I would think he is either a troll or stupid because he makes decisions about software not based on suitability but on whether or not they contain some arbitrary computer language.
However, Mozart was a keyboard and violin virtuoso, and Kanye West "writes his own material" in the same way that ordering a pizza from Dominoes is "making supper".
I have no witty remarks concerning Frank Sinatra at this time.
Amarok used to crash my computer 2 or 3 times a day. That was Ubuntu 8.10. It's too bad. Amarok used to be a compelling reason to use Linux. Now it drives me back to iTunes and WinXp.
This assumption is certainly common (how many times have you heard, "If people keep pirating movies, they won't make movies any more"), but is it true? Is there any evidence that something will fade away because it is pirated?
I suspect that certain people will not write books because of piracy, and other people will write books because of piracy. Wherever there is a need, the market will fill it.
Imagine a world where as soon as anyone wrote a book, it was instantly pirated and distributed to everyone in the world. Would books cease to be written? Most certainly not.
Thank God serutan is here to catch this tiny error and throw it back in Bruce's face.
I used to like Bruce's work, but now I realize it's all rubbish. Not like my new hero serutan! Such class! Such grace! Not even a hint of being childish. If only all the world would react in such a petty way to what is probably a typo. What heights we could reach!
Restrictions reduce its value to consumers
on
Piracy and the PSP
·
· Score: 1
I own one, and I would use it more if I pirated games. As it is, I put movies on it (which I rip) for long trips, and the wife plays Puzzle Quest while breast-feeding the baby.
It's a great little device. I'd use it a lot more if I could use SCUMM or other emulation. (I know I can, but I can't be bothered to get the things set up). The restrictions around the PSP make me use it less.
Are you serious? You can't possibly imagine any sort of solution to the problems you stated?
Cars currently break down with gasoline engines, blocking traffic, requiring expensive towing, and sometimes stranding/killing the passengers. This isn't a unique quality of battery powered vehicles.
It's only hard to destroy a car with a nozzle or plug because we've engineered solutions to the problem of destroying cars with nozzles and plugs. Simply swap the battery out from the bottom. Then your hypothetical 'moron' will need to crawl under the car to get killed.
If you bought a perfectly new battery and bring it back useless (unable to hold a charge), you get dinged for the price of a new battery. If you bought an almost-useless battery and bring it back useless, you get dinged only a small amount, proportional to how much use the battery had when you got it compared to how much use it has now.
Your grandiose claim of battery swapping being 'simply a non-starter' is so myopic I actually laughed out loud. Problems exist. We develop solutions. You don't think putting 300 people in a thin steel tube going 600 mph and 30,000 feet up is more risky than having a robot swap a battery? We seem to have solved the flight problem okay. Surely we can handle a battery swap.
That's why I said there would need to be a reliable way to determine the charge of a battery (how far it will take you), and stations would probably implement some sort of 'minimum mileage' guarantee.
Sorry I wasn't clearer. What I meant was that you'll keep the battery you are currently using in as good as condition as possible to maximize its value when you swap it for your next battery at the recharge station. You won't spill acid on it, or get it wet, or paint it, or bash it with a hammer, or let it discharge and forget to return it for 6 months, or whatever else might decrease its value.
I have a feeling we're going to see this objection a lot today (I've read it three times today and the story is still young), which is weird because the answer is as obvious as it is simple:
When you swap in your battery, its condition and the condition of the battery you are accepting affect how much you pay. The battery-swap station sets a minimum level of 'charge' for batteries it uses and we're all set.
Guess what? Swap a shitty battery for a shiny-new battery and you'll be charged more. Trade your shiny-new battery for a shitty one, and you'll be charged less. This has the added benefit in that you'll try and keep the battery in top condition, because you want to maximize its value when you swap it for your next one.
Or you could pay for the electricity used when you return it, as opposed to when you pick it up. If it only got you 20 miles, you only pay a small amount. If it got you 400 miles, you pay a larger amount.
If you paid by amps (or whatever the relevant unit of electricity is) instead of miles, it would further encourage you to drive in an efficient manner. Sounds like a win-win.
Of course, the car is going to need an accurate way to gauge how far the battery can go, and service stations would probably have a minimum mileage requirement for any battery they offered, but charging after instead of before would solve the "I got a lousy battery" problem.
I may be misunderstanding you, but that's not what I mean at all. It's not about whether or not I am willing to support other people who have lost their jobs.
The money to support an unemployed person must come from somewhere. We see it as coming from the government, but the government gets it from its citizens through taxation. If the citizens can't pay it, the government can't pay the unemployed.
This is the disconnect. The money going to unemployed people comes from employed people. If enough people are unemployed, the employed will be unable/unwilling to support them.
Quite right. I've always found it curious that so many people have a complete disconnect between "The government gives me money" and "Where does the government get this money?"
Slashdot Mirror
I would think he is either a troll or stupid because he makes decisions about software not based on suitability but on whether or not they contain some arbitrary computer language.
I completely agree with you.
However, Mozart was a keyboard and violin virtuoso, and Kanye West "writes his own material" in the same way that ordering a pizza from Dominoes is "making supper".
I have no witty remarks concerning Frank Sinatra at this time.
...due to all the NHL anti-fighting rules.
Which were only put in place to increase the appeal of the sport in the US. We like our fighting in hockey
Amarok used to crash my computer 2 or 3 times a day. That was Ubuntu 8.10. It's too bad. Amarok used to be a compelling reason to use Linux. Now it drives me back to iTunes and WinXp.
