegetarian and then vegan, and the concept that it was wrong to kill animals for food was never a convincing argument for me. I have issues with how certain industries generally go about it in the USA (along with many, more practical reasons), but the actual raising and slaughter of animals has always seemed like something one just feels is wrong or doesn't. It makes for an interesting ethics topic, because how can one debate the ethics of something that a person simply believes or not.
The Bible doesn't say you can't be a homosexual, or that you should hide or lie about being homosexual, it just says that you shouldn't have sex with a person of the same gender.
Or for any purpose other than procreation. Any Christian attack on homosexual sex is pretty much an attack on modern heterosexual sex, unless you adhere to the obvious strict guidelines.
It also says you shouldn't do a ton of things that are listed as being just as bad, and many of these things are pretty much universally ignored. It's true, accepting homosexuality as who one is makes it unlikely to repent the sin incurred, but not anymore than ignoring any one single thing listed as a sin or wrong (one is unlikely to repent for actions, or lack of actions, never brought into the conscious mind as a source of damnation).
A truly omnipotent God would never change his mind.
One thing seems likely to me: a truly omnipotent God would unlikely ever be understood or interpreted by mortal minds like ours. To support your point about God changing his mind on humans deserving death, well, he could have done a bit more in that area.
If you're going to quote Romans at least put it in context. Paul says that the wages of sin is death. In other words, no one who has sinned can ever be worthy of a perfectly just god. That's the entire reason for sacrificial atonement in the old testament. That's the entire reason Jesus was sent to earth to die, so that the law of the old testament could be fulfilled once and for all. Paul is listing out sins in those verses. Let me list a few others: lying, sloth, lust, anger. God doesn't see any of these as any worse than another. Each and every one carries a sentence of death. But Jesus was crucified as the perfect sacrifice. Perfect in life, he is the only one who doesn't deserve to die for his sins. Since he was killed as a sacrifice for us, we can be forgiven for our sins and are no longer sentenced to death. This is hardly a call to kill people who sin.
There are some other verses you should consider (oddly enough, also from Romans) "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." Romans 12:19, NIV
If you want to bash Christianity, it's your right, but you should at least learn what mainstream Christian's believe (hint: the majority of/.ers seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads, and seldom if ever actually know what Christians are saying or doing)
The death and ressurrection of Jesus is a pretty important facet of the Christian faith. I think you'll need more than a few passages from one book to argue your point, especially when so many other explanations for Jesus having to die on the cross have been debated well. Are you dismissing the "original sin" as relevant to the topic? What about the fact that humans all, even after Jesus died as a sacrifice, still die (a post-Adam/Eve phenomenom, which could easily have been changed back by God after the death of Christ). What about any number of other suggestions backed by picking out statements made by other biblical figures in other books?
I imagine a "cure for religion" app would be allowed, but someone go make it and find out.
I'd be more interested to see an app that installs a button that, if pressed, pledges the user's support to the anti-christ after the second coming (or whatever the exact specifics for the unforgivable sin are, it's been a while since I've read the details).
Debates pitting logic against god or arguing against god are one thing, but I wonder how people would respond to an app that, within the confines of "accepting" Christianity, commits the most horrendous act possible as outlined in the faith (in one click no less!).
In my town we have several so-called christian churches that tell families if they give money god will bless them. This of course is the heresy that prompted all protestant faiths.
As opposed to the Catholic Church, which said that if you gave them money, your loved ones would be freed from Purgatory?
GearScore is an incredibly worthless statistic. All it means is that they were present in a raid when a piece of loot dropped, and they won it.
If someone is fully decked out in heroic gear, you don't need GearScore to tell you they're probably a decent player. If someone doesn't have the gear you "want" them to have, you have no idea *why* they don't have it. A good player can generally play well above their actual gear score, and because nearly all fights are more about execution than raw numbers, gear doesn't even matter in most cases.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the gear you "want" them to have can easily be the gear you "expect" them to have. When running heroics, I'd sometimes get complains that I didn't have any "tier" gear or other epic dungeon drops (other than my tanking sword and shield). Everything else I'd wear my area gear, with the shoulders switched to PVP shoulders filled with tanking gems and enchantments (switched a few other things out for enchantments also). The point being, I had spent the time gaining PVP points to get duplicate items and gem/enchant them for tanking, during a periods were many others would hang around Shat and try to get a group that would carry them through in the hopes they'd get some gear out of it.
