...someone turns on another light source overpowering the LEDs...something flies over the sensor (or worse yet lands on it) blocking reception of the data...multple 'databulbs' in one room get out of sync, causing confusion in the device
Or when you're hospitalized due to the blinking lights causing a seizure.
Bosses often have no way of tracking Internet activity
Bosses have no way of tracking Internet activity? Maybe they should read the rest of the article...
Paul Hortop, who reviews company network security for consultancy Voco, said the most common websites visited by personal web surfers were online trading sites, instant messaging/chat services and peer-to-peer sharing sites (allowing movie, music and software sharing)."
Seems like they can track Internet activity pretty well?
Man, now even with buying a supercomputer we have to pay the Microsoft tax. We should sign a petition for them to sell the computers with Linux on them. Then we can drop the price to $24,900. That's WAY better.
But you can still use the emphasis of text to create inflection in the mind of the reader.
Because I HATE vodka!
This certainly has a different emotional quality attached to it. Changing the format of the text can create emphasis similar to what the inflection would be. The context of the conversation as well as the punctuation of the sentence can also help sarcasm to be more understandable.
For example, if you were to read these two conversations:
"Do you want a martini?"
"No"
"Why?"
"Because I hate vodka."
"Ah"
"We're going to make Screwdrivers after our physics exam, but I told the guys you probably wouldn't make it."
"Because I hate vodka?"
"No you dumbass, because you have a chemistry exam tomorrow morning."
You would know that line "Because I hate vodka" - because of a difference of text emphasis, punctuation, and context - can be read as non-sarcastic in the first example and sarcastic in the second example.
Of course, since there are so many ways of being sarcastic, some more obvious than others, this doesn't always hold true. But it's not as difficult to add sarcasm into text as you would think.
I don't think it's just stupidity. "You get what you pay for" is part of it as well. A private contractor needs to make a profit and it costs money to make things secure. If no one buys your voting computer because it's too expensive, you lose. So, you need to dumb it down - when you dumb it down, the security becomes crappier.
I'm sure most of us here can come up with a dozen ways of making voting machines far more secure. How about proprietary connectors so that any Joe Schmoe can't sidle up and stick in a USB drive with a virus on it? How about welding (or some other way of sealing) the computer enclosure so that no one, not even the operators sitting at the desk in front it, can open it? How about not using freaking Windows? If you don't want a virus to spread, invest some money and write a completely new proprietary operating system from scratch that no one has ever seen before. That would make any virus or malware completely ineffective.
But that would also cost a LOT of money. So, while stupidity is definitely a factor, I think profit margins are really the root cause. Although, I could go as far as saying that the drive to cut costs is one of the leading causes of stupid decisions - so, I guess stupidity and cost cutting are fairly related.
Not to mention that it should probably be titled "It's been a spotless month, from the part of the sun that we can actually see - I mean, who knows what's happening on the other side?"
I see your point and I agree with most of it, but...
It's sort of the same problem with watching certain anime with a lot of in-jokes, Excel Saga for example. So many of the jokes rely on having a familiarity with animes that came before or silly puns that only work in Japanese, easily half the humor is lost in translation. Even when the subbers explain the jokes, jokes just aren't as funny when they're explained.
I don't think you can apply not getting a joke with translating jokes. I think it's only partially right, there are some jokes based on cultural norms or pop culture that don't make sense unless you're part of that culture. But when you start translating jokes, you start to realize how many jokes we have that are based on word games, like puns for instance. A turn of a phrase is pretty much impossible to translate. If you don't understand the language, you'll never get the joke. Words in Spanish, French, Japanese, etc.. don't rhyme in English. Idioms that give situational double-meanings don't mean the same thing. I don't think it's really a problem of explaining a joke that kills it, it's the fact that translating it doesn't make any sense and the joke has to be explained so you realize that there was, in fact, a joke there.
Yup! It's similar to traffic congestion problem that someone figures out how to solve every couple months. If everyone's driving fast and there's a slow point, all the cars back up. If everyone, hell - if one person, slows down and leaves room inbetween their cars, that gives the tight spot enough room to accommodate the traffic and the congestion dies.
