I typically refrain from calling out the staff supporting/., but is it really too much to postfix the submission title with "in Nigeria"? Or is that somehow at cross-purposes with what you all are trying to achieve on this site?
If you think eBay's margins are inflated, you clearly aren't familiar with Amazon's fees imposed on third-party sellers, which have been monkeyed with at least twice in the past year, and to the benefit of Amazon alone.
Is it really worth the effort and cost in archiving? To be honest, I don't see the value or the point other than for that feel good feeling of archiving something obscure for the future in the off chance that someone may find it and watch it. There's a lot of old content that just needs to die and be forgotten. If it's worth remembering, someone already digitized it.
Off the cuff, I'd imagine that a great deal of news footage from the era in question was recorded to tape (rather than film) that is subject to the stresses of time and the elements. Materials such as these beholden to the limitations of the medium under discussion aren't just about "that feel good feeling of archiving something obscure".
Pure Internet Company?
on
IMDb Hits 25
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not sure what the definition of 'pure Internet company' might be in this context, but IMDb has been owned outright by Amazon since the late '90s, so at best, it's a 'pure Internet subsidiary'...
What kind of casual user would be using a debugger though? Why disable the debugger if it's trivial for any person with enough knowledge to use the debugger to get the debugger to run anyway?
Perhaps the above is in response to some other portion of this thread , but I never mentioned use of a debugger, and there's no need to use one in order to capture video stills from Apple's DVD Player.app. Not sure what you're on about.
Oddly enough the screenshot feature of Mac OS X is disabled when you are playing a DVD. I'd take a screenshot of the error message, but I obviously can't.
This limitation in OS X has been there for a long, long time; it's nothing new. I don't think it's part of any trend. The blocks in place for Grab.app, etc. aren't terribly hard to circumvent, targeting casual users who will give up before querying Google for workarounds. Last time I checked, you don't need anything that doesn't ship with OS X itself to take screencaps of DVD Player.
Though I do agree that Apple bothering to throw up blocks at all seems a bit odd, if but a half-hearted attempt akin to the CD burning limitations of iTunes. Must be some mildly interesting history behind the original decision there...
There was a song in The Meaning of Life that mentioned the diameter of the galaxy. "The Galaxy Song" I think is what the song is titled.
Yes, the "Galaxy Song". Look here now for the lyrics before GeoCities melts. Second verse: "It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick." etc.
Standing to make a fortune without also standing to lose your shirt means you're gambling with somebody else's money.
While I can appreciate the populist sentiment, I don't quite follow. Isn't the "any other employee" analogue to your CEO shirt loss proposal that a worker's entire wage history (and then some, right?) be docked for underperformance? Or are the contributions of the rank-and-file to corporate well-being to be belittled, as well? Or does it only seem right to "punish" upper-level executives in such a way due to higher payscale? I think you assume the stated positive impact this "solution" to corporate largesse would have on corporate management. I shudder to think what personalities would be drawn to gamble willingly their accrued livelihoods to become a CEO, all in a misguided hope that they wouldn't also gamble with a firm's well-being when the chips are down. It makes no sense whatsoever.
US executives have a huge upside (Goldman Sachs CEO got a $68 million dollar bonus this year), but with no downside.
Given that Lloyd Blankfein's firm has sidestepped the losses plaguing its rivals, that strikes me as a terribly odd example to fire upon. You may also note from the CNNMoney article that it's not all wine and roses for Wall Street execs this year. Yes, top execs are by and large paid a lot, but they do take their lumps (relatively speaking) when the situation demands it.
EA never made good games. They purchased companies that did, and the quality improved for a year or two until their creativity burned out too.
Back in 80s, EA attracted a number of top game developers and was (to many) synonymous with interesting, solid gameplay. MULE and Archon are two clear standouts published by EA, but a complete list of hits both big and small from "back in the days" is pretty lengthy (Bard's Tale, Mail Order Monsters, the various Construction Set games, Starflight, Seven Cities of Gold, etc.)
