The reason for the name is that the original Smart was launched as the "Smart Coupe" for the hardtop and "Smart Cabriolet" for the soft-top, so the obvious name had already been used when the Roadster came along. Recently the short and tall Smart has been renamed the For2, to fit in with the new For4 (which Smart owners deride as 'not a real smart', since it's just a Mitsubishi Colt with funky bodywork) and the impending ForFun offroader (which America should love, since it's a Mercdes M-class with funky bodywork, and will have a V8 engine).
Take a look at the Smart Roadster - cheaper & better handling than the MR-2 or Miata (which is sold as the MX-5 here in Europe). It's a mid-engined hot-rod version of the Smart, long and low rather than short and tall. I love mine, and I think it probably makes more sense for the American market than the tall For2 does.
Completely untrue. I owned one of the orginal smarts for 3 years (I've since switched to the Smart Roadster), and found it far easier to work on than my old Ford car was.
As for a welded-shut hood, good luck trying to weld plastic, if you do manage it, I'd be interested to see which bits you plan to weld, considering the engine is at the back of the car, reached by lifting out a panel in the trunk.
There are NO proprietary fastenings that I managed to find, apart from some very clevel soft plastic fixings that are designed to be undone with your fingers to allow access to the bulbs. You can even swap the coloured panels with another colour when you get bored with them. I've known Smart owner's club members do this in a car park with no unusual tools, it's that easy.
(disclaimer, I just Swapped my For2-shape Smart for a Smart Roadster) The Smart is actually one of the safest small cars there is thanks to the stridion safety cage, ands also since you can't t-bone one between the wheels in anything wide than a motorbike, due to the short wheelbase.
Smart were well aware that the car looks easy to break, so they put a LOT of effort into safety. I've seen pictures of a from end collision between a Samrt and a Mercedes E-class, the Merc was a write-off, while the Smart drove away.
There are 3 excellent Mac perhipherals that let you play a wide variety of games that are well under the $400 mark, and they work perfectly regardless of your graphics card or system spec. They are available in many shops and are called the PS2, the Gamecube and the Xbox.
I'm not American, but I've still got this government graffiti on lots of my home electronics here in England, and it's always baffled me. What the hell does it mean?
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?
"accept" in what sense. If it does "cause undesired operation", then surely that means it didn't "accept" it? What wound not accepting interference actually involve?
"Noncommercial sharing of verbatim copies permitted" - use of the word 'verbatim' seems to preclude lossy compression, format conversion, and almost anythin else you can think of.
"You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. " - without definitions of 'insubstantial' and 'substantial' this is meaningless at best, and at worst actually prohibits remixing!
However, the biggest problem that I can see is that the licence does not force the creator of the original work to state that the work is actually theirs to re-licence, so if they stole a drumbeat or two from James Brown, anyone who used their track as the basis for their work is guilty of the crime too.
(IANAL) The article states "Technically this use of another's works are illegal". Ignoring the grammatical mishtake, that's not exactly true. The UK law states that you cannot use a 'significant portion' of a copyrighted musical work.
The problem is that this phrase is hopelessly ambiguous, and there is no case law to provide guidance - the music industry seems to have realised it's got a problem here, somehow ensures that a judge never gets to hear any such case, they are all settled out of court.
The experts seem to be pushing for an early launch, which seems strange to me.
Microsoft have unique levels of flexibility on their launch date - they can simply wait a bit and up the specs of the machine as their off-the-shelf parts fall in price.
If they go early, they have lower specs, less software, and less time to polish that software, and they will be up against people's perception of how good the '1000x more powerful than PS2' PS3 will be rather than the actual device.
If they go for the same day as Sony, they can use the cash mountin to outspend Sony on marketing and to go $10 cheaper than Sony.
I don't do much work that I consider to be sensitive, but when I do, I use a machine with no connections. If anything goes onto or comes off that machine, it does it via the CD writer.
Apart from that, I do my web browsing on a Mac running OS9 - security through obsolesence is greatly underrated!