It's a rather simplistic model compared to internet switches, but it sort of works. If you don't overload the switches, you'll have less network congestion. Less Network Congestion=Faster Communication
I have a similar setup, and I can agree with you. My old DVD player crapped out right around the time the format war was over so I just got a PS3 to play all my movies. I used to work a remote job and I have a ton of DVD's that all look pretty damn good going through the HDMI connection on my 1080p tv. I pretty much have all the movies I want and Blu-Ray is really only going to be for future movies I want to buy.
If you look around, you can usually find sales and other decent prices. I got two titles (I only own 5 Blu-Ray titles) at Amazon for 15 bucks apiece in a sale they had for a week. As long as most DVD's look great, I don't really have a preference of DVD over Blu-Ray. I have to really like a movie a lot to buy it anyways, and if it really wows me (Like Dark Knight), I'd spend a little extra money to make it look as good as possible on my system. But for the most part, DVD's are just fine. If I see Blu-Ray sales, I'll pick them up. You can usually save a little more too if you pre-order, but that depends where you pre-order from.
Well, actually, if you drill a big hole in the ground, you could pipe water down an enclosed pipe. Then the steam would come up another pipe to power generator turbines. When it cools back down to water, you send it back down to heat up again.
After your initial water investment, you wouldn't really need a significant amount of additional water at all if it was a closed system. I believe that's the general principal in most Geothermal usage wells.
People always use this argument as a justification. I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped justifying their actions. You are just one person, and so is the other guy justifying his purchase the same way. Now there are two of you. See where this is going? Would it ever amount to enough people to affect a change, I don't know. But I do know that it is a cop-out as far as arguments go.
Is it? I'm not an idealist. I don't have any desire to change the world or change corporations in the world. The Playstation 3 was released in America what... the end of 2006? It's mid-2008 now and they're still selling PS3's. If anyone wanted to protest and/or boycott Sony, it obviously hasn't worked. Trying to use the "If another guy thought that way, and another, and another then the world would change!" argument is bogus. This isn't an idealized world where my one purchase actually makes a difference. I'm not a pessimist where I think everything just sucks. I already told you I'm a pragmatist. I rooted for the other guy in the HD Movie battle. The other guy lost. Should I just completely give up my desire to watch a movie in HD because of that? That's not practical or logical. If the world worked in the way you idealize it, where I could make a difference, then I might be swayed by you saying it's a 'cop-out'. But this is reality.
Whoops, I thought we were debating your lack of moral fortitude. These are your principles, things you believe in and uphold. The 'logic' is that you stick to them or you don't. You didn't, and that's fine since you've obviously justified it to yourself, but don't act otherwise.
No, however, you seem to be debating it thoroughly. Buying a PS3 doesn't violate any of my moral beliefs. I'm still curious why you think I've violated a moral principal at all. I'm not morally bound to Sony in any way. I made it clear in my original post. I think the head of Sony is a dick, but I also think that Sony - the gigantic multi-national corporation - makes very good products. But Sony's president and Sony's decisions don't affect me in any way. I don't care what they do. The president can rot and die and it wouldn't affect the way I feel about purchasing a Sony product. I don't understand why you believe I have this great moral dilemma I have to justify to myself.
Then why even bring up your feelings about them in the original post? It just makes you look hypocritical. I honestly don't care one way or the other that you bought a PS3 or that you hate/love Sony. But your posts are an exercise in hypocrisy at the very least.
Well, the original title of the parent topic was "I've always been a Sony fanboy..." and his post was about how he couldn't think of any reason why he wanted a PS3. His post was focused on games. My post was titled "I've never been a Sony fanboy... BUT" because I was telling him that I myself am not a Sony fanboy but I found reasons to buy a PS3. I posted what I did because a statement without supporting evidence isn't a good argument. You seem to enjoy arguing so you should know that. Since I made the statement I was not a fanboy, and I was taking the stance of someone who wasn't a fanboy but still found legitimate reason to purchase a PS3, I decided to prove my argument by showing that I was not, in fact a fanboy. I had grievances against Sony that typical fanboys ignore and don't talk about. I acknowledged my feelings about Sony, which proved I was not a Sony fanboy, which in turn legitimized my argument about why I thought there were good reasons other than games to buy a PS3. I thought that was obvious, but apparently, it was not.
But you don't seem to think one person can ever make a change. Even if Sony used sweatshop workers you wouldn't care. So what exactly are you saving these morals for?
