Yeah they were. I was on an airplane on 9/11 that was diverted from it's original destination of LA to Las Vegas. Immediately some guy pulled out his cell phone, made a call, and let us know what was going on.
So I can tell you from personal experience that cell phones do, indeed, work on planes.
What to you suggest? I type a hell of a lot faster than I speak, and then there's the problem of background noise when I use my laptop. Anything else is more science fiction than is actually plausible.
Re:In the future nobody touches anything
on
Meet the Laptop of 2015
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My fingers land right on the middle of the keys How much of that's because you're constantly getting the feedback of knowing whether you hit the center or slightly off center? At least for me, the tactile feedback keeps my typing from getting sloppy. Tactile feedback is making a big comeback in cars and I expect to see it stay in laptops.
Great attitude buddy. As long as there's a crying baby in there and the chance that someone could get hurt, we shouldn't allow someone the freedom to choose. Makes me really believe in the future of democracy. Good stuff.
Now open your eyes and start acting logically, recycling your own waste to places that can use it, where the recycled material is closer to the place that it's going to be used and invigorates an economy that will ultimately help more people than the US has held in its entire history.
I'm transferring everything across from my old 500GB drive via Firewire 400 and it's going to take a total of 7 hours That's just about right for going to sleep and waking up with it done. Unless you need to do it multiple times a week or it needs to be interactive for whatever reason, I don't see the problem. It took me about 4 hours to switch over to the new hard drives I bought last month, but after that I haven't had to spend more than 10 minutes copying files.
Why isn't this the standard, anyway? Because it significantly raises the potential cost of suing someone, and lawsuits are the last resort against a lot of injustice. If I'll optentially have to pay for the 30 lawyers that an insurance company can throw against me, then I won't file suit in the first place. The ideal system is to say that these fees may be awarded if the court sees that they should be, and that's the situation we're in right now.
the problem with these suits in the first place is that it's a large corporation with less to lose than individuals they're suing; the proposal to award attorney fees no matter what would only widen that gap. After all, when someone loses a case to the RIAA we don't want the defendant paying the RIAA's costs, do we?
Let's not forget that this would widen the gap between the representation that the rich and the poor get even more. If I sue Tylenol because they filled my children's tylenol bottle with crack and wood alcohol, they can just throw 30 lawyers on the case and laugh their asses off. If they lose, their only additional cost would be my lawyer (likely a small percentage of the cost of settlement or their own lawyers); everything else would be the same as before attorney fees were regularly awarded. However, if I lost due to some technicality, I would have to pay for 31 lawyers in what was a legitimate case to begin with.
I hope none of those guys designed the equipment my eye surgeon will be using If the equipment needs to be secured against active subversive behavior by one of the members of your surgical team, I get the feeling that it won't be your biggest concern.
...well DUH... I don't see it as that big of an oversight. A lot of things only work in proportion to the willingness of people to work together for the greater good, including churches, co-ops, even society as a whole (which is what the mafia exploits in their work -- even then, it's a group of people working for the greater good of the organization which is set against the society). The majority of people are willing to play fair, so they naturally assume that everyone else will until they've been burned by their tendencies.
Whatever happened to letting people reply and then putting them into a customer service queue? Instead of making them click a link to reply, let them reply with email. I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some companies, but using technology to benefit the customer is better than making them jump through (usually worthless) hoops.
Will anyone except Microsoft shops want to run Microsoft's virtualization product A lot of companies have a mixed environment for whatever reason. A company I used to work for had 90% of its production servers as CentOS, but one of the servers used Windows Server with SQL Server. Having a uniform environment is great if you can manage it, but a lot can't. If they want to use virtualization for some of those lesser used servers, they're going to have to turn to another platform. Releasing enterprise-level software that doesn't serve most enterprises doesn't seem like a smart move on Microsoft's part.
It also shows they're out of sync with the current server setups that people have. The number of Microsoft-only shops are dwindling, and they're purposely leaving themselves out of the mixed market.
Aren't they supposed to dominate a market before cutting off interoperability (like IE for mac)?
Perhaps because you and those like you weren't the main driver for getting that open access. Google petitioned to get the requirement put into the FCC rules, then bid large amounts of money to see it happen. It was a very smart move for Google and they had the bulk to pull it off. If only I had a few billion dollar to throw behind my causes. *sigh*
Food for thought. How do you know that the doctor hasn't already implanted a tracking device in you? Isn't it a little suspicious that they recommend prostate exams about the same age that many people start questioning the government?