This alternative spelling is one of the variations between American English and everyone else's English that the rest of the world finds highly amusing, such as missing the 'u' out of colour and getting the pronounciation of Colin Powell's first name all wrong.
The references you quote also have the word listed without the unnecessary "ariz" in the middle. I get the feeling it's only in the dictionary in it's long form because enough people got it wrong for it to come into common usage.
You haven't heard of media players that you have to pay for* because microsoft abused it's OS monopoly to make it uneconomic to write one. That's the whole problem! If you wanted to make money witing such an app, you can't, because Microsoft are pushing WMP out below cost.
The IE discussion is still ongoing, but the EU are probably going to impose even bigger fines over that abuse of monopoly, because the browser market was worth more than the media player market.
*some do exist, ones that do software DVD decoding... they have to charge becasue they include licenced DVD decoding software, but that's a whole different evil abusive monopoly there.
Microsoft have a monopoly in the desktop OS market.
Having a monopoly is neither wrong, bad, or illegal.
However, it IS illegal bad and wrong to for acompany to leverage a monopoly in one product area into a monopoly in another by abusing their monopoly position. I'll use a silly example to show why this can't be allowed:
Imagine you have a monopoly on potatoes. If you used your cash reserves (or simply jacked up the price of potatoes) to give away a free carrot with every potato, and continued until all the carrot companies in the world went bust, bought them all up and then put the price of carrots up 1000%... see the problem? Nice for you, but terrible for the consumers and for the carrot growers.
Replace the potatoes with Desktop OS software, and the carrots with media player software, and you'll see what microsoft is doing that is wrong. It's taking a loss on WMP, and by bundling it for free (so that even by being free too, other players can't compete because they have the hassle of installation as well) it's abusing it's position to try and bankrupt all the other player companies, so it has a stranglehold on that market too. You can also replace carrots with Browsers for round 2 of the EU litigation
I used to make 35mm slides with a computer controlled slide writer. We wrote slides to film at 4k resolution, and only used the low quality 2k setting for rush jobs - the difference was clearly visible on all but the very worst office slide projectors. When I got out of the business, 8k and even 16k writers were not unusual, and the improvement was noticeable, so scanning at 4k will indeed provide a lot of useful information from certain film types that 2k will not show.
It's the title Bloomsbury are putting all their weight behind for Christmas sales. The hype machine has not really got going yet, but I have head that the print run of hardback 'review copies' sent out to journalists was larger than the entire run of your average best-selling hardback novel.
The percentage of PS2 owners who have their machines connected to the net isn't that big (I'm omne that doesn't), and online racing is only going to be an add-on to the main game which involves gradually being able to afford better (or more highly tuned) cars.
The real reason that GT4 is so desirable is that the previous PS2 incarnations of GT have been half-hearted, GT3 being a cut down but nicer graphics port of the PS2.
What the bill actually requires people to reveal is their "true name and address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work. "
If anyone wished to make an example of a California resident flagrantly breaching this law, might I suggest Apple Computer of 1, Infinite loop, who are failing to reveal the title of everything in the iTunes shop that is maked 'untitled'. At $2,500 per violation, they should get a multi million dollar fine. (disclaimer - I'm outside the US and therefore can't get into the US iTunes store to check this)
You might just be in luck, for this very day I read an article about a Korean electronics giant unveiling a 2-gigabit DDR DRAM chip based on the 80-nanometer process.
Now if only I could remember where I saw that article...
In the tradition of misleading Slashdot summaries, this one contains only the accusation, not the defence. Here's Google's reply from the article:
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I call mine a Roadster.
The reason for the name is that the original Smart was launched as the "Smart Coupe" for the hardtop and "Smart Cabriolet" for the soft-top, so the obvious name had already been used when the Roadster came along. Recently the short and tall Smart has been renamed the For2, to fit in with the new For4 (which Smart owners deride as 'not a real smart', since it's just a Mitsubishi Colt with funky bodywork) and the impending ForFun offroader (which America should love, since it's a Mercdes M-class with funky bodywork, and will have a V8 engine).