Certainly not for you, and not for Sony. It is true that a single person can make a change in some cases. But most of the time, that is not the case. If you can prove to me that my one purchase of a PS3 made any sort of impact on Sony's business, positive or negative, then maybe I'll believe you.
Well... Sony's not going away. Sony's financial future didn't hinge on the one single PS3 that I bought. As far as Sony is concerned, my one single purchase isn't worth spit. It wouldn't matter to them if I personally did or did not buy them.
So, what are my options? 1) Get so indignant with Sony and not buy anything they have a hand in? 2)Realize that if I wanted to watch 1080p HD movies, which I do - I really, really do - I have to pay Sony at least some part of any purchase related to Blu-Ray?
Where's the logic in boycotting Sony if they won? They're the creators of Blu-Ray. Any Blu-Ray related purchase is going to support Sony in some way. Any boycott or protest I choose to follow won't make a dent in anything Sony chooses to do.
I never said my opinions will never change, I said my opinions will never change that, referring to Sony's business practices. If we found out Sony employed sweat shop workers in China. I honestly wouldn't give a shit. If we found out Sony was angelically donating half its profits to every charity in the world, I still wouldn't give a shit.
I save my morals for things I know I can change. If I honestly thought I would be a worse person for doing buying a PS3, I wouldn't have. Sony doesn't even register on my morality meter. They just provide a means to an end for me to accomplish something I want to do. Other than that, they're pretty much a non-entity to me.
You're absolutely right. I'm not denying it! I honestly don't give a flying shit about the games. If I do see some interesting game, I could buy it. But I got it 100% (Ok, well.. maybe 90%) just to watch movies on. Not to play games:)
I still bought a PS3. Honestly, I don't really care about what games come out for it - well, maybe except for Resident Evil 5, that looks awesome - I got it for a Blu-Ray player. It's the best and cheapest Blu-Ray player you can get on the market, and probably will be for a while.
During the format wars, Sony updated the Blu-Ray version by adding new features; new features that made new Blu-Ray discs incompatible with older players. If Sony decides to add more features in the future, the PS3 is the most versatile player they have.
The PS3's Blu-Ray decoding is software-based, it can be updated and upgraded easily. And the PS3 already comes with a wireless card in it that makes it extraordinarily easy to update.
Also, additional content on many Blu-Ray titles was done in Java. (AvP for instance has a game on the Blu-Ray disc) Most stand-alone players grind to a halt when trying to run Java. The PS3 has computing power to spare and chew those Java apps up and spit them back out. And speaking of computing power, it's designed to have amazing graphics. When you apply that to 2D video, the colors and picture quality are on par with the best devices out there. I'm sure there are better players out there, but those top of the line, multiple-thousand dollar units. For 500 bucks (plus HD cables, plus 30 bucks for the remote), you'll be near top of the line for significantly less money.
The PS3 also will upconvert your old DVD's to 1080p. So, your library of DVD's isn't obsolete like VHS tapes were with DVD's. It'll make all your DVD's look better.
So, it's an amazing player. It displays the movies in crisp, clear graphics - comparable to higher end Blu-Ray players. It can easily update its firmware so it can play all current and future Blu-Ray titles. It has the capability to play all additional content that many other players are incapable of playing. It upconverts old DVDs. And to top it off, it's the cheapest Blu-Ray player out there (or it was when I bought mine). If you've got a 1080p capable TV and you buy movies, the PS3 is going to be the way to go. And, if you see a game worth playing, well, that's just icing on the cake.
Let me finish off by saying I've been a Nintendo Fanboy. I've bought every Nintendo console that's come out. I was pissed off by Sony's arrogance about their system. I was voting for HD-DVD to win. But they didn't. Blu-Ray won. And I'm a pragmatist. If I want to watch movies in 1080p (which I do) there's only one way to do. The president of Sony can go eat a dick. I don't like his business practices and arrogance, but my opinion isn't going to change that. And even though I don't particularly care for him or the way, I have to admit that Sony makes awesome stuff. The first thing I watched in 1080p was a Wall-E trailer I downloaded. Jesus F-ing Christ. If you have the opportunity to see what 1080p video looks like, take the chance.
How much is it? It costs a lot of money. I work for a Geology company and we had our Geologists out on site during the drilling of the SAFOD project. I was out there for a week relieving the other hands. The main cost of the operation is time. If you want to drill a hole, you have to contract out a drilling rig. That's 10's of thousands of dollars a day. The longer it takes to drill a well, the more it costs.
