wouldn't a slightly simpler alternative to putting EVERY show on-demand (goodbye ad revenue) involve letting you program the dvr with something like survivor:* so it automatically adapts to each new season? your suggestion appears to bring the once a season problem of figuring out which shows to record to a daily problem of finding shows to watch
"The U.S. Government's assertion that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market might be the most patently absurd claim ever advanced by the legal mind. Linux, a technically superior operating system, is being given away for free, and BeOS is available at a nominal price. This is simply a fact, which has to be accepted whether or not you like Microsoft.
Microsoft is really big and rich, and if some of the government's witnesses are to be believed, they are not nice guys. But the accusation of a monopoly simply does not make any sense."
"What do you mean i need 'root' access? I have to use the command line? WTF is sudo? Why do I have to enter a password? Why can't I just hit continue like I used to?"
maybe if you had played for more than a few minutes, you would have found the machines that spawn them. then you might have thought about how that level of technology existed in the game world and that it makes quite a bit of sense that an ai trying to kill you would make full use of that ability to hunt you down when you are located with a security camera
If the studios set the mark at a level reasonable to consumers, they likely won't make enough on their big sellers to offset the cost of all their failures. You said it yourself, most media is produced at a loss. Why would companies put a limit on their revenues without being able to put a limit on their losses?
If studios went for this, they would likely set their marks rather high. I doubt most movie studios would set the mark below Titanic's revenue, at which point it would be thoroughly meaningless to consumers as the marks would likely never be hit.
The biggest reason I see right now as to why this would never work is that it encourages piracy far more than the model of today. In today's environment, downloaders know that they are expected to pay for media and that illegal downloading circumvents that. In that environment, it'd be really hard to feel any guilt over downloading something that is expected to be freely available shortly anyway.
For future reference, 0 in balanced ternary is equal to 0 in decimal. {1,-1} or 11 or +- or any other way you wish to actually denote the decimal 2 in balanced ternary will never manage to confound a normal person as much as the binary 10 (or 11) since it will not appear to them as a familiar number.
(I had to think of a way to underline the -1 in the second representation so I chose to turn it into a link to an article that uses that notation. Why doesn't the forum software allow underlining? The world may never know)
What is that even supposed to mean? Without telling us the voltage or resistance, watts give no indication about current since they're used as a measurement of power. P=VI=RI^2
I smoke pot, so I can't complain if someone shoots me? I fail to see how breaking a senseless rule removes one's right to complain about somebody else violating a reasonable one.
with the assumption that you use windows, the act of typing 'shrink picture' itself requires more keystrokes than needed to shrink an image. right click the image and select edit. hit ctrl+w (or go to image->resize if you like menus) and enter the new size. finish by saving.
"Oh noes, my clip was removed from a public website -- whatever shall I do? I know, I'll sue Viacom"
How is asking for the removal of copyrighted clips an abuse of the DMCA? Why should Viacom be held liable for asking for those clips to be removed? If.06% of those particular clips are within the TOS of YouTube, the only recourse their uploaders should have available is the ability to re-upload them.
Slashdot Mirror
Topless women make any temperature tolerable...
Your definition of day seems to be about as consistent as the Bible's
wouldn't a slightly simpler alternative to putting EVERY show on-demand (goodbye ad revenue) involve letting you program the dvr with something like survivor:* so it automatically adapts to each new season? your suggestion appears to bring the once a season problem of figuring out which shows to record to a daily problem of finding shows to watch
-define(constant, replacement)
I may have misread what you're actually looking for. Sorry if that's the case
"The U.S. Government's assertion that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market might be the most patently absurd claim ever advanced by the legal mind. Linux, a technically superior operating system, is being given away for free, and BeOS is available at a nominal price. This is simply a fact, which has to be accepted whether or not you like Microsoft.
Microsoft is really big and rich, and if some of the government's witnesses are to be believed, they are not nice guys. But the accusation of a monopoly simply does not make any sense."
Neil Stephenson (a bit dated, but so is the monopoly case)
I can see it now...
"What do you mean i need 'root' access? I have to use the command line? WTF is sudo? Why do I have to enter a password? Why can't I just hit continue like I used to?"
maybe if you had played for more than a few minutes, you would have found the machines that spawn them. then you might have thought about how that level of technology existed in the game world and that it makes quite a bit of sense that an ai trying to kill you would make full use of that ability to hunt you down when you are located with a security camera
If the studios set the mark at a level reasonable to consumers, they likely won't make enough on their big sellers to offset the cost of all their failures. You said it yourself, most media is produced at a loss. Why would companies put a limit on their revenues without being able to put a limit on their losses?
If studios went for this, they would likely set their marks rather high. I doubt most movie studios would set the mark below Titanic's revenue, at which point it would be thoroughly meaningless to consumers as the marks would likely never be hit.
The biggest reason I see right now as to why this would never work is that it encourages piracy far more than the model of today. In today's environment, downloaders know that they are expected to pay for media and that illegal downloading circumvents that. In that environment, it'd be really hard to feel any guilt over downloading something that is expected to be freely available shortly anyway.
It's the national emergency relating to the need to protect US oil companies in Iraq. That sounds legit to me3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_1330
For future reference, 0 in balanced ternary is equal to 0 in decimal. {1,-1} or 11 or +- or any other way you wish to actually denote the decimal 2 in balanced ternary will never manage to confound a normal person as much as the binary 10 (or 11) since it will not appear to them as a familiar number.
(I had to think of a way to underline the -1 in the second representation so I chose to turn it into a link to an article that uses that notation. Why doesn't the forum software allow underlining? The world may never know)
I do like your hint to Ghostfaced though.
wow, you guys are really stretching it
How is this a troll comment? Google clearly abandoned the 'do no evil' stance as soon as they started making a boatload of money.
What is that even supposed to mean? Without telling us the voltage or resistance, watts give no indication about current since they're used as a measurement of power. P=VI=RI^2
I smoke pot, so I can't complain if someone shoots me? I fail to see how breaking a senseless rule removes one's right to complain about somebody else violating a reasonable one.
with the assumption that you use windows, the act of typing 'shrink picture' itself requires more keystrokes than needed to shrink an image. right click the image and select edit. hit ctrl+w (or go to image->resize if you like menus) and enter the new size. finish by saving.
So, are you assuming this will exponentially decay the wireless internet but magically only linearly decay other signals?
"Oh noes, my clip was removed from a public website -- whatever shall I do? I know, I'll sue Viacom"
.06% of those particular clips are within the TOS of YouTube, the only recourse their uploaders should have available is the ability to re-upload them.
How is asking for the removal of copyrighted clips an abuse of the DMCA? Why should Viacom be held liable for asking for those clips to be removed? If