Maybe it's me being pedantic, but people, even the Pope apparently, get confused about what "free speech" and its limits. What he's talking about isn't a limit on free speech. It's called a consequence. I can curse anyone or their mother all I want. If it offends someone and they punch me, they did not reduce my right or ability to make that curse. They just provided the consequence for me being a dick. If you're a dick, expect a consequence. It's the way things should be.
That's not latency, that's a bandwidth issue. Latency is the time one packet takes to arrive. If one packet can throw off your whole video stream then you're not caching. If you're caching, then the bandwidth would have to take a prolonged dip to burn through the cached data and find a point it hadn't downloaded yet.
Replying to my own post, yes... Forgot something.
Part of Apple Pay is confirming physical presence. Better physical presence guarantee means less cost of covering fraudulent transactions, which means cheaper transaction fees for merchants. So the claim about "profit robbing transaction fees" is less potent there.
"that is independent of the credit card companies and their profit-robbing transaction fees" - Sounds a bit more like a sales pitch than an article to me.
From what I've read, you can't use a credit card. I always use my rewards card, so that's out for me.
The process is wonkier, having to unlock your phone, open an app, tap to put it in scan or QR display mode, get the camera to focus if it's scanning, wait for a reply from the servers, etc. vs hold your phone near the terminal and rest your finger on the touch ID sensor.
If someone gets your phone and can unlock it, they can pay for things. The thing that makes Apple Pay different is that, except for a fairly involved process, touch ID guarantees I'M THE ONE WITH MY PHONE. Verifying my actual, physical presence and tokenizing my transaction are the two things I want out of a payment system.
Note: I don't have an iPhone 6, nor do I particularly want one, but Apple's system looks like my ideal setup.
Is a customer service issue. Not a legislative one. This issue does not have any governmental or societal benefit and certainly not enough to offset the costs of passing or enforcing such legislation. Please, please, please go get a clue about who's responsible for this kind of thing (hint: The COMPANY SELLING YOU A PRODUCT OR SERVICE).
Even the cost of reading that customer service fever dream wasn't worth it.
So, improving by 1% to go from a 69% to a 70 is better than having the kid, say, improve by 30%? Fail means fail. If you do that, you don't need to try a little harder, you need to try a lot harder.
Does this seem like a blatant attempt to get people to buy the more expensive versions by making the cheap ones purposefully suck? They can say Windows 7 starts at $50 or $99 or whatever, but you really end up paying $299, because that's where the price starts for any OS anyone would actually want to use. And what value you're getting for that little bit of extra money (the upgrade to the $150 version is only a little, but the upgrade to the $200 version is only a little more from there... etc).
I take it you're one of the 3% that still approve of the job the sitting VP is doing? I haven't seen a report of any kind in the last few years that still try to claim Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It may have been an initial excuse, but there were so many other excuses once that was shot down.
I think a secure password is good, but do you really want to shield your little sister from your parents' protection? If she can't remember a good password, do you really think she's cognitively developed enough to discern between someone who wants to be friends and someone who's gonna end up on "To Catch a Predator"? Your ideals of personal freedom don't quite apply the same to someone that young.
I would want to know what my child was exposed to. That either means a) only supervised use of the computer, b) some software that prevents things I decide are objectionable from being accessed. Personally, I'm not a fan of using computers/TV as baby sitters, so I'd go with option a. However, if computer use is supervised, what's the point of protecting it from the parents?
But wait... given the nature of cable service, ANY traffic you generate (incoming or outgoing) is going to slow down someone else's download speed... So, if you use your service, you're in violation of the terms of use.
This was either a move by Qtrax to generate a burst of ad revenue from an influx of users or they're trying to force the labels' hands by making the announcement. So, when the customers ask why the music isn't there, they're asking the labels, not Qtrax. Either way, it's sketchy.
I play guitar. I find Guitar Hero/Rock Band to be a ton of fun. You get to pretend you're playing in a band in front of an audience. I never quite got that feeling from playing my electric with a pair of headphones. I don't see why everyone makes the "don't play a game if you can do it for real" argument. I can do both! They give me different kinds of enjoyment. I can't improvise a solo to a random favorite song in a video game, but I also can't pretend to be playing in front of 10,000 person audience with a stellar band backing me in real life. Why not try to enjoy both?
I'm a software developer. After a couple months using Vista at my new job, I told my boss I was downgrading my dev machine to XP Pro. My job is a thousand times easier with out the great wall of Vista blocking me from doing it.
On top of that, I don't know anyone else who wants it. From my mom and stepfather, to my grandparents to the office assistant, other friends... Everyone thinks it's crap.