Properly researched and with the right gems & enchantments, I comfortably tanked all the heroics and a few 25 player instances BEFORE I started to see any of the "expected" warrior tank gear drop (and when it rained it poured, thankfully). During that period, though, there was often someone in a pug who'd criticize me about my choice in gear, and it was always someone who'd never played an end game warrior (and they were usually pretty green to end game).
For example, I never told a priest or a warlock how to properly gear and spec (unless that player was joining one of my arena teams), as I felt I had no lecturing someone about a class I didn't play. If a pug kept wiping, it was easy enough to tell where the problem was, and I'd try to commit that player to memory as someone not to group with again.
As a main tank (retired), my life would have been absolute hell without at least a decent aggro meter. DPS is a fine thing to measure, but in the actual boss fights threat is the more important aspect. Especially for fights where tanks have to be rotated in and out, not knowing how much threat individual players were generating would have lead to the (stronger) DPS holding back most of the time, and occasionally getting one-shotted other times.
Sure, as a warrior I could always intercept then challenge when a DPS accidentally (or idiotically) pulled aggo from whichever tank is up, but if tanking that specific boss wasn't my roll at the time it would throw things into chaos at least. With a threat meter, we were able to remind people to ease up a bit when they threaten to draw aggro, and at the same time get a better picture of which tanks aren't performing as well as they should be.
Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.
Oh yeah, and ARE YOU LISTENING MUSIC INDUSTRY? Innovate or die.
You have it backwards; the music industry equivalent of Blockbuster already went out of business: Tower Records. It's Blockbuster who should have taken notice.
I'd bet money Netflix would love to be a streaming only company; dealing with dvds in the mail must be a nightmare. I can't wait until I can stream every movie ever made via Netflix.
I don't think the founder is shy about discussing exactly that. There's a reason he called it "Netflix" rather than something that indicates movies in the mail. Streaming just wasn't viable when Netflix started business, but it's clearly going entirely in that direction.
(Barnes and Noble) first began selling books online in the late 1980s, but the company’s website was not launched until May 1997.
In July 1995, the company (amazon) began service and sold its first book on amazon.com
Wow, it took B&N almost two years after Amazon to get their website going? Talk about missing the boat.
One can say that, but in 1995, B&N was a bookstore franchise while Amazon was an online company that decided books was the best product to start off selling. It's easy to miss the boat when the other party helps build it.
Two years actually seems pretty quick for B&N to get online, especially if one considers the growth in Internet usage over that time period. 1995 didn't exactly present a huge market for a company that had no e-commerce division to invest in, but the smaller Internet company Amazon.com demonstrated over those two years of market growth that it was viable, reducing the risk to B&N.
I suggest that it was the next 13 years of business choices while both sites were active that determined which is more dominant today.
Neither Netflix nor Amazon should even exist, but for the stupidity of Blockbuster and Barnes and Noble. I can see the clueless management of both companies now:
"Oh that intertooob thingy will never catch on!"
Additionally, Blockbuster should have seen something of itself in Tower Records going out of business in 2006.
Correct. An accusation is just that, and nothing more. However, once a grand jury decides there is enough to proceed to a trial, and evidence is presented from both sides at the trial, anybody with a brain is then able to form their own independent opinions. (Especially if the presumed innocent party explains in great detail the crime he supposedly didn't commit, "hypothetically".
There's no "however" involved. In the US, one is innocent and remains so until proven guilty (so goes the justice system's tagline). That means accused == innocent, and not guilty == innocent.
$0.99 is way too much for a single episode rental. With the same price you can buy the whole season from store and get a physical product with extras too.
Why not a subscription based service like Spotify, but for TV episodes? I would gladly pay $10 a month if I could stream any tv show and episode I wanted to. I already do for Spotify and seriously, I haven't felt the need to get mp3's since I started using it because frankly, it's just so convenient and easy. Hell, you can even offer an ad-based service too. Just have it huge library, don't delete old episodes or shows and add the new episodes there right after or when they're showing on TV.
