Technically it is an opposite of a fan. Not that that really changes your point. I believe I smiled because of the absurdity. Perhaps because I had just been reminded of the world of Calvin and Hobbes. The person in the strip has a fantastic idea which is then shot down by a stupid pun by a talking windmill. Could be that partial reason for the smile is the appearance of the windmill itself, as windmills have made several appearances in xkcd in different contexts.
But yes, you disliked it, I enjoyed it, XKCD hopefully goes on.
I don't agree with this. I don't think he is personally all that famous, rather his work is famous.. And while I am not a huge fan, I am a fan nevertheless, and personally got rather good value (enjoyment, joy) for my money... Good enough that I consider the idea that Watterson should give a little back kind of offensive towards the man himself.
Yet XKCD keeps producing great moments, which is why I keep reading it. And the wordplay and the naivety in the 1378 was at least smile worthy. (Personally I didn't enjoy the previous one.)
They take a sample from every herd, because even if it would only add $0.01/lb of beef, would there actually be time to analyze all 33M slaughtered head of beef every year?
In Finland they check every healthy specimen over 30 moths old and sick ones that are over 24 months old at time of slaughter. Texas might have a cow or two more, but something something economics of scale might be of some help.
In my experience the AMD drivers&software have been more stable. Probably I just have bad luck, but just today I got a pop-up from the Nvidia Experience that there's an update. Clicked it and got 'cannot connect to Nvidia servers' or something similar. The last driver update failed to update one of the components. And the display adapter has crashed once (managed to recover though).
I'm currently using GTX 670 (got the Windforce model and it is really quiet) and I'm reasonably happy with it, but I had none of the update problems with my previous HD6850. Of course, my thinking may be coloured by the horrible nvidia chipset I once had. Or the lack of support for my previous laptop gpu. Compared to those, my current GPU problems are minimal at worst.
True, but this requires excluding the Firewire from the listing. My main complain is the inaccuracies, which I partially addressed above.
I even ignore USB 3.0's expanded and incompatible cables - you can't plug a USB 3.0 cable into anything that doesn't support USB 3.0. You can plug USB pre-3.0 cables into USB 3.0 devices though. The saving grace is that USB 3.0 cables are rarer so you're far more likely to pull a USB 2.0 cable than a USB 3.0 one.
This is misleading, considering that you can indeed use a USB3 cable with a USB2 host. And as stated above, you can use the old cables with new devices, so I would not exactly call this an actual change of standard. Upgrade it is. And personally I much prefer the idea that you can use any cable, not a proprietary one.
That's not what he's saying. Of course USB B cable from 2001 still works today. What he's saying is that mini B, micro B (and now C) have been added since 2001 and new devices use these new ports. So you'll need a new cable if your new device doesn't connect using that old B cable. By comparison, Apple changed their cable once in 10 years.
I know, but you do realize that all those mini and micro cables can be connected to the same original usb1 port (and/or usb2 / usb3 port), as the host end has always been the same. Does the same 'of course' apply to Apple's cables? Admittedly I think the mini was a bit of a misstep, and going straight to micro would have been better.
Of course all this may change with the 3.1, but if it does, it is in my count the first major change for the cables...( And hopefully there's no 'hardware drm' in the cables to prevent unauthorized copies..)
While I understand your point, I still don't get what is so difficult with Outlook.com export.:
Calendar (the ics is the one you want). Access to sharing is in the top bar of the page:
Links to "[xxxxx] calendar" with event details
Anyone with these links can view event details on this calendar
View in a web browser (HTML)
Import into other calendar applications (ICS)
View in a feed reader (XML)
The ICS is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... uri, but if you want to import your calendar somewhere that doesn't understand it (most calendars do...), you can simply replace the webcal with https and do things manually...
Mail: IMAP
People / Contacts: There's an export function directly in the top-bar of the people page, which starts a download for.csv.
And please note that I am not in the context of Google being a rotten company, just curious as I've visited the Outlook.com to see what it looks like. I only use OneDrive from there... most of my emails are in gmail..
Would you mind elaborating what you are trying to do? I've never needed to export my calendar, but the ui behind the sharing seemed to be rather simple.[*] You probably have some valid criticism, but going from 'you can only get a pst file' to imported events (imported to where?) become read only (and uneditable) sounds like a non sequitur. And I wonder where you got the 'a lot more open' claim... Sorry if trying (and managing) to export my calendar from Outlook offended you.
[*]And yet, to prevent causing further offence, exporting to files is simpler with google calendar.
And yet you can export your calendar in ics format as well from the page. Tried it myself (although I am pretty sure I have zero events nicely going along with the single welcome mail there)... The Calendar export might have been better named (share), but the contacts one was clearer.
Can you show how to export from Outlook.com? Because everything I found says you cant, except through the Outlook client and a PST export.
