I'm a long time linux n00b (play with it from time to time but don't make my living with it). And I hate Unity. It felt like a step backwards, or more like Microsoft took over the design.....and its left me looking for another distro.
You right:) but $30 month is for HBO only.
I was trying to make the point if I have to pay $30 a month for each broadcaster I want to receive, it quickly becomes more expensive than the most expensive cable package. In order for subscriptions to broadcasters to work out, the prices have to come down a lot.
There's about 6 or 7 broadcasters I would pay to get (History, SciFi, HBO, etc...). If I had to pay $30 for each of them individually, I could just get cable and all the other crap with it.
GoogleTV provides this with HBO. I think its a great idea but its too expensive at $30 a month. I love the idea of paying only for the TV programming I want. But the prices are going to have to fall significantly to make it worth while. Thankfully ESPN is free, for now:)
My biggest complaint about software patents (ok patents in general) is that you can patent the idea without ever having to invest the effort and time to create the software. For example, AMD owns a patent on location based reminder. But as far as I can tell they do not sell any software that implements the patent. Yet this patent keeps me from making the effort of creating my own software that provides reminders based on location. This whole patent thing is just ridiculous. I'm going to patent "patenting ideas";) maybe finally I will have my own patent.
Seriously, I can think of no national emergency that would require the entire Web going off line that couldn't be solved by some simpler and much less drastic means.
It seems to me, in a national emergency our internet could be what saves us. Websites, email, online video stream, etc....perfect ways to communicate what's going.....It seems very suspicious to me that such a power to shutoff the internet would be more about politics than rule of law or common sense or in defense of the country.
Unless you're willing to go independent, making and publishing your own games, I would agree with the poster. With all the competition and price pressure the big studios are facing, it's a hard environment to break into and even harder to stay employed.
Going the independent route is certainly hard. But you can at least mitigate some of the financial uncertain through working in other industries until you get your game going.
They wouldn't be asking for comments for purpose of clarification if there was any intent of repealing the law. They are looking to see if it will be easier to enforce the law and nab a smidgen more tax from working Americans that happen to follow the law. Lawbreakers (illegals, those who don't file or cheat on their filings etc...) will be exempt of course.
Your so right about that....there was a case in Atlanta GA a few years ago where a family sent photos to a place to be developed. In the photos were a very young child in underwear, and at lease one with the child holding a beer bottle. The photo processing place turned these over to the authorities. The parents were run through all kinds of legal muck: kids taken outta the home at 3AM, jail, courts etc.... after investigations the authorities decided to throw out the charges because it was the parents taking the photos and there was no harm to the child. But these people were ruined for it. (I will admit they were just stupid for taking pics of their kid holding a beer bottle). It boils down to the fact that someone had their own view of what was "child endangerment".
Child pornography is wrong/bad/and the bastards deserve life in jail bending over for bubba.
But it is also wrong that someone can ruin the life of someone over mis-use of "perceptions". There needs to be limits placed that protect innocents.
We blame the lobbists for their stance, and rightly so.
We also have to blame the politicians, congress etc...if they actually stood for what is right and is common sense the lobbyists view wouldn't matter.
But the politician is only about power for himself and getting re-elected. Since the lobbyist serves his personal agenda well, the lobbyist get a lot power from it simply by the politicians selfish motivations.
So the politicians are equally to blame. They don't care about 100 million dollars that is taken from your paychecks.
Let's not forget the political side of this story. There is a political side that utterly hates and detests the open nature of the internet. They are motivated to use situations like this to point out weaknesses, at a minimum.
I remember when the internet "became the thing" in the mid/late 90s. This reporter was reporting about cookies (browser cookies). She was just so freaked out about how terrible that there was no control (aka government control) over cookies.
The media and certain political establishments have been, from early on, feeling threatened by the internet since it's popularity became mainstream. I really feel this criticism of Twitter is motivated by that.