Netflix has plenty of TV shows available for streaming. Certainly not most of the newest shows, or the shows that expect to bring in large amounts of money through DVD sales or rentals. Nevertheless, the model is there. With my Netflix subscription I've streamed quite a few TV shows (many in HD) for less than $10 a month. Perhaps more importantly, these aren't rentals. I can watch them as often as I please, without time constraints.
At the same time, iTunes has always seems WAY over priced when it comes to TV shows. I watch TV shows at least once a week, all through online sources, and all legitimately. Hulu or network-specific sites are all right for that, but I'd obviously like a larger selection, ideally with more shows in HD. If the online video advertising model doesn't support the costs involved then I'd be willing to pay to have that access, but via the Netflix model, not the iTunes model.
How would the users know it's that site that is broken, and not the browser?
Via the W3C validation buttons at the bottom of the page that the users can click and see that the site does adhere to standards (or *cough*slashdot*cough* doesn't).
People act like any measures taken now determine the future of the American space program forever. The budget is what it is. If NASA needs to focus on less expensive methods of exploration, that doesn't mean it will be that way forever. If it's a major setback, that's unfortunate. It doesn't change the financial health of the country, however.
I am sorry, but the framework still supports PHP version 4.3.2. Support for PHP 4 was ended at the end of 2007. Any framework that doesn't take advantage of the nice new features in PHP 5 bound to be full of kludges and outdated code.
That is just my reaction based on when I was comparing PHP frameworks, I didn't dig into their code so maybe I am wrong.
I haven't dug in too far, since I'm paid to spend my time working on my company's proprietary framework, but CodeIgniters seems to have done a pretty good job in how they've gone about maintaining PHP4 support. Clever solutions rather than outdated ones, to put it briefly. It also seems pretty easy to just use the parts of their code you need, and of course any code you write either within the framework or as a plugin can be 100% PHP5.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, warning, I'm about to be kind to Microsoft. Further warning, its about the Zune.
iTunes completely blows, which we all know. However Microsoft's Zune gets blasted all the time for the hardware, which I won't argue, though I do own one (and thought it had a slight edge over the iPods that were out when it came out, thickness aside). But has anybody used the Zune software? Its really pretty good, especially when next to iTunes. Now that they've discontinued the hardware, I hope they don't end up scrapping the whole music library altogether. My instinct is that if I ever used Rhapsody or the new Napster that I would probably like their software as well. Does anybody know how they all stack up against each other when running on windows?
I remember when the iPod came out and I felt it didn't come close to the elegance and beauty of my Sony Minidisc players. Immediate storage capacity was an obvious feature, although I never found carrying a few minidiscs around to be annoying. However, a major reason I've owned two iPods in my life and never bought a Minidisc player after the MZ-N1 is the point you bring up: software. Whatever bad things anyone has to say about iTunes, it cannot be compared negatively to SonicStage. I could even have lived with it's "convert from MP3s on the fly or convert your whole library to something nothing else could play" aspect, if it wasn't so riddled with bugs I'd be lucky to have all the graphical components of the interface show up at once (if it didn't crash).
That said, given the disposable income, I'm sure I'd buy (or import) one of the latest Sony Minidisc players, if only for the joy of great portable hardware.
It's the Australian Prime Minister.
I assume this was article was submitted by an Australian, and to that person I would say you need to get a little self-respect.
It's not insulting, it's a compliment.
I'm an Aussie, and I bear the term proudly. I am also proud of our long, rich heritage of not having sticks up our collective arses. Now an expat, I often refer to home as "Oz" and fondly tell stories like that of Bob Dwyer having to apologise to the Queen in 1991.
But, refering to the highest office in the land or any other official goverment entity for that matter as being 'aussie' is just insulting.
PM or not, she bloody well better be an 'Aussie' first.
No, you would refer to him as the US President or more likely just the President, or Obama, even if you hated his guts. To do otherwise is to insult the American people.