Take a look at the Smart Roadster - cheaper & better handling than the MR-2 or Miata (which is sold as the MX-5 here in Europe). It's a mid-engined hot-rod version of the Smart, long and low rather than short and tall. I love mine, and I think it probably makes more sense for the American market than the tall For2 does.
Completely untrue. I owned one of the orginal smarts for 3 years (I've since switched to the Smart Roadster), and found it far easier to work on than my old Ford car was.
As for a welded-shut hood, good luck trying to weld plastic, if you do manage it, I'd be interested to see which bits you plan to weld, considering the engine is at the back of the car, reached by lifting out a panel in the trunk.
There are NO proprietary fastenings that I managed to find, apart from some very clevel soft plastic fixings that are designed to be undone with your fingers to allow access to the bulbs. You can even swap the coloured panels with another colour when you get bored with them. I've known Smart owner's club members do this in a car park with no unusual tools, it's that easy.
Well there is the Smart Roadster (slightly better mpg thanks to not being brick-shaped), the Smart Roadster Coupe and the Smart Cabriolet!
US readers marvelling at the mpg should note that here in Europe we have a different sized gallon. 1 US gallon, = 0.8327 imperial gallon
(disclaimer, I just Swapped my For2-shape Smart for a Smart Roadster) The Smart is actually one of the safest small cars there is thanks to the stridion safety cage, ands also since you can't t-bone one between the wheels in anything wide than a motorbike, due to the short wheelbase.
Smart were well aware that the car looks easy to break, so they put a LOT of effort into safety. I've seen pictures of a from end collision between a Samrt and a Mercedes E-class, the Merc was a write-off, while the Smart drove away.
The MacOS and Mac OSX versions are free too.
There are 3 excellent Mac perhipherals that let you play a wide variety of games that are well under the $400 mark, and they work perfectly regardless of your graphics card or system spec. They are available in many shops and are called the PS2, the Gamecube and the Xbox.
I'm not American, but I've still got this government graffiti on lots of my home electronics here in England, and it's always baffled me. What the hell does it mean?
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?
"accept" in what sense. If it does "cause undesired operation", then surely that means it didn't "accept" it? What wound not accepting interference actually involve?
It's alphabetical by formal specise name, which is why Acridotheres tristis is number 3, and Rattus rattus is near Salmo trutta!
Loveliness != good for the environment!
From the 'Lawyer code' version of the licence...
"Noncommercial sharing of verbatim copies permitted" - use of the word 'verbatim' seems to preclude lossy compression, format conversion, and almost anythin else you can think of.
"You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. " - without definitions of 'insubstantial' and 'substantial' this is meaningless at best, and at worst actually prohibits remixing!
However, the biggest problem that I can see is that the licence does not force the creator of the original work to state that the work is actually theirs to re-licence, so if they stole a drumbeat or two from James Brown, anyone who used their track as the basis for their work is guilty of the crime too.
(IANAL) The article states "Technically this use of another's works are illegal". Ignoring the grammatical mishtake, that's not exactly true. The UK law states that you cannot use a 'significant portion' of a copyrighted musical work.
The problem is that this phrase is hopelessly ambiguous, and there is no case law to provide guidance - the music industry seems to have realised it's got a problem here, somehow ensures that a judge never gets to hear any such case, they are all settled out of court.
I believe that a little known game called 'pokemon' might have been made into a TV series and some movies too?
When did it become acceptable to only follow the rules if you're in danger of getting caught?
The day they started cutting speed limits purely to raise revenue from speed traps.
The experts seem to be pushing for an early launch, which seems strange to me.
Microsoft have unique levels of flexibility on their launch date - they can simply wait a bit and up the specs of the machine as their off-the-shelf parts fall in price.
If they go early, they have lower specs, less software, and less time to polish that software, and they will be up against people's perception of how good the '1000x more powerful than PS2' PS3 will be rather than the actual device.
If they go for the same day as Sony, they can use the cash mountin to outspend Sony on marketing and to go $10 cheaper than Sony.