You're missing the point. Piracy is easier than getting the game legitimately and will continue to be so as long as pirates can crack the game. Once the lock is picked, it's picked for everyone. Don't waste money putting a better lock on the thing, put your money into providing value for legitimate customers.
If you make the game just as easy to get legitimately as it is to pirate (remembering that you can't make pirating any harder), things become clearer. Pirates don't buy games and never will; honest people do and always will as long as you don't punish them for it. You can't stop the pirates and you don't need to stop the honest people; who are you protecting against?
The first few bucks (say, on actually having a CD key) stop the 8-12 year olds who would just download it and play it. CD keys come with the download (or so I hear). Besides, what 8-12 year old is going to go out and buy a turn based strategy game with their allowance?
The next large chunk of money (some online authentication) stops another class of people from just getting the iso and the crack and running it And what percentage of people who actually bought the game are going to get burned by this? What about people without internet? What if your server goes down? I've seen downloads that include the crack right in the installer so you'll never need the cd. That's the beauty of piracy: people working together to make it easier for everyone. In this case it's unethical and illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that one talented person (out of the thousands doing the pirating) is all it takes to enable everyone to pirate the program with less hassle than getting a legitimate copy.
So, instead of spending any money on copy protection, why not spend that money on making your game better through a series of patches? Give people the feeling that they're getting a lot of value and continuing value and they'll pay. This is the great secret of the internet and piracy: as long as they don't require a connection to your central server (like an MMO), you'll never be able to keep the pirates from pirating your game. Once your game has been pirated by one person, they'll make it so that other pirates don't need to duplicate their labor.
There are some things the article leaves out. First, Galactic Civilizations 2 requires a valid cd key to get game updates with more content and more detailed textures. Second, GalCiv2 is an amazing game, probably as good as any Civilization game or Alpha Centauri. Third, the AI is the best I've ever played, difficult to an extreme at higher levels. While the first is the only one that contributes to their bottom line, the last two create a lot of good will. Their prices are reasonable, they don't treat me like a criminal, and they have a top notch game.
Microsoft's updates are of the "hey, remember when we fucked up? Oops, paying customers only" variety. Windows isn't top notch per se, but its market share lets it define "good" on their own terms, so I guess they qualify on that one. The difficulty of windows is also best in genre.
Huh, that wasn't the conclusion I was going for, but whatever fits. Once again, Microsoft excels through brute force and incompetence. Viva la clippy!
It's C code for getting the system to allocate 1 terabyte of memory and then fill it up with 1's. The funny comes from the fact that it uses 1 tb of memory, but it's useless.
Umm, be economically viable in any application up to this point? They're extremely useful in all sorts of theories, but they've been worthless for consumers thus far. There was a time when the words "carbon nanotube" made me sit up and listen, now it just makes me yawn.
I believe he equated giving the internet to his friends and neighbors to offering them tea when they're in his house. It's common courtesy to give people what you have in abundance, and since my internet connection is quite good and I have the wireless access point, I should allow my friends to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you be glad that they're taking action, but not necessarily like the action they're taking?
Yeah they were. I was on an airplane on 9/11 that was diverted from it's original destination of LA to Las Vegas. Immediately some guy pulled out his cell phone, made a call, and let us know what was going on.
So I can tell you from personal experience that cell phones do, indeed, work on planes.
What to you suggest? I type a hell of a lot faster than I speak, and then there's the problem of background noise when I use my laptop. Anything else is more science fiction than is actually plausible.
Great attitude buddy. As long as there's a crying baby in there and the chance that someone could get hurt, we shouldn't allow someone the freedom to choose. Makes me really believe in the future of democracy. Good stuff.
Now open your eyes and start acting logically, recycling your own waste to places that can use it, where the recycled material is closer to the place that it's going to be used and invigorates an economy that will ultimately help more people than the US has held in its entire history.
Wouldn't that give evangelical atheists a leg up? Or would smug superiority not convert?
the problem with these suits in the first place is that it's a large corporation with less to lose than individuals they're suing; the proposal to award attorney fees no matter what would only widen that gap. After all, when someone loses a case to the RIAA we don't want the defendant paying the RIAA's costs, do we?