EA itself may not have "made" these games, but its distribution strategy and relationship with developers back then did a lot to get good games in the hands of eager players.
Actually the [CSS 2.1] spec says that the only properties that apply to columns are border, background, width, and visibility. The fact that IE6/7 support... other properties... is a bug.
Such support is not "a bug", as the recommendation you reference applies only to CSS (2.1).
COL elements are defined to include both "align" and "valign" atrributes for HTML 4 and XHTML 1.
The choice to accept the limitations of one recommendation (CSS) when applied to a document written in accord with another ([X]HTML) rests with the author. Clearly, there is a choice to be made here with respect to alignment attributes on COL elements.
The CSS recommendations, as written, do not abrogate the [X]HTML recommendations.
Look at the trailers page. Pointlessly large and confusing to anyone used to a normal webpage.
I, too, miss its prior incarnation, but this is likely the result of my familiarity with what came before more than anything else. Switching to "Text View" from "Poster View" recaptures some of what was lost, but overall information density seems to have dropped a bit.
The premise of the novel is that it's better to have a permanent, eternal and unwinnable war between two opposing forces than it is to join one side, defeat the other side and have a subsequent eternity of peace?
Interesting. That's the same underlying premise of the Avatars storyline from Charmed seasons six and seven. When did Gaiman turn into a couch potato in love with the WB? Or maybe just Alyssa Milano?
Bidding what you think it's worth to you usually does not work. Sniping at the last second is what get's you a lightly used Canon rebel XT digital camera body for $145.00, Or a Toughbook CF-30 for a $450.00 price. Nither of those would have been won at those really low prices if I sat there bidding like everyone else.
Bidding what you think it's worth does work. What you're talking about is being cheap, and it's an attitude shared by nearly all who snipe -- which is why waiting until the last second won't work if you're aim is to be cheap and not everyone else follows suit. On the other hand, I've seen last-second bidders whose assumption is that everyone involved to date is also cheap, and so bid a ridiculous amount to top whatever's there at the end. The end result is usually a short eBay career littered with obscene auction closes.
Anyway, you're right. If your objective is to cheap out on a bid (and I don't blame anyone for this attitude, eBay is mostly a yardsale where things are frequently not quite as advertised), you're probably not going to achieve that by bidding far in advance. However, if you're willing to pay a reasonable amount for an item, placement of such a bid on the last day after seeing what's going on works as often as any other bidding approach. I've been involved with eBay on and off for nearly a decade, and unless there's reason for an item to be a "must have, right now", it's usually better to view each auction as a probable loss and wait for another to be listed until your willingness to pay matches.
One of the strongest reasons not to bid in advance applies to mislisted items in a contested market, where other bidders frequently shadow the bid placement of others. This generally applies only to obscenely competitive fields (e.g., collectibles) and only in cases where the account from which you place bids has become "known" as one to watch. For the average user, though, this is a non-factor. And even should it apply, quite a few times the lack of a standing bid in advance of close elicits under-the-table dealings from the more ruthless eBay participants.
I'm tired of all the 1-second-till-end phantom biding programs and online services screwing me over. [Bidding should] continue to be extended... as long as there still bidding going on. Only when there's a period of inactivity, the bid is closed. [...] So WTF is holding E-bay back? Do they WANT to piss everyone off?
Oh, I dunno. Is it because people have lives and aren't interested in listings on the glorified yardsale that is eBay being extended indefinitely with nickle-and-dime bids? Or perhaps it's the potential for abuse as shills hammer open-ended closings to maximize gain at the expense of others? Then again, it could just be that eBay doesn't think it worth the effort to rewrite the codebase so an item can climb from $1.00 to $2.00 over the course of another hour?
Compared to real-world auctions, the vast majority of items on eBay aren't worth much and the potential number of bidders is far, far larger. Both these factor into why open-ended closure isn't as cut-and-dried a process as you lay out. It just doesn't make sense, especially to eBay, a company that wants quick sell-through (look at their fee structuring) rather than lingering listings. That was the motivation to the introduction of Buy It Now in the first place, and your proposal runs counter to that.