I don't know if you can. In the real world, duplicating objects is impossible. However, duplicating information in computers is essentially free. Therefore, I'm not sure that simulating the notion of "property rights" on a computer even makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense if it costs DRM to achieve it.
I am not sure ease of duplication is a good indicator for the value of an object, disregarding unique(ish) objects. Linux is certainly not worthless. And while I wouldn't mind watching volunteer made blockbusters, I haven't seen all that many. (And having even more advertisements in movies does not sound fun at all) Should actors only work in theaters (and without limits on filming, as of course preventing it is an artificial limitation)?
So, considering a movie, what exactly do you want to buy? Are you personally buying the whole production (and ideally paying nothing, as copying is free)? (Or do you consider that a movie has no value at all? Watching a movie once has no value? Having access to a library of movies (that annoyingly is in a state of flux) has no value?)
You know, technically, manufacturing costs also approach zero if you produce enough of something... Why keep property rights at all if we are disregarding all but the final manufacturing expenses? All those pesky atoms are just a form of drm.
Was VHS renting a 'justified' form of commerce (and if not, how come it existed)? Personally I dislike those 'on internet' patents and I consider this to be much the same. Just because something happens on internet/electronically does not make it less valuable. And yes, I dislike DRM. However, if I am getting a streaming service, I can bloody live with the DRM that only allows the content to be streamed. I am not insulted by the fact that my neighbors have locks on their doors.
How is time limited rental not transparent if the customer knows that the time limit exists? Do Netflix and Spotify need special justification from FSF?
I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
I wonder. Are less similar crimes committed in states (or countries) with death penalty than in states (or countries) without? Related to this, United States has pretty hefty prison population, thus the country should be pretty much crime free because of all the deterrents....
Slashdot Mirror
Technically it is an opposite of a fan. Not that that really changes your point. I believe I smiled because of the absurdity. Perhaps because I had just been reminded of the world of Calvin and Hobbes. The person in the strip has a fantastic idea which is then shot down by a stupid pun by a talking windmill. Could be that partial reason for the smile is the appearance of the windmill itself, as windmills have made several appearances in xkcd in different contexts.
But yes, you disliked it, I enjoyed it, XKCD hopefully goes on.
Its not 'wordplay'; its a cheap pun. A big fan says its not a big fan. I really like XKCD, but that was terrible.
Windmills do not make great fans.
However, I feel that "Netflix Trash-Talks" in the summary is an exaggeration..
I don't agree with this. I don't think he is personally all that famous, rather his work is famous.. And while I am not a huge fan, I am a fan nevertheless, and personally got rather good value (enjoyment, joy) for my money... Good enough that I consider the idea that Watterson should give a little back kind of offensive towards the man himself.
Yet XKCD keeps producing great moments, which is why I keep reading it. And the wordplay and the naivety in the 1378 was at least smile worthy. (Personally I didn't enjoy the previous one.)
They take a sample from every herd, because even if it would only add $0.01/lb of beef, would there actually be time to analyze all 33M slaughtered head of beef every year?
In Finland they check every healthy specimen over 30 moths old and sick ones that are over 24 months old at time of slaughter. Texas might have a cow or two more, but something something economics of scale might be of some help.
Anyway, beef has been big business in the US for a long time. Why is (according to the Minnesota Dept of Health) the disease rate still 1/1,000,000 per year? http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/cjd/cjd.html
I honestly hope the disease rate stays low.
In my experience the AMD drivers&software have been more stable. Probably I just have bad luck, but just today I got a pop-up from the Nvidia Experience that there's an update. Clicked it and got 'cannot connect to Nvidia servers' or something similar. The last driver update failed to update one of the components. And the display adapter has crashed once (managed to recover though).
I'm currently using GTX 670 (got the Windforce model and it is really quiet) and I'm reasonably happy with it, but I had none of the update problems with my previous HD6850. Of course, my thinking may be coloured by the horrible nvidia chipset I once had. Or the lack of support for my previous laptop gpu. Compared to those, my current GPU problems are minimal at worst.
However I doubt that your point is that Seattle shouldn't do this because it isn't done in east, india or africa...?
At least the exe has the same hashes as my copy downloaded on 13.2.2014.
True, but this requires excluding the Firewire from the listing. My main complain is the inaccuracies, which I partially addressed above.
I even ignore USB 3.0's expanded and incompatible cables - you can't plug a USB 3.0 cable into anything that doesn't support USB 3.0. You can plug USB pre-3.0 cables into USB 3.0 devices though. The saving grace is that USB 3.0 cables are rarer so you're far more likely to pull a USB 2.0 cable than a USB 3.0 one.