I'm not going near RP11. They lost their credibility with all the crap they pulled in their last versions (spam, annoying "features" that couldn't be disabled or avoided, poor quality software, etc). I look forward to uninstalling it from relatives' computers because it's nearly torched their setup...
I'd even go so far as to say I question the credibility of the article... "Few, though, can match the slick ease of use of RealPlayer 11 -- and it isn't even out of beta yet." Beta is when they're working out the last bugs... Beta doesn't mean they're still designing features. Sounds like company PR masquerading as news.
Don't museums usually have something... uhm... real? Something other than pretty pictures and stories made up by some nutjob? The Air and Space Museum has old planes, space craft, moon rocks, photographs of actual events. The Museum of Natural History has fossils, photographic exhibits on life, mineral specimens. It's not a museum if it doesn't actually have a single hard fact is it?!
This crap just makes me angry.
I've fire several pistols and rifles. Sure, it teaches leading a target... so does Wing Commander, X-Wing, R-Type and a host of other non-FPS type games that don't really translate to firing a gun. Hell, learning to pass a football or basketball to a person who is running teaches you to lead your target. It also (as others mentioned) does not teach the proper way to hold a gun, breathe, aim, squeeze the trigger, shoot on the run or just about do anything else with a real weapon. I don't know any games (even the sniper games) that take wind or even gravity into account.
1) an oversimplification, as you can almost guarantee that it is NOT the only source of violence, 2) a scapegoat that simply removes the responsibility of the person who committed a crime, those who influenced the person toward violence (*coughparentscough*) and anyone else who could have had an influence. People see a freak, and they treat them like a freak. Yet they're surprised when that person does something... freaky.
If we blame violence on video games because they exposed someone to violence, then can't we blame the news too? How about violence in the streets or the home? Let's ban all of it! It would seem (to me) that "real" violence might have a more significant impact than fantasy violence, at least in developing a personality/irrational responses/violent tendencies.
Most importantly, correlation is not the same as causality. And more imprtantly A implies B does NOT mean B implies A. A violent personality making someone like violent video games dose not imply liking violent video games means a person has a violent personality. And it especially means liking violent video games causes a person to have/develop a violent personality.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's me being pedantic, but people, even the Pope apparently, get confused about what "free speech" and its limits. What he's talking about isn't a limit on free speech. It's called a consequence. I can curse anyone or their mother all I want. If it offends someone and they punch me, they did not reduce my right or ability to make that curse. They just provided the consequence for me being a dick. If you're a dick, expect a consequence. It's the way things should be.
That's not latency, that's a bandwidth issue. Latency is the time one packet takes to arrive. If one packet can throw off your whole video stream then you're not caching. If you're caching, then the bandwidth would have to take a prolonged dip to burn through the cached data and find a point it hadn't downloaded yet.
Replying to my own post, yes... Forgot something. Part of Apple Pay is confirming physical presence. Better physical presence guarantee means less cost of covering fraudulent transactions, which means cheaper transaction fees for merchants. So the claim about "profit robbing transaction fees" is less potent there.
"that is independent of the credit card companies and their profit-robbing transaction fees" - Sounds a bit more like a sales pitch than an article to me. From what I've read, you can't use a credit card. I always use my rewards card, so that's out for me. The process is wonkier, having to unlock your phone, open an app, tap to put it in scan or QR display mode, get the camera to focus if it's scanning, wait for a reply from the servers, etc. vs hold your phone near the terminal and rest your finger on the touch ID sensor. If someone gets your phone and can unlock it, they can pay for things. The thing that makes Apple Pay different is that, except for a fairly involved process, touch ID guarantees I'M THE ONE WITH MY PHONE. Verifying my actual, physical presence and tokenizing my transaction are the two things I want out of a payment system. Note: I don't have an iPhone 6, nor do I particularly want one, but Apple's system looks like my ideal setup.
Really? Outrage? Worst music publicity stunts of all time? How about "minorly annoyed and then I moved on"? Can we just have that reaction for once?
But if anyone couldn't grasp the monumentally obvious reasons they did this... then maybe those people are just too creepy for their own good.
Is a customer service issue. Not a legislative one. This issue does not have any governmental or societal benefit and certainly not enough to offset the costs of passing or enforcing such legislation. Please, please, please go get a clue about who's responsible for this kind of thing (hint: The COMPANY SELLING YOU A PRODUCT OR SERVICE). Even the cost of reading that customer service fever dream wasn't worth it.
So, improving by 1% to go from a 69% to a 70 is better than having the kid, say, improve by 30%? Fail means fail. If you do that, you don't need to try a little harder, you need to try a lot harder.