They were drilling directionally with a 17" bit; that's a huge bit and it costs a lot of money. It's thousands of dollars for one. They used several bits to drill the hole.
Drilling directionally takes a lot longer to do for various reasons. The biggest reason was because they were drilling directly into a Granite formation. Granite is a hard, silica-rich, igneous rock. It does not break apart easily like Sandstone. It takes a long time to drill, when I was there, we were making between 5-10 feet/hour - at that rate, a 5000'-8000' deep hole takes a LONG time to drill, especially with the directional part factored in. And that Granite just chews up those big 17" bits, which means you have to replace them a lot.
Then you have to pay for the mud. The mud was a water-based system designed to lubricate the hole, keep it from collapsing, and use it to treat any problems. Like anything else, the longer they're producing mud, the more it costs. I've seen mud bills over a million dollars on one well before.
Then you have to pay all the people on location. The Company Man, sort of the Foreman of a location, costs at least 2000-4000 dollars every day he's out there. You have to pay the Roughnecks every day they're out there to drill, the mud engineers, geologists, safety guys, etc. And since this was a far more scientifically oriented job than most wells drilled, there was a lot of other cool stuff and personnel that had to be paid.
In the end, we're talking millions of dollars. Millions and millions. I don't really have an exact price to tell you, I was just a contractor on part of the job. But it was a really long job, I feel safe guessing at least 10 million dollars.
And that's just for one hole. If you can streamline the process and figure out where delays happened and if you can fix those delays on the next job, you'll be able to do subsequent wells cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
I think one of the tags for this story says it all... "whocares"
How about "This just in: DUH!?" :)
and Blizzard stated plans for a three-part franchise, I doubt there would be this kind of reaction.
Yeah, we're all glad that Blizzard never does this kind of crap! Never ever!
I can't wait to play Starcraft 2: Part 1!
...someone turns on another light source overpowering the LEDs ...something flies over the sensor (or worse yet lands on it) blocking reception of the data ...multple 'databulbs' in one room get out of sync, causing confusion in the device
Or when you're hospitalized due to the blinking lights causing a seizure.
I would imagine here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginationland
Bosses often have no way of tracking Internet activity
Bosses have no way of tracking Internet activity? Maybe they should read the rest of the article...
Paul Hortop, who reviews company network security for consultancy Voco, said the most common websites visited by personal web surfers were online trading sites, instant messaging/chat services and peer-to-peer sharing sites (allowing movie, music and software sharing)."
Seems like they can track Internet activity pretty well?
Man, now even with buying a supercomputer we have to pay the Microsoft tax. We should sign a petition for them to sell the computers with Linux on them. Then we can drop the price to $24,900. That's WAY better.
Fun game: try to post a YouTube comment so stupid that people realize you must be joking. (Hint: this is impossible)
But you can still use the emphasis of text to create inflection in the mind of the reader.
Because I HATE vodka!
This certainly has a different emotional quality attached to it. Changing the format of the text can create emphasis similar to what the inflection would be. The context of the conversation as well as the punctuation of the sentence can also help sarcasm to be more understandable.
For example, if you were to read these two conversations:
"Do you want a martini?"
"No"
"Why?"
"Because I hate vodka."
"Ah"
"We're going to make Screwdrivers after our physics exam, but I told the guys you probably wouldn't make it."
"Because I hate vodka?"
"No you dumbass, because you have a chemistry exam tomorrow morning."
You would know that line "Because I hate vodka" - because of a difference of text emphasis, punctuation, and context - can be read as non-sarcastic in the first example and sarcastic in the second example.
Of course, since there are so many ways of being sarcastic, some more obvious than others, this doesn't always hold true. But it's not as difficult to add sarcasm into text as you would think.
I don't think it's just stupidity. "You get what you pay for" is part of it as well. A private contractor needs to make a profit and it costs money to make things secure. If no one buys your voting computer because it's too expensive, you lose. So, you need to dumb it down - when you dumb it down, the security becomes crappier.
I'm sure most of us here can come up with a dozen ways of making voting machines far more secure. How about proprietary connectors so that any Joe Schmoe can't sidle up and stick in a USB drive with a virus on it? How about welding (or some other way of sealing) the computer enclosure so that no one, not even the operators sitting at the desk in front it, can open it? How about not using freaking Windows? If you don't want a virus to spread, invest some money and write a completely new proprietary operating system from scratch that no one has ever seen before. That would make any virus or malware completely ineffective.