Indeed, that does seem to be the best explanation. I thought miket01 was wrong, but it turns out he was just much more clever than myself.
Oh well, back to the alcohol for me!
While that may be true, it's not really a spelling error, is it?
Trying to pound the square peg of MS Word into the round hole LaTeX fills is most likely impossible.
Did this sound naughty to anyone else?
High gas prices may have been the trigger, but they were certainly not the cause. The US economy was in the shit long before gas prices began to rise.
Are the better books going to disappear?
This assumption is certainly common (how many times have you heard, "If people keep pirating movies, they won't make movies any more"), but is it true? Is there any evidence that something will fade away because it is pirated?
I suspect that certain people will not write books because of piracy, and other people will write books because of piracy. Wherever there is a need, the market will fill it.
Imagine a world where as soon as anyone wrote a book, it was instantly pirated and distributed to everyone in the world. Would books cease to be written? Most certainly not.
Thank God serutan is here to catch this tiny error and throw it back in Bruce's face.
I used to like Bruce's work, but now I realize it's all rubbish. Not like my new hero serutan! Such class! Such grace! Not even a hint of being childish. If only all the world would react in such a petty way to what is probably a typo. What heights we could reach!
I'll believe that when I see it!
I own one, and I would use it more if I pirated games. As it is, I put movies on it (which I rip) for long trips, and the wife plays Puzzle Quest while breast-feeding the baby.
It's a great little device. I'd use it a lot more if I could use SCUMM or other emulation. (I know I can, but I can't be bothered to get the things set up). The restrictions around the PSP make me use it less.
Are you serious? You can't possibly imagine any sort of solution to the problems you stated?
Cars currently break down with gasoline engines, blocking traffic, requiring expensive towing, and sometimes stranding/killing the passengers. This isn't a unique quality of battery powered vehicles.
It's only hard to destroy a car with a nozzle or plug because we've engineered solutions to the problem of destroying cars with nozzles and plugs. Simply swap the battery out from the bottom. Then your hypothetical 'moron' will need to crawl under the car to get killed.
If you bought a perfectly new battery and bring it back useless (unable to hold a charge), you get dinged for the price of a new battery. If you bought an almost-useless battery and bring it back useless, you get dinged only a small amount, proportional to how much use the battery had when you got it compared to how much use it has now.
Your grandiose claim of battery swapping being 'simply a non-starter' is so myopic I actually laughed out loud. Problems exist. We develop solutions. You don't think putting 300 people in a thin steel tube going 600 mph and 30,000 feet up is more risky than having a robot swap a battery? We seem to have solved the flight problem okay. Surely we can handle a battery swap.
Yes, those are certainly valid arguments.
That's why I said there would need to be a reliable way to determine the charge of a battery (how far it will take you), and stations would probably implement some sort of 'minimum mileage' guarantee.
Sorry I wasn't clearer. What I meant was that you'll keep the battery you are currently using in as good as condition as possible to maximize its value when you swap it for your next battery at the recharge station. You won't spill acid on it, or get it wet, or paint it, or bash it with a hammer, or let it discharge and forget to return it for 6 months, or whatever else might decrease its value.
I have a feeling we're going to see this objection a lot today (I've read it three times today and the story is still young), which is weird because the answer is as obvious as it is simple:
When you swap in your battery, its condition and the condition of the battery you are accepting affect how much you pay. The battery-swap station sets a minimum level of 'charge' for batteries it uses and we're all set.
Guess what? Swap a shitty battery for a shiny-new battery and you'll be charged more. Trade your shiny-new battery for a shitty one, and you'll be charged less. This has the added benefit in that you'll try and keep the battery in top condition, because you want to maximize its value when you swap it for your next one.
Or you could pay for the electricity used when you return it, as opposed to when you pick it up. If it only got you 20 miles, you only pay a small amount. If it got you 400 miles, you pay a larger amount.
If you paid by amps (or whatever the relevant unit of electricity is) instead of miles, it would further encourage you to drive in an efficient manner. Sounds like a win-win.
Of course, the car is going to need an accurate way to gauge how far the battery can go, and service stations would probably have a minimum mileage requirement for any battery they offered, but charging after instead of before would solve the "I got a lousy battery" problem.
No. Bad palegray. Bad!
I read that as "Wordpress made me abandon monogamy".
I thought, "I must look into this 'Wordpress'".
The taxpayer, of course. OnLive is too big to fail...
...eternal life...starts immediately when accept you Christ.
So Christians don't ever die? That's awesome!
What's that? Oh, you do actually die. Tell me how that's eternal again?
That is true. However, I'm quite comfortable with the 'window' that solar energy gives us until it runs out.
Unfortunately, however, Lucifer's social calendar is jammed solid, and he is unlikely to respond to any speaking engagement requests.
I may be misunderstanding you, but that's not what I mean at all. It's not about whether or not I am willing to support other people who have lost their jobs.
The money to support an unemployed person must come from somewhere. We see it as coming from the government, but the government gets it from its citizens through taxation. If the citizens can't pay it, the government can't pay the unemployed.
This is the disconnect. The money going to unemployed people comes from employed people. If enough people are unemployed, the employed will be unable/unwilling to support them.
Quite right. I've always found it curious that so many people have a complete disconnect between "The government gives me money" and "Where does the government get this money?"