Does this seem like a blatant attempt to get people to buy the more expensive versions by making the cheap ones purposefully suck? They can say Windows 7 starts at $50 or $99 or whatever, but you really end up paying $299, because that's where the price starts for any OS anyone would actually want to use. And what value you're getting for that little bit of extra money (the upgrade to the $150 version is only a little, but the upgrade to the $200 version is only a little more from there... etc).
I take it you're one of the 3% that still approve of the job the sitting VP is doing? I haven't seen a report of any kind in the last few years that still try to claim Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It may have been an initial excuse, but there were so many other excuses once that was shot down.
I'm hoping this goes well and the lawsuits stop... I'd really love to actually be able to buy music again. Till then, I'm off to mininova...
I think a secure password is good, but do you really want to shield your little sister from your parents' protection? If she can't remember a good password, do you really think she's cognitively developed enough to discern between someone who wants to be friends and someone who's gonna end up on "To Catch a Predator"? Your ideals of personal freedom don't quite apply the same to someone that young. I would want to know what my child was exposed to. That either means a) only supervised use of the computer, b) some software that prevents things I decide are objectionable from being accessed. Personally, I'm not a fan of using computers/TV as baby sitters, so I'd go with option a. However, if computer use is supervised, what's the point of protecting it from the parents?
But wait... given the nature of cable service, ANY traffic you generate (incoming or outgoing) is going to slow down someone else's download speed... So, if you use your service, you're in violation of the terms of use.
That is all...
This was either a move by Qtrax to generate a burst of ad revenue from an influx of users or they're trying to force the labels' hands by making the announcement. So, when the customers ask why the music isn't there, they're asking the labels, not Qtrax. Either way, it's sketchy.
I play guitar. I find Guitar Hero/Rock Band to be a ton of fun. You get to pretend you're playing in a band in front of an audience. I never quite got that feeling from playing my electric with a pair of headphones. I don't see why everyone makes the "don't play a game if you can do it for real" argument. I can do both! They give me different kinds of enjoyment. I can't improvise a solo to a random favorite song in a video game, but I also can't pretend to be playing in front of 10,000 person audience with a stellar band backing me in real life. Why not try to enjoy both?
I'm a software developer. After a couple months using Vista at my new job, I told my boss I was downgrading my dev machine to XP Pro. My job is a thousand times easier with out the great wall of Vista blocking me from doing it. On top of that, I don't know anyone else who wants it. From my mom and stepfather, to my grandparents to the office assistant, other friends... Everyone thinks it's crap.
Just to play the first mission over, and over and over.
I'm not going near RP11. They lost their credibility with all the crap they pulled in their last versions (spam, annoying "features" that couldn't be disabled or avoided, poor quality software, etc). I look forward to uninstalling it from relatives' computers because it's nearly torched their setup... I'd even go so far as to say I question the credibility of the article... "Few, though, can match the slick ease of use of RealPlayer 11 -- and it isn't even out of beta yet." Beta is when they're working out the last bugs... Beta doesn't mean they're still designing features. Sounds like company PR masquerading as news.
Isn't the point of "Net Neutrality" that people DON'T have to pay extra to guarantee that your bandwidth isn't throttled?
Don't museums usually have something... uhm... real? Something other than pretty pictures and stories made up by some nutjob? The Air and Space Museum has old planes, space craft, moon rocks, photographs of actual events. The Museum of Natural History has fossils, photographic exhibits on life, mineral specimens. It's not a museum if it doesn't actually have a single hard fact is it?! This crap just makes me angry.
I've fire several pistols and rifles. Sure, it teaches leading a target... so does Wing Commander, X-Wing, R-Type and a host of other non-FPS type games that don't really translate to firing a gun. Hell, learning to pass a football or basketball to a person who is running teaches you to lead your target. It also (as others mentioned) does not teach the proper way to hold a gun, breathe, aim, squeeze the trigger, shoot on the run or just about do anything else with a real weapon. I don't know any games (even the sniper games) that take wind or even gravity into account.
1) an oversimplification, as you can almost guarantee that it is NOT the only source of violence, 2) a scapegoat that simply removes the responsibility of the person who committed a crime, those who influenced the person toward violence (*coughparentscough*) and anyone else who could have had an influence. People see a freak, and they treat them like a freak. Yet they're surprised when that person does something... freaky. If we blame violence on video games because they exposed someone to violence, then can't we blame the news too? How about violence in the streets or the home? Let's ban all of it! It would seem (to me) that "real" violence might have a more significant impact than fantasy violence, at least in developing a personality/irrational responses/violent tendencies. Most importantly, correlation is not the same as causality. And more imprtantly A implies B does NOT mean B implies A. A violent personality making someone like violent video games dose not imply liking violent video games means a person has a violent personality. And it especially means liking violent video games causes a person to have/develop a violent personality.