But that would also cost a LOT of money. So, while stupidity is definitely a factor, I think profit margins are really the root cause. Although, I could go as far as saying that the drive to cut costs is one of the leading causes of stupid decisions - so, I guess stupidity and cost cutting are fairly related.
Yeah! We totally mean it! I mean... you can copy all of the information off of the chip, but you can't clone it! That means it's still secure!
Not to mention that it should probably be titled "It's been a spotless month, from the part of the sun that we can actually see - I mean, who knows what's happening on the other side?"
*fingers in ears*
La la la! We can't hear you! If we can't hear you, there's no problem! La la la la la la la la!
It's sort of the same problem with watching certain anime with a lot of in-jokes, Excel Saga for example. So many of the jokes rely on having a familiarity with animes that came before or silly puns that only work in Japanese, easily half the humor is lost in translation. Even when the subbers explain the jokes, jokes just aren't as funny when they're explained.
I don't think you can apply not getting a joke with translating jokes. I think it's only partially right, there are some jokes based on cultural norms or pop culture that don't make sense unless you're part of that culture. But when you start translating jokes, you start to realize how many jokes we have that are based on word games, like puns for instance. A turn of a phrase is pretty much impossible to translate. If you don't understand the language, you'll never get the joke. Words in Spanish, French, Japanese, etc.. don't rhyme in English. Idioms that give situational double-meanings don't mean the same thing. I don't think it's really a problem of explaining a joke that kills it, it's the fact that translating it doesn't make any sense and the joke has to be explained so you realize that there was, in fact, a joke there.
Yup! It's similar to traffic congestion problem that someone figures out how to solve every couple months. If everyone's driving fast and there's a slow point, all the cars back up. If everyone, hell - if one person, slows down and leaves room inbetween their cars, that gives the tight spot enough room to accommodate the traffic and the congestion dies.
It's a rather simplistic model compared to internet switches, but it sort of works. If you don't overload the switches, you'll have less network congestion. Less Network Congestion=Faster Communication
I have a similar setup, and I can agree with you. My old DVD player crapped out right around the time the format war was over so I just got a PS3 to play all my movies. I used to work a remote job and I have a ton of DVD's that all look pretty damn good going through the HDMI connection on my 1080p tv. I pretty much have all the movies I want and Blu-Ray is really only going to be for future movies I want to buy.
If you look around, you can usually find sales and other decent prices. I got two titles (I only own 5 Blu-Ray titles) at Amazon for 15 bucks apiece in a sale they had for a week. As long as most DVD's look great, I don't really have a preference of DVD over Blu-Ray. I have to really like a movie a lot to buy it anyways, and if it really wows me (Like Dark Knight), I'd spend a little extra money to make it look as good as possible on my system. But for the most part, DVD's are just fine. If I see Blu-Ray sales, I'll pick them up. You can usually save a little more too if you pre-order, but that depends where you pre-order from.
Well, actually, if you drill a big hole in the ground, you could pipe water down an enclosed pipe. Then the steam would come up another pipe to power generator turbines. When it cools back down to water, you send it back down to heat up again.
After your initial water investment, you wouldn't really need a significant amount of additional water at all if it was a closed system. I believe that's the general principal in most Geothermal usage wells.
Or just use Speakerphone. Rather than annoying everyone around you with 1/2 of a conversation, why not annoy them with the whole thing?
People always use this argument as a justification. I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped justifying their actions. You are just one person, and so is the other guy justifying his purchase the same way. Now there are two of you. See where this is going? Would it ever amount to enough people to affect a change, I don't know. But I do know that it is a cop-out as far as arguments go.
Is it? I'm not an idealist. I don't have any desire to change the world or change corporations in the world. The Playstation 3 was released in America what... the end of 2006? It's mid-2008 now and they're still selling PS3's. If anyone wanted to protest and/or boycott Sony, it obviously hasn't worked. Trying to use the "If another guy thought that way, and another, and another then the world would change!" argument is bogus. This isn't an idealized world where my one purchase actually makes a difference. I'm not a pessimist where I think everything just sucks. I already told you I'm a pragmatist. I rooted for the other guy in the HD Movie battle. The other guy lost. Should I just completely give up my desire to watch a movie in HD because of that? That's not practical or logical. If the world worked in the way you idealize it, where I could make a difference, then I might be swayed by you saying it's a 'cop-out'. But this is reality.