According to large portions of the American people, Obama is a terrorist and G.W. Bush was retarded, so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to convey to that Australian who needs "a little self-respect".
iTunes controls 64.5% of the online movie market.
I'll just quote the first sentence from that article:
"Despite intensified competition from fierce rivals including Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Apple Inc.’s iTunes store in 2010 managed to hold onto its dominance in the U.S. market for movie electronic sell through (EST) and Internet video on demand (iVOD), new IHS Screen Digest research shows."
Wait, one more quote from the 3rd paragraph:
“The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/iVOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with an dramatic expansion for the overall market,” said Arash Amel, research director, digital media, for IHS. “Apple faced serious competition from Microsoft's Zune Video and Sony Corp.'s PlayStation Store, as well as from Amazon and—most significantly—Wal-Mart."
Remember, when you're talking about a monopoly, you're talking about competition in the market. If iTunes has managed to attract a majority of consumers in a market rife with competition, then one can only cry monopoly after digging up anti-competitive practices that specifically play a larger factor than normal consumer choice.
I'm a vegetarian, and I can't agree with them. Humans are naturally omnivores, and we've been cooking meat over fire for several hundred thousand years (rather long than I'd have expected), and, well, cooked meat is tasty. I don't eat it because of the ethical issues with killing animals for food, but that doesn't make them stop tasting good.
Now, they might be able to cure you of disliking vegetables, if they've got any cooking skills, but that's really a separate problem.
Interestingly, I spent a few years as a vegetarian and then vegan, and the concept that it was wrong to kill animals for food was never a convincing argument for me. I have issues with how certain industries generally go about it in the USA (along with many, more practical reasons), but the actual raising and slaughter of animals has always seemed like something one just feels is wrong or doesn't. It makes for an interesting ethics topic, because how can one debate the ethics of something that a person simply believes or not.
The Bible doesn't say you can't be a homosexual, or that you should hide or lie about being homosexual, it just says that you shouldn't have sex with a person of the same gender.
Or for any purpose other than procreation. Any Christian attack on homosexual sex is pretty much an attack on modern heterosexual sex, unless you adhere to the obvious strict guidelines.
It also says you shouldn't do a ton of things that are listed as being just as bad, and many of these things are pretty much universally ignored. It's true, accepting homosexuality as who one is makes it unlikely to repent the sin incurred, but not anymore than ignoring any one single thing listed as a sin or wrong (one is unlikely to repent for actions, or lack of actions, never brought into the conscious mind as a source of damnation).
A truly omnipotent God would never change his mind.
One thing seems likely to me: a truly omnipotent God would unlikely ever be understood or interpreted by mortal minds like ours. To support your point about God changing his mind on humans deserving death, well, he could have done a bit more in that area.
If you're going to quote Romans at least put it in context. Paul says that the wages of sin is death. In other words, no one who has sinned can ever be worthy of a perfectly just god. That's the entire reason for sacrificial atonement in the old testament. That's the entire reason Jesus was sent to earth to die, so that the law of the old testament could be fulfilled once and for all. Paul is listing out sins in those verses. Let me list a few others: lying, sloth, lust, anger. God doesn't see any of these as any worse than another. Each and every one carries a sentence of death. But Jesus was crucified as the perfect sacrifice. Perfect in life, he is the only one who doesn't deserve to die for his sins. Since he was killed as a sacrifice for us, we can be forgiven for our sins and are no longer sentenced to death. This is hardly a call to kill people who sin.
There are some other verses you should consider (oddly enough, also from Romans) "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." Romans 12:19, NIV
If you want to bash Christianity, it's your right, but you should at least learn what mainstream Christian's believe (hint: the majority of /.ers seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads, and seldom if ever actually know what Christians are saying or doing)
The death and ressurrection of Jesus is a pretty important facet of the Christian faith. I think you'll need more than a few passages from one book to argue your point, especially when so many other explanations for Jesus having to die on the cross have been debated well. Are you dismissing the "original sin" as relevant to the topic? What about the fact that humans all, even after Jesus died as a sacrifice, still die (a post-Adam/Eve phenomenom, which could easily have been changed back by God after the death of Christ). What about any number of other suggestions backed by picking out statements made by other biblical figures in other books?