I didn't say ban anything. I was just offering an idea to think about in hopes of generating knowledgeable understanding. Understanding a point of view helps to find rational solutions.
I'm not saying their point is right, but I can see where they are coming from.
Cell phones have been used for years to remote denote bombs. With the iPhone you easily have a programable bomb denotonator.
Imagine this: Code the iPhone to check GPS coordinates. Then hook up it to the bomb with a while continuiously checking GPS coordinates and then either denotes the bomb at specific coordinates or informs "someone of interest" that the bomb has made it to specific location.
Sounds rather powerful detonator imo. I'll admit I know little about iPhone programming. One has to admit that sounds like a very plausible use case.
concerning "Firefox aim for lean, efficient browsing experiences":
I do not consider FF lean by any means. I use it exclusively but still find it hogging up my windows box (yeah yeah blame windows). Right now with 2 tabs open its consuming 203MB and is using 44 threads. wtf!
Americans are not afraid. We don't live our lives in fear.
Our media and our government wants us to be afraid because it keeps them in power and "in control". So they are always perpetrating the latest thing we should be afraid of: Y2K, bird flu, gangs, terrorists....
But if you talk to us and watch our lives, we are not afraid. We go about our lives happily. We know problems exist but we do not let those issues keep us from having and enjoying life.
I really wish the rest of the world didn't have to learn of America through the media. They distort so much of our heritage and of who we are. It's not funny. It's really sad.
Slashdot Mirror
same thing? :) Actually, yes apple would be a better choice of comparisons. I've never owned a mac....;)
I'm a long time linux n00b (play with it from time to time but don't make my living with it). And I hate Unity. It felt like a step backwards, or more like Microsoft took over the design.....and its left me looking for another distro.
I would definitely sign up if the cost was in the $3-5 per channel per month. :)
You right :) but $30 month is for HBO only.
I was trying to make the point if I have to pay $30 a month for each broadcaster I want to receive, it quickly becomes more expensive than the most expensive cable package. In order for subscriptions to broadcasters to work out, the prices have to come down a lot.
There's about 6 or 7 broadcasters I would pay to get (History, SciFi, HBO, etc...). If I had to pay $30 for each of them individually, I could just get cable and all the other crap with it.
GoogleTV provides this with HBO. I think its a great idea but its too expensive at $30 a month. I love the idea of paying only for the TV programming I want. But the prices are going to have to fall significantly to make it worth while. Thankfully ESPN is free, for now :)
My biggest complaint about software patents (ok patents in general) is that you can patent the idea without ever having to invest the effort and time to create the software. For example, AMD owns a patent on location based reminder. But as far as I can tell they do not sell any software that implements the patent. Yet this patent keeps me from making the effort of creating my own software that provides reminders based on location. This whole patent thing is just ridiculous. I'm going to patent "patenting ideas" ;) maybe finally I will have my own patent.
Seriously, I can think of no national emergency that would require the entire Web going off line that couldn't be solved by some simpler and much less drastic means.
It seems to me, in a national emergency our internet could be what saves us. Websites, email, online video stream, etc....perfect ways to communicate what's going.....It seems very suspicious to me that such a power to shutoff the internet would be more about politics than rule of law or common sense or in defense of the country.
you got my vote. I like the ideas
Unless you're willing to go independent, making and publishing your own games, I would agree with the poster. With all the competition and price pressure the big studios are facing, it's a hard environment to break into and even harder to stay employed. Going the independent route is certainly hard. But you can at least mitigate some of the financial uncertain through working in other industries until you get your game going.
They wouldn't be asking for comments for purpose of clarification if there was any intent of repealing the law. They are looking to see if it will be easier to enforce the law and nab a smidgen more tax from working Americans that happen to follow the law. Lawbreakers (illegals, those who don't file or cheat on their filings etc...) will be exempt of course.