Whoops, I thought we were debating your lack of moral fortitude. These are your principles, things you believe in and uphold. The 'logic' is that you stick to them or you don't. You didn't, and that's fine since you've obviously justified it to yourself, but don't act otherwise.
No, however, you seem to be debating it thoroughly. Buying a PS3 doesn't violate any of my moral beliefs. I'm still curious why you think I've violated a moral principal at all. I'm not morally bound to Sony in any way. I made it clear in my original post. I think the head of Sony is a dick, but I also think that Sony - the gigantic multi-national corporation - makes very good products. But Sony's president and Sony's decisions don't affect me in any way. I don't care what they do. The president can rot and die and it wouldn't affect the way I feel about purchasing a Sony product. I don't understand why you believe I have this great moral dilemma I have to justify to myself.
Then why even bring up your feelings about them in the original post? It just makes you look hypocritical. I honestly don't care one way or the other that you bought a PS3 or that you hate/love Sony. But your posts are an exercise in hypocrisy at the very least.
Well, the original title of the parent topic was "I've always been a Sony fanboy..." and his post was about how he couldn't think of any reason why he wanted a PS3. His post was focused on games. My post was titled "I've never been a Sony fanboy... BUT" because I was telling him that I myself am not a Sony fanboy but I found reasons to buy a PS3. I posted what I did because a statement without supporting evidence isn't a good argument. You seem to enjoy arguing so you should know that. Since I made the statement I was not a fanboy, and I was taking the stance of someone who wasn't a fanboy but still found legitimate reason to purchase a PS3, I decided to prove my argument by showing that I was not, in fact a fanboy. I had grievances against Sony that typical fanboys ignore and don't talk about. I acknowledged my feelings about Sony, which proved I was not a Sony fanboy, which in turn legitimized my argument about why I thought there were good reasons other than games to buy a PS3. I thought that was obvious, but apparently, it was not.
But you don't seem to think one person can ever make a change. Even if Sony used sweatshop workers you wouldn't care. So what exactly are you saving these morals for?
Certainly not for you, and not for Sony. It is true that a single person can make a change in some cases. But most of the time, that is not the case. If you can prove to me that my one purchase of a PS3 made any sort of impact on Sony's business, positive or negative, then maybe I'll believe you.
Well... Sony's not going away. Sony's financial future didn't hinge on the one single PS3 that I bought. As far as Sony is concerned, my one single purchase isn't worth spit. It wouldn't matter to them if I personally did or did not buy them.
So, what are my options? 1) Get so indignant with Sony and not buy anything they have a hand in? 2)Realize that if I wanted to watch 1080p HD movies, which I do - I really, really do - I have to pay Sony at least some part of any purchase related to Blu-Ray?
Where's the logic in boycotting Sony if they won? They're the creators of Blu-Ray. Any Blu-Ray related purchase is going to support Sony in some way. Any boycott or protest I choose to follow won't make a dent in anything Sony chooses to do.
I never said my opinions will never change, I said my opinions will never change that, referring to Sony's business practices. If we found out Sony employed sweat shop workers in China. I honestly wouldn't give a shit. If we found out Sony was angelically donating half its profits to every charity in the world, I still wouldn't give a shit.
I save my morals for things I know I can change. If I honestly thought I would be a worse person for doing buying a PS3, I wouldn't have. Sony doesn't even register on my morality meter. They just provide a means to an end for me to accomplish something I want to do. Other than that, they're pretty much a non-entity to me.
You're absolutely right. I'm not denying it! I honestly don't give a flying shit about the games. If I do see some interesting game, I could buy it. But I got it 100% (Ok, well.. maybe 90%) just to watch movies on. Not to play games :)
I still bought a PS3. Honestly, I don't really care about what games come out for it - well, maybe except for Resident Evil 5, that looks awesome - I got it for a Blu-Ray player. It's the best and cheapest Blu-Ray player you can get on the market, and probably will be for a while.
During the format wars, Sony updated the Blu-Ray version by adding new features; new features that made new Blu-Ray discs incompatible with older players. If Sony decides to add more features in the future, the PS3 is the most versatile player they have.