There's no magic to beating last-minute dropped connections or competing automated bids: just bid what you're willing to pay up front, and if you don't win, wait for the item to turn up again (and again) from another seller. Even under your plan, those two self-indentified evils would still exist, only moreso, as the timeframe for each would be extended. I don't see how sliding auction closure does anything to address either in the least.
Slashdot Mirror
I typically refrain from calling out the staff supporting /., but is it really too much to postfix the submission title with "in Nigeria"? Or is that somehow at cross-purposes with what you all are trying to achieve on this site?
If you think eBay's margins are inflated, you clearly aren't familiar with Amazon's fees imposed on third-party sellers, which have been monkeyed with at least twice in the past year, and to the benefit of Amazon alone.
Off the cuff, I'd imagine that a great deal of news footage from the era in question was recorded to tape (rather than film) that is subject to the stresses of time and the elements. Materials such as these beholden to the limitations of the medium under discussion aren't just about "that feel good feeling of archiving something obscure".
Doesn't one need to be convicted before they can be pardoned?
Ask Nixon's ghost.
Not sure what the definition of 'pure Internet company' might be in this context, but IMDb has been owned outright by Amazon since the late '90s, so at best, it's a 'pure Internet subsidiary' ...
Seriously, just Google it: brother toner cartridge recycling program
(posting to undo errant mod)
New Jersey also requires "full service" gas stations.
Or, did you mean to limit the question to the technology field?
Link for the Lazy: Watchmen Motion Comics @ iTunes Store
Perhaps the above is in response to some other portion of this thread , but I never mentioned use of a debugger, and there's no need to use one in order to capture video stills from Apple's DVD Player.app. Not sure what you're on about.
This limitation in OS X has been there for a long, long time; it's nothing new. I don't think it's part of any trend. The blocks in place for Grab.app, etc. aren't terribly hard to circumvent, targeting casual users who will give up before querying Google for workarounds. Last time I checked, you don't need anything that doesn't ship with OS X itself to take screencaps of DVD Player.
Though I do agree that Apple bothering to throw up blocks at all seems a bit odd, if but a half-hearted attempt akin to the CD burning limitations of iTunes. Must be some mildly interesting history behind the original decision there...
Yes, the "Galaxy Song". Look here now for the lyrics before GeoCities melts. Second verse: "It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick." etc.
While I can appreciate the populist sentiment, I don't quite follow. Isn't the "any other employee" analogue to your CEO shirt loss proposal that a worker's entire wage history (and then some, right?) be docked for underperformance? Or are the contributions of the rank-and-file to corporate well-being to be belittled, as well? Or does it only seem right to "punish" upper-level executives in such a way due to higher payscale? I think you assume the stated positive impact this "solution" to corporate largesse would have on corporate management. I shudder to think what personalities would be drawn to gamble willingly their accrued livelihoods to become a CEO, all in a misguided hope that they wouldn't also gamble with a firm's well-being when the chips are down. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Given that Lloyd Blankfein's firm has sidestepped the losses plaguing its rivals, that strikes me as a terribly odd example to fire upon. You may also note from the CNNMoney article that it's not all wine and roses for Wall Street execs this year. Yes, top execs are by and large paid a lot, but they do take their lumps (relatively speaking) when the situation demands it.
Back in 80s, EA attracted a number of top game developers and was (to many) synonymous with interesting, solid gameplay. MULE and Archon are two clear standouts published by EA, but a complete list of hits both big and small from "back in the days" is pretty lengthy (Bard's Tale, Mail Order Monsters, the various Construction Set games, Starflight, Seven Cities of Gold, etc.)
EA itself may not have "made" these games, but its distribution strategy and relationship with developers back then did a lot to get good games in the hands of eager players.
+1 Fitting Movie Reference
Such support is not "a bug", as the recommendation you reference applies only to CSS (2.1).