Your so right about that....there was a case in Atlanta GA a few years ago where a family sent photos to a place to be developed. In the photos were a very young child in underwear, and at lease one with the child holding a beer bottle. The photo processing place turned these over to the authorities. The parents were run through all kinds of legal muck: kids taken outta the home at 3AM, jail, courts etc.... after investigations the authorities decided to throw out the charges because it was the parents taking the photos and there was no harm to the child. But these people were ruined for it. (I will admit they were just stupid for taking pics of their kid holding a beer bottle). It boils down to the fact that someone had their own view of what was "child endangerment". Child pornography is wrong/bad/and the bastards deserve life in jail bending over for bubba. But it is also wrong that someone can ruin the life of someone over mis-use of "perceptions". There needs to be limits placed that protect innocents.
It's not like someone could gather up all the "incidents" and start piecing together where some of this stuff lies to begin with either.
your preaching the choir! :)
We blame the lobbists for their stance, and rightly so. We also have to blame the politicians, congress etc...if they actually stood for what is right and is common sense the lobbyists view wouldn't matter. But the politician is only about power for himself and getting re-elected. Since the lobbyist serves his personal agenda well, the lobbyist get a lot power from it simply by the politicians selfish motivations. So the politicians are equally to blame. They don't care about 100 million dollars that is taken from your paychecks.
Let's not forget the political side of this story. There is a political side that utterly hates and detests the open nature of the internet. They are motivated to use situations like this to point out weaknesses, at a minimum. I remember when the internet "became the thing" in the mid/late 90s. This reporter was reporting about cookies (browser cookies). She was just so freaked out about how terrible that there was no control (aka government control) over cookies. The media and certain political establishments have been, from early on, feeling threatened by the internet since it's popularity became mainstream. I really feel this criticism of Twitter is motivated by that.
And pretty much any ASP.NET site that uses the ASP:Menu control for the navigation. It does render the drop downs correctly.
lol. exactly.
I didn't say ban anything. I was just offering an idea to think about in hopes of generating knowledgeable understanding. Understanding a point of view helps to find rational solutions.
I'm not saying their point is right, but I can see where they are coming from.
Cell phones have been used for years to remote denote bombs. With the iPhone you easily have a programable bomb denotonator.
Imagine this: Code the iPhone to check GPS coordinates. Then hook up it to the bomb with a while continuiously checking GPS coordinates and then either denotes the bomb at specific coordinates or informs "someone of interest" that the bomb has made it to specific location.
Sounds rather powerful detonator imo. I'll admit I know little about iPhone programming. One has to admit that sounds like a very plausible use case.
As engineers, we all love great architecture, great code. Personally I take a lot of pride in engineering code that is built "right".
But to our customers, they could care less about code. If they think the product does what they need, they will be interested.
To answer your question, will you get sued? Most likely. Does it really matter? I don't think so.
Companies gets sued and sue all the time. It is a part of almost every business that makes a buck.
This is the reality: Can you sell your product? Can you pay the bills with it?
If you can answer yes to those questions, then go for it. Otherwise, it might be wise to find a different product to invent.
that means they gave linear velocity to Mercury. It's going faster. The whole space time continuum has now been altered. We're doomed!
business plan
concerning "Firefox aim for lean, efficient browsing experiences":
I do not consider FF lean by any means. I use it exclusively but still find it hogging up my windows box (yeah yeah blame windows). Right now with 2 tabs open its consuming 203MB and is using 44 threads. wtf!
I won't switch to IE8. But I'm not happy with FF
Americans are not afraid. We don't live our lives in fear. Our media and our government wants us to be afraid because it keeps them in power and "in control". So they are always perpetrating the latest thing we should be afraid of: Y2K, bird flu, gangs, terrorists.... But if you talk to us and watch our lives, we are not afraid. We go about our lives happily. We know problems exist but we do not let those issues keep us from having and enjoying life. I really wish the rest of the world didn't have to learn of America through the media. They distort so much of our heritage and of who we are. It's not funny. It's really sad.
see Tire Industry report. The report states that 100% of all new cars sold after Sept 1, 2007 must contain TPMS