The PS3's Blu-Ray decoding is software-based, it can be updated and upgraded easily. And the PS3 already comes with a wireless card in it that makes it extraordinarily easy to update.
Also, additional content on many Blu-Ray titles was done in Java. (AvP for instance has a game on the Blu-Ray disc) Most stand-alone players grind to a halt when trying to run Java. The PS3 has computing power to spare and chew those Java apps up and spit them back out. And speaking of computing power, it's designed to have amazing graphics. When you apply that to 2D video, the colors and picture quality are on par with the best devices out there. I'm sure there are better players out there, but those top of the line, multiple-thousand dollar units. For 500 bucks (plus HD cables, plus 30 bucks for the remote), you'll be near top of the line for significantly less money.
The PS3 also will upconvert your old DVD's to 1080p. So, your library of DVD's isn't obsolete like VHS tapes were with DVD's. It'll make all your DVD's look better.
So, it's an amazing player. It displays the movies in crisp, clear graphics - comparable to higher end Blu-Ray players. It can easily update its firmware so it can play all current and future Blu-Ray titles. It has the capability to play all additional content that many other players are incapable of playing. It upconverts old DVDs. And to top it off, it's the cheapest Blu-Ray player out there (or it was when I bought mine). If you've got a 1080p capable TV and you buy movies, the PS3 is going to be the way to go. And, if you see a game worth playing, well, that's just icing on the cake.
Let me finish off by saying I've been a Nintendo Fanboy. I've bought every Nintendo console that's come out. I was pissed off by Sony's arrogance about their system. I was voting for HD-DVD to win. But they didn't. Blu-Ray won. And I'm a pragmatist. If I want to watch movies in 1080p (which I do) there's only one way to do. The president of Sony can go eat a dick. I don't like his business practices and arrogance, but my opinion isn't going to change that. And even though I don't particularly care for him or the way, I have to admit that Sony makes awesome stuff. The first thing I watched in 1080p was a Wall-E trailer I downloaded. Jesus F-ing Christ. If you have the opportunity to see what 1080p video looks like, take the chance.
How much is it? It costs a lot of money. I work for a Geology company and we had our Geologists out on site during the drilling of the SAFOD project. I was out there for a week relieving the other hands. The main cost of the operation is time. If you want to drill a hole, you have to contract out a drilling rig. That's 10's of thousands of dollars a day. The longer it takes to drill a well, the more it costs.
They were drilling directionally with a 17" bit; that's a huge bit and it costs a lot of money. It's thousands of dollars for one. They used several bits to drill the hole.
Drilling directionally takes a lot longer to do for various reasons. The biggest reason was because they were drilling directly into a Granite formation. Granite is a hard, silica-rich, igneous rock. It does not break apart easily like Sandstone. It takes a long time to drill, when I was there, we were making between 5-10 feet/hour - at that rate, a 5000'-8000' deep hole takes a LONG time to drill, especially with the directional part factored in. And that Granite just chews up those big 17" bits, which means you have to replace them a lot.
Then you have to pay for the mud. The mud was a water-based system designed to lubricate the hole, keep it from collapsing, and use it to treat any problems. Like anything else, the longer they're producing mud, the more it costs. I've seen mud bills over a million dollars on one well before.
Then you have to pay all the people on location. The Company Man, sort of the Foreman of a location, costs at least 2000-4000 dollars every day he's out there. You have to pay the Roughnecks every day they're out there to drill, the mud engineers, geologists, safety guys, etc. And since this was a far more scientifically oriented job than most wells drilled, there was a lot of other cool stuff and personnel that had to be paid.
In the end, we're talking millions of dollars. Millions and millions. I don't really have an exact price to tell you, I was just a contractor on part of the job. But it was a really long job, I feel safe guessing at least 10 million dollars.
And that's just for one hole. If you can streamline the process and figure out where delays happened and if you can fix those delays on the next job, you'll be able to do subsequent wells cheaper.
Jeez. I can't remember how many times I entered in BillGates@Microsoft.com as an email address on some random site.
Guess that makes me a felon? Or am I only a felon if I get caught?
They could also just listen for:
"Goddamnit!"
"You piece of shit!"
or the always indicative "FUCK!"
Just by checking for those 3 phrases, they should be able to ID an angry caller with at least a 99% positive rate.