This is misleading, considering that you can indeed use a USB3 cable with a USB2 host. And as stated above, you can use the old cables with new devices, so I would not exactly call this an actual change of standard. Upgrade it is. And personally I much prefer the idea that you can use any cable, not a proprietary one.
That's not what he's saying. Of course USB B cable from 2001 still works today. What he's saying is that mini B, micro B (and now C) have been added since 2001 and new devices use these new ports. So you'll need a new cable if your new device doesn't connect using that old B cable. By comparison, Apple changed their cable once in 10 years.
I know, but you do realize that all those mini and micro cables can be connected to the same original usb1 port (and/or usb2 / usb3 port), as the host end has always been the same. Does the same 'of course' apply to Apple's cables? Admittedly I think the mini was a bit of a misstep, and going straight to micro would have been better.
Of course all this may change with the 3.1, but if it does, it is in my count the first major change for the cables...( And hopefully there's no 'hardware drm' in the cables to prevent unauthorized copies..)
Firewire - well, we had USB 1.1 and the gigantic USB B connector. (2001)
USB B is still being used... There's one in my display (which only supports USB1-2), another in my printer (although I connect via wifi).
USB has gone through more changes in its plugs than Apple in the same period. And it's a standard.
And yet I can take a USB1 memory stick and it works in a USB3 port.
2160x1440 resolution isn't all that bad either...
In other professions you might actually get a break or two.
While I understand your point, I still don't get what is so difficult with Outlook.com export.:
Calendar (the ics is the one you want). Access to sharing is in the top bar of the page:
Links to "[xxxxx] calendar" with event details Anyone with these links can view event details on this calendar View in a web browser (HTML) Import into other calendar applications (ICS) View in a feed reader (XML)
The ICS is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... uri, but if you want to import your calendar somewhere that doesn't understand it (most calendars do...), you can simply replace the webcal with https and do things manually...
Mail: IMAP
People / Contacts: There's an export function directly in the top-bar of the people page, which starts a download for .csv.
And please note that I am not in the context of Google being a rotten company, just curious as I've visited the Outlook.com to see what it looks like. I only use OneDrive from there... most of my emails are in gmail..
Would you mind elaborating what you are trying to do? I've never needed to export my calendar, but the ui behind the sharing seemed to be rather simple.[*] You probably have some valid criticism, but going from 'you can only get a pst file' to imported events (imported to where?) become read only (and uneditable) sounds like a non sequitur. And I wonder where you got the 'a lot more open' claim... Sorry if trying (and managing) to export my calendar from Outlook offended you.
[*]And yet, to prevent causing further offence, exporting to files is simpler with google calendar.
Can you show how to export from Outlook.com? Because everything I found says you cant, except through the Outlook client and a PST export.
google: outlook.com export calendar
Yep, I'm not an Outlook mail user...
Server: imap-mail.outlook.com Server port: 993 Encryption: SSL
I don't know if you can. In the real world, duplicating objects is impossible. However, duplicating information in computers is essentially free. Therefore, I'm not sure that simulating the notion of "property rights" on a computer even makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense if it costs DRM to achieve it.
I am not sure ease of duplication is a good indicator for the value of an object, disregarding unique(ish) objects. Linux is certainly not worthless. And while I wouldn't mind watching volunteer made blockbusters, I haven't seen all that many. (And having even more advertisements in movies does not sound fun at all) Should actors only work in theaters (and without limits on filming, as of course preventing it is an artificial limitation)?
So, considering a movie, what exactly do you want to buy? Are you personally buying the whole production (and ideally paying nothing, as copying is free)? (Or do you consider that a movie has no value at all? Watching a movie once has no value? Having access to a library of movies (that annoyingly is in a state of flux) has no value?)
You know, technically, manufacturing costs also approach zero if you produce enough of something... Why keep property rights at all if we are disregarding all but the final manufacturing expenses? All those pesky atoms are just a form of drm.
Was VHS renting a 'justified' form of commerce (and if not, how come it existed)? Personally I dislike those 'on internet' patents and I consider this to be much the same. Just because something happens on internet/electronically does not make it less valuable. And yes, I dislike DRM. However, if I am getting a streaming service, I can bloody live with the DRM that only allows the content to be streamed. I am not insulted by the fact that my neighbors have locks on their doors.
How would you build it transparently?
How is time limited rental not transparent if the customer knows that the time limit exists? Do Netflix and Spotify need special justification from FSF?
I trust them slightly more when talking about email privacy, but personally I'm transferring my mails to a local nonprofit.
I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?
Although I am no proponent of the death penalty, your logic is flawed. Although in this case the penalty was not an effective deterrent, there is no way to tell if it did deter others from committing similar crimes.
I wonder. Are less similar crimes committed in states (or countries) with death penalty than in states (or countries) without? Related to this, United States has pretty hefty prison population, thus the country should be pretty much crime free because of all the deterrents....