I imagine a "cure for religion" app would be allowed, but someone go make it and find out.
I'd be more interested to see an app that installs a button that, if pressed, pledges the user's support to the anti-christ after the second coming (or whatever the exact specifics for the unforgivable sin are, it's been a while since I've read the details).
Debates pitting logic against god or arguing against god are one thing, but I wonder how people would respond to an app that, within the confines of "accepting" Christianity, commits the most horrendous act possible as outlined in the faith (in one click no less!).
In my town we have several so-called christian churches that tell families if they give money god will bless them. This of course is the heresy that prompted all protestant faiths.
As opposed to the Catholic Church, which said that if you gave them money, your loved ones would be freed from Purgatory?
Yes, except the opposite of "as opposed to".
And Microsoft is of course always happy with a Windows-only solution that just doesn't work on other platforms.
As they should be. Just as vendors for other platforms should be happy to release solutions that work for theirs.
GearScore is an incredibly worthless statistic. All it means is that they were present in a raid when a piece of loot dropped, and they won it.
If someone is fully decked out in heroic gear, you don't need GearScore to tell you they're probably a decent player. If someone doesn't have the gear you "want" them to have, you have no idea *why* they don't have it. A good player can generally play well above their actual gear score, and because nearly all fights are more about execution than raw numbers, gear doesn't even matter in most cases.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the gear you "want" them to have can easily be the gear you "expect" them to have. When running heroics, I'd sometimes get complains that I didn't have any "tier" gear or other epic dungeon drops (other than my tanking sword and shield). Everything else I'd wear my area gear, with the shoulders switched to PVP shoulders filled with tanking gems and enchantments (switched a few other things out for enchantments also). The point being, I had spent the time gaining PVP points to get duplicate items and gem/enchant them for tanking, during a periods were many others would hang around Shat and try to get a group that would carry them through in the hopes they'd get some gear out of it.
Properly researched and with the right gems & enchantments, I comfortably tanked all the heroics and a few 25 player instances BEFORE I started to see any of the "expected" warrior tank gear drop (and when it rained it poured, thankfully). During that period, though, there was often someone in a pug who'd criticize me about my choice in gear, and it was always someone who'd never played an end game warrior (and they were usually pretty green to end game).
For example, I never told a priest or a warlock how to properly gear and spec (unless that player was joining one of my arena teams), as I felt I had no lecturing someone about a class I didn't play. If a pug kept wiping, it was easy enough to tell where the problem was, and I'd try to commit that player to memory as someone not to group with again.
As a main tank (retired), my life would have been absolute hell without at least a decent aggro meter. DPS is a fine thing to measure, but in the actual boss fights threat is the more important aspect. Especially for fights where tanks have to be rotated in and out, not knowing how much threat individual players were generating would have lead to the (stronger) DPS holding back most of the time, and occasionally getting one-shotted other times.
Sure, as a warrior I could always intercept then challenge when a DPS accidentally (or idiotically) pulled aggo from whichever tank is up, but if tanking that specific boss wasn't my roll at the time it would throw things into chaos at least. With a threat meter, we were able to remind people to ease up a bit when they threaten to draw aggro, and at the same time get a better picture of which tanks aren't performing as well as they should be.
Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.
Oh yeah, and ARE YOU LISTENING MUSIC INDUSTRY? Innovate or die.
You have it backwards; the music industry equivalent of Blockbuster already went out of business: Tower Records. It's Blockbuster who should have taken notice.
And conveniently these days you can borrow movies from most local libraries.... free.
Tax dollars at work.
I'd bet money Netflix would love to be a streaming only company; dealing with dvds in the mail must be a nightmare. I can't wait until I can stream every movie ever made via Netflix.
I don't think the founder is shy about discussing exactly that. There's a reason he called it "Netflix" rather than something that indicates movies in the mail. Streaming just wasn't viable when Netflix started business, but it's clearly going entirely in that direction.
Thus spake Wikipedia:
(Barnes and Noble) first began selling books online in the late 1980s, but the company’s website was not launched until May 1997.