COL elements are defined to include both "align" and "valign" atrributes for HTML 4 and XHTML 1.
The choice to accept the limitations of one recommendation (CSS) when applied to a document written in accord with another ([X]HTML) rests with the author. Clearly, there is a choice to be made here with respect to alignment attributes on COL elements.
The CSS recommendations, as written, do not abrogate the [X]HTML recommendations.
No, it's not. It's been flagged for "Last Call" since the end of 2005 and is still aways from full recommendation status. CSS 2.1 (farther along, but similarly mired) to date is patchily implemented by all — some moreso than others, for various reasons — so why should one expect full support for this CSS3 Working Draft?
(Some do say the W3C is a bit byzantine, and yes, they are cranky about it. You, too, can be the judge of that.)
I, too, miss its prior incarnation, but this is likely the result of my familiarity with what came before more than anything else. Switching to "Text View" from "Poster View" recaptures some of what was lost, but overall information density seems to have dropped a bit.
As a spec, and on the whole, CSS 3 doesn't appear to be anywhere close to completion, so I'm not sure what to make of half the above claim if it were to be true.
Interesting. That's the same underlying premise of the Avatars storyline from Charmed seasons six and seven. When did Gaiman turn into a couch potato in love with the WB? Or maybe just Alyssa Milano?
Bidding what you think it's worth does work. What you're talking about is being cheap, and it's an attitude shared by nearly all who snipe -- which is why waiting until the last second won't work if you're aim is to be cheap and not everyone else follows suit. On the other hand, I've seen last-second bidders whose assumption is that everyone involved to date is also cheap, and so bid a ridiculous amount to top whatever's there at the end. The end result is usually a short eBay career littered with obscene auction closes.
Anyway, you're right. If your objective is to cheap out on a bid (and I don't blame anyone for this attitude, eBay is mostly a yardsale where things are frequently not quite as advertised), you're probably not going to achieve that by bidding far in advance. However, if you're willing to pay a reasonable amount for an item, placement of such a bid on the last day after seeing what's going on works as often as any other bidding approach. I've been involved with eBay on and off for nearly a decade, and unless there's reason for an item to be a "must have, right now", it's usually better to view each auction as a probable loss and wait for another to be listed until your willingness to pay matches.
One of the strongest reasons not to bid in advance applies to mislisted items in a contested market, where other bidders frequently shadow the bid placement of others. This generally applies only to obscenely competitive fields (e.g., collectibles) and only in cases where the account from which you place bids has become "known" as one to watch. For the average user, though, this is a non-factor. And even should it apply, quite a few times the lack of a standing bid in advance of close elicits under-the-table dealings from the more ruthless eBay participants.
Oh, I dunno. Is it because people have lives and aren't interested in listings on the glorified yardsale that is eBay being extended indefinitely with nickle-and-dime bids? Or perhaps it's the potential for abuse as shills hammer open-ended closings to maximize gain at the expense of others? Then again, it could just be that eBay doesn't think it worth the effort to rewrite the codebase so an item can climb from $1.00 to $2.00 over the course of another hour?
Compared to real-world auctions, the vast majority of items on eBay aren't worth much and the potential number of bidders is far, far larger. Both these factor into why open-ended closure isn't as cut-and-dried a process as you lay out. It just doesn't make sense, especially to eBay, a company that wants quick sell-through (look at their fee structuring) rather than lingering listings. That was the motivation to the introduction of Buy It Now in the first place, and your proposal runs counter to that.
There's no magic to beating last-minute dropped connections or competing automated bids: just bid what you're willing to pay up front, and if you don't win, wait for the item to turn up again (and again) from another seller. Even under your plan, those two self-indentified evils would still exist, only moreso, as the timeframe for each would be extended. I don't see how sliding auction closure does anything to address either in the least.
WTF? Has /. become a playground for baseless assumptions? Apple/AT&T aren't allowing pre-sale of the iPhone, so how could anyone (let alone you) state whether it's selling well or not?