Let's not forget that this would widen the gap between the representation that the rich and the poor get even more. If I sue Tylenol because they filled my children's tylenol bottle with crack and wood alcohol, they can just throw 30 lawyers on the case and laugh their asses off. If they lose, their only additional cost would be my lawyer (likely a small percentage of the cost of settlement or their own lawyers); everything else would be the same as before attorney fees were regularly awarded. However, if I lost due to some technicality, I would have to pay for 31 lawyers in what was a legitimate case to begin with.
...well DUH... I don't see it as that big of an oversight. A lot of things only work in proportion to the willingness of people to work together for the greater good, including churches, co-ops, even society as a whole (which is what the mafia exploits in their work -- even then, it's a group of people working for the greater good of the organization which is set against the society). The majority of people are willing to play fair, so they naturally assume that everyone else will until they've been burned by their tendencies.Just a minute, my boss just walked up with a box.
Whatever happened to letting people reply and then putting them into a customer service queue? Instead of making them click a link to reply, let them reply with email. I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some companies, but using technology to benefit the customer is better than making them jump through (usually worthless) hoops.
It also shows they're out of sync with the current server setups that people have. The number of Microsoft-only shops are dwindling, and they're purposely leaving themselves out of the mixed market.
Aren't they supposed to dominate a market before cutting off interoperability (like IE for mac)?
Perhaps because you and those like you weren't the main driver for getting that open access. Google petitioned to get the requirement put into the FCC rules, then bid large amounts of money to see it happen. It was a very smart move for Google and they had the bulk to pull it off. If only I had a few billion dollar to throw behind my causes. *sigh*
Food for thought. How do you know that the doctor hasn't already implanted a tracking device in you? Isn't it a little suspicious that they recommend prostate exams about the same age that many people start questioning the government?
Digital distribution and don't send physical copies to countries where this is a problem.
You can make it out to cash, thanks.
You're missing the point. Piracy is easier than getting the game legitimately and will continue to be so as long as pirates can crack the game. Once the lock is picked, it's picked for everyone. Don't waste money putting a better lock on the thing, put your money into providing value for legitimate customers.
If you make the game just as easy to get legitimately as it is to pirate (remembering that you can't make pirating any harder), things become clearer. Pirates don't buy games and never will; honest people do and always will as long as you don't punish them for it. You can't stop the pirates and you don't need to stop the honest people; who are you protecting against?
So, instead of spending any money on copy protection, why not spend that money on making your game better through a series of patches? Give people the feeling that they're getting a lot of value and continuing value and they'll pay. This is the great secret of the internet and piracy: as long as they don't require a connection to your central server (like an MMO), you'll never be able to keep the pirates from pirating your game. Once your game has been pirated by one person, they'll make it so that other pirates don't need to duplicate their labor.
There are some things the article leaves out. First, Galactic Civilizations 2 requires a valid cd key to get game updates with more content and more detailed textures. Second, GalCiv2 is an amazing game, probably as good as any Civilization game or Alpha Centauri. Third, the AI is the best I've ever played, difficult to an extreme at higher levels. While the first is the only one that contributes to their bottom line, the last two create a lot of good will. Their prices are reasonable, they don't treat me like a criminal, and they have a top notch game.
Microsoft's updates are of the "hey, remember when we fucked up? Oops, paying customers only" variety. Windows isn't top notch per se, but its market share lets it define "good" on their own terms, so I guess they qualify on that one. The difficulty of windows is also best in genre.
Huh, that wasn't the conclusion I was going for, but whatever fits. Once again, Microsoft excels through brute force and incompetence. Viva la clippy!
It's C code for getting the system to allocate 1 terabyte of memory and then fill it up with 1's. The funny comes from the fact that it uses 1 tb of memory, but it's useless.
Umm, be economically viable in any application up to this point? They're extremely useful in all sorts of theories, but they've been worthless for consumers thus far. There was a time when the words "carbon nanotube" made me sit up and listen, now it just makes me yawn.
- it doesn't heal itself, just mitigates the damage.
- requires carbon nanotubes which would be very hard to manufacture inside a self contained unit.
- requires electricity.
Is it awesome? Yes. Is it better than human muscle? No, just different.I believe he equated giving the internet to his friends and neighbors to offering them tea when they're in his house. It's common courtesy to give people what you have in abundance, and since my internet connection is quite good and I have the wireless access point, I should allow my friends to use it.