In July 1995, the company (amazon) began service and sold its first book on amazon.com
Wow, it took B&N almost two years after Amazon to get their website going? Talk about missing the boat.
One can say that, but in 1995, B&N was a bookstore franchise while Amazon was an online company that decided books was the best product to start off selling. It's easy to miss the boat when the other party helps build it.
Two years actually seems pretty quick for B&N to get online, especially if one considers the growth in Internet usage over that time period. 1995 didn't exactly present a huge market for a company that had no e-commerce division to invest in, but the smaller Internet company Amazon.com demonstrated over those two years of market growth that it was viable, reducing the risk to B&N.
I suggest that it was the next 13 years of business choices while both sites were active that determined which is more dominant today.
Neither Netflix nor Amazon should even exist, but for the stupidity of Blockbuster and Barnes and Noble. I can see the clueless management of both companies now:
"Oh that intertooob thingy will never catch on!"
Additionally, Blockbuster should have seen something of itself in Tower Records going out of business in 2006.
Correct. An accusation is just that, and nothing more. However, once a grand jury decides there is enough to proceed to a trial, and evidence is presented from both sides at the trial, anybody with a brain is then able to form their own independent opinions. (Especially if the presumed innocent party explains in great detail the crime he supposedly didn't commit, "hypothetically".
There's no "however" involved. In the US, one is innocent and remains so until proven guilty (so goes the justice system's tagline). That means accused == innocent, and not guilty == innocent.
Notice I didn't use the triple equals.
$0.99 is way too much for a single episode rental. With the same price you can buy the whole season from store and get a physical product with extras too.
Why not a subscription based service like Spotify, but for TV episodes? I would gladly pay $10 a month if I could stream any tv show and episode I wanted to. I already do for Spotify and seriously, I haven't felt the need to get mp3's since I started using it because frankly, it's just so convenient and easy. Hell, you can even offer an ad-based service too. Just have it huge library, don't delete old episodes or shows and add the new episodes there right after or when they're showing on TV.
Netflix has plenty of TV shows available for streaming. Certainly not most of the newest shows, or the shows that expect to bring in large amounts of money through DVD sales or rentals. Nevertheless, the model is there. With my Netflix subscription I've streamed quite a few TV shows (many in HD) for less than $10 a month. Perhaps more importantly, these aren't rentals. I can watch them as often as I please, without time constraints.
At the same time, iTunes has always seems WAY over priced when it comes to TV shows. I watch TV shows at least once a week, all through online sources, and all legitimately. Hulu or network-specific sites are all right for that, but I'd obviously like a larger selection, ideally with more shows in HD. If the online video advertising model doesn't support the costs involved then I'd be willing to pay to have that access, but via the Netflix model, not the iTunes model.
How would the users know it's that site that is broken, and not the browser?
Via the W3C validation buttons at the bottom of the page that the users can click and see that the site does adhere to standards (or *cough*slashdot*cough* doesn't).
People act like any measures taken now determine the future of the American space program forever. The budget is what it is. If NASA needs to focus on less expensive methods of exploration, that doesn't mean it will be that way forever. If it's a major setback, that's unfortunate. It doesn't change the financial health of the country, however.
So then... no Offspring tracks? :(
Don't worry, you can still buy an offspring CD and play that one track on single repeat throughout the entire game.
I love the Dreamcast as much as anyone, and I couldn't care less about this. Why? I still have mine.
Are they going to be in high definition? That could be a good reason to care.
I am sorry, but the framework still supports PHP version 4.3.2. Support for PHP 4 was ended at the end of 2007. Any framework that doesn't take advantage of the nice new features in PHP 5 bound to be full of kludges and outdated code.
That is just my reaction based on when I was comparing PHP frameworks, I didn't dig into their code so maybe I am wrong.
I haven't dug in too far, since I'm paid to spend my time working on my company's proprietary framework, but CodeIgniters seems to have done a pretty good job in how they've gone about maintaining PHP4 support. Clever solutions rather than outdated ones, to put it briefly. It also seems pretty easy to just use the parts of their code you need, and of course any code you write either within the framework or as a plugin can be 100% PHP5.