If they go late, they can out-spec Sony.
I don't do much work that I consider to be sensitive, but when I do, I use a machine with no connections. If anything goes onto or comes off that machine, it does it via the CD writer.
Apart from that, I do my web browsing on a Mac running OS9 - security through obsolesence is greatly underrated!
This alternative spelling is one of the variations between American English and everyone else's English that the rest of the world finds highly amusing, such as missing the 'u' out of colour and getting the pronounciation of Colin Powell's first name all wrong.
The references you quote also have the word listed without the unnecessary "ariz" in the middle. I get the feeling it's only in the dictionary in it's long form because enough people got it wrong for it to come into common usage.
You haven't heard of media players that you have to pay for* because microsoft abused it's OS monopoly to make it uneconomic to write one. That's the whole problem! If you wanted to make money witing such an app, you can't, because Microsoft are pushing WMP out below cost.
The IE discussion is still ongoing, but the EU are probably going to impose even bigger fines over that abuse of monopoly, because the browser market was worth more than the media player market.
*some do exist, ones that do software DVD decoding... they have to charge becasue they include licenced DVD decoding software, but that's a whole different evil abusive monopoly there.
when asked how the altitiude of 100k+ was verified to the satisfaction od the x-prize organisers, the commentator replied "It's not rocket science".
Microsoft have a monopoly in the desktop OS market.
... see the problem? Nice for you, but terrible for the consumers and for the carrot growers.
Having a monopoly is neither wrong, bad, or illegal.
However, it IS illegal bad and wrong to for acompany to leverage a monopoly in one product area into a monopoly in another by abusing their monopoly position. I'll use a silly example to show why this can't be allowed:
Imagine you have a monopoly on potatoes. If you used your cash reserves (or simply jacked up the price of potatoes) to give away a free carrot with every potato, and continued until all the carrot companies in the world went bust, bought them all up and then put the price of carrots up 1000%
Replace the potatoes with Desktop OS software, and the carrots with media player software, and you'll see what microsoft is doing that is wrong. It's taking a loss on WMP, and by bundling it for free (so that even by being free too, other players can't compete because they have the hassle of installation as well) it's abusing it's position to try and bankrupt all the other player companies, so it has a stranglehold on that market too. You can also replace carrots with Browsers for round 2 of the EU litigation
I used to make 35mm slides with a computer controlled slide writer. We wrote slides to film at 4k resolution, and only used the low quality 2k setting for rush jobs - the difference was clearly visible on all but the very worst office slide projectors. When I got out of the business, 8k and even 16k writers were not unusual, and the improvement was noticeable, so scanning at 4k will indeed provide a lot of useful information from certain film types that 2k will not show.
It's the title Bloomsbury are putting all their weight behind for Christmas sales. The hype machine has not really got going yet, but I have head that the print run of hardback 'review copies' sent out to journalists was larger than the entire run of your average best-selling hardback novel.
I care.
The percentage of PS2 owners who have their machines connected to the net isn't that big (I'm omne that doesn't), and online racing is only going to be an add-on to the main game which involves gradually being able to afford better (or more highly tuned) cars.
The real reason that GT4 is so desirable is that the previous PS2 incarnations of GT have been half-hearted, GT3 being a cut down but nicer graphics port of the PS2.
What the bill actually requires people to reveal is their "true name and address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work. "
If anyone wished to make an example of a California resident flagrantly breaching this law, might I suggest Apple Computer of 1, Infinite loop, who are failing to reveal the title of everything in the iTunes shop that is maked 'untitled'. At $2,500 per violation, they should get a multi million dollar fine. (disclaimer - I'm outside the US and therefore can't get into the US iTunes store to check this)
You might just be in luck, for this very day I read an article about a Korean electronics giant unveiling a 2-gigabit DDR DRAM chip based on the 80-nanometer process.
Now if only I could remember where I saw that article...
In the tradition of misleading Slashdot summaries, this one contains only the accusation, not the defence. Here's Google's reply from the article:
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."