God forbid anyone have fun when someone dies. Just because people make jokes doesn't mean they hate the guy and quite frankly I rather people have fun and take the piss out of me at my funeral than sit there like a bunch of miserable people.
Yes because a good chunk of the voting public suck at their public duty and just don't care about politics. But they can be voted out if people care. If they don't then fine they must be happy with the mess they're in
If all businesses follow Verizon then you can say fuck you but you have no alternative. At least with the government you can vote people out. Shame more people don't take politics seriously and wisely exercise their rights.
I assume you mean games with DRM since the game in question is DRM-free.
I think their results show this whole idea that people pirate a game to really see what it is like and will then buy it is a load of shit. Some people just have an unjustified sense of self-entitlement. Everything seems too expensive to them because they can get it for free and the problem is that it will only hurt the honest people.
You can argue that they downloaded it, thought it sucked and didn't play it but that's not the case as proven with Tribes which was showing many more people playing the game than had actually bought it.
I'd like to see people be more active in their communities to stop piracy so we don't have to look forward to companies implementing even worse DRM.
Linux fans should be especially keen on doing this because I'm sure piracy is one big reason companies avoid Linux. The user base is much much smaller and if the majority pirate games then it's definitely going to be a complete loss. So I think we're only hurting ourselves by allowing it to happen.
I think the issue is more about whether most people need to go. If university was "free" then yes, I don't see why someone shouldn't go and in fact it would be harmful not to go.
But university isn't free. It can cost a lot of time and money and if the value if of that degree drops then you do need to question if it's worth the effort and more importantly the debt.
Too many people think a degree is some sort of magic bullet that will guarantee them success and that is not the case especially now. I believe the best route would be to raise elementary / high school standards much more so you can leave basic schooling better some do now. Then universities can raise their standards and the people who are serious about university can get on with their work and those who don't really need it can jump straight into work and start gaining experience or get specific cheaper and or quicker training for the job in question.
I believe this will also solve a lot of problems we have like people living with their parents far too long, having kids too late and people just being miserable because they're up to their necks in debt and debt they don't feel is really worth it.
A $350 laptop is going to be shit. A decent windows laptop does cost a similar amount to a macbook. My laptop was around £900 (so around $1600) when I bought it a few years ago but it'll play SFIV nicely even with Aapche and mysql running on it and NetBeans open. I'll be surprised if you can buy a $350 laptop now that will play it decently on its own let alone with other things running.
Agreed, I don't use it much for my personal life but I used it loads at work for communication amongst team mates. It was very easy to communicate and get a clear break down of conversations and I do believe something similar will pop up in the future.
Clearly I am in the minority but it was really useful and good for collaboration, imo. Then again I enjoyed Google Notebook too. It will be a shame to see it go.
Awhile ago I compared the cost of an iPhone in the US and the UK. You had to pay for the phone, pay a higher per month cost, pay to receive calls, get fewer free minutes and fewer free texts. This is despite the fact the UK has a higher tax rate and considering most things are more expensive in the UK I think that speaks volumes about how much of a rip-off phones are in the US.
At the time there were exclusive deals so there was only one seller of the iPhone in both the UK and US.
In the US you can't take your phone to another network or you have to put up a fight. Where as I don't have to. Not that I really do take my phone across networks. It's just too easy to get a new phone for no cost.
It's not just the iphone and some sort of Apple elitist pricing like their computers. In general it just seems more expensive and it seems fairly standard to pay something for the phone while still having to take out a contract.
A quick look at verizon shows only 7 phones that can be had for free on a 2 year contract and they're all old phones and it would appear their cheapest package is $39.99 and that's just for talking. Where as for $42.92 I got a completely free Android G1 when it came out on a 18 month contract with unlimited internet, unlimited texts and 800 minutes which I only use when I call people because I receive calls for free. Plus the phone was unlocked from day one without me having to ask so I can put any SIM card in it that I want. The reason is because standards have been set and they have to operate in a more open and cooperative way so really the only way to draw customers in is with better deals rather than locking them in with a different network or closed phone.
CDMA might have a superior signal but I have no problems with my network and I prefer being able to take my phone to whoever has the best deal. That and if I want to take my phone abroad I will have more luck with GSM. I've not seen anything that says CDMA is by far a clear winner and I believe this link is a fair comparison.
GSM came out of Finland and was helped by multiple funding EU funding which sort of proves my point that the best option doesn't come from corporations only or the government only but instead a combination of both.
The bulk of the US population isn't that spread out. By far most people live along the coasts and believe it or not if you go outside of cities, like London not everyone lives right beside each other in Europe. I live out in the fens so most of the land around my small village is flat farm land but I get 3G and 8 meg broadband. Where I lived in the US was a fairly similar area with similar spread between towns / villages and my only option, if I still lived there would be dial-up and a costly mobile phone which may or may not have a decent connection.
Thanks to the land being cheaper here (because there isn't much here) they're going to put a data center on the outskirts and loads of fiber to connect it up with London so I can probably look forward to a fiber connection in a few years.
I'm not sure if I can think of anything that came about in modern day America where corporations have had a lot of control or full control and they have competed through providing a superior services with competitive prices rather than lock in and anti competitive actions.
That's because there is no incentive for a company to provide an open standard unless absolutely necessary. It just makes sense. If you have something people want why would you want to allow other companies to leech off of your work?
I think people that bang on about free markets just don't think. A completely free market would be just as bad as a completely government controlled society. The ideal situation will always be a fine mix of the two that will require fine tuning over time. There will never be a one size fits all solution.
If it's that easy why doesn't the US have the best mobile phone market rather than having one of the shittiest ones? That probably is one of the most free markets in the US especially when compared to Europe or pretty much the rest of the world.
Changing your government is fairly easy if you take government seriously and vote. The problem is that people can't be bothered so the government won't change and that is why businesses won't do the right thing. They don't have to if the government doesn't make them because people are generally too lazy to care enough and that is why a totally free market would never work.
I think too many people talk about free markets without actually knowing what it means. A free market means companies regulate the market not the government so if companies decide to team up and agree not to compete on price in order to keep prices artificially high then that is still a free market.
The US mobile phone market is awful. It's a much more free market than Europe yet it's less competitive and more expensive and your phones are still locked down more than Europe and you have incompatible networks where as I can buy any phone in the UK use it on any network without thinking about it.
Companies are self serving and will not give people what they want if they can get away with it and people will generally let them get away with it because they just assume all businesses are greedy and you have to live with it because that's just the way it is.
If the internet were created solely by private businesses it would be nothing more than incompatible AOL networks for people to pick from. It would be utter shit.
If the pipes are the company's property then they are responsible for the content on it and should be held responsible for anything illegal found on their property.
But more importantly their "property" runs all over other people's property in part thanks to the government's right of way. If they want compensation for being made to open their pipes then they should start paying up for laying their property on other people's property and the government should charge them for using their right of way.
He is biased and the technology isn't perfect and probably partly to blame but I'd tend to agree with him. Just within one movie you can have varying quality of 3D effects. With the technology we have you probably can't just do any shot in 3D and the film industry will have to learn how to use it to its fullest.
What is awesome is in at this time, perhaps more than any other, we have the choice of both types and that is much better than being stuck with one or the other.
I like having ability to choose from either. We have plenty of awesome B&W movies. I see no reason we can't have 3D movies to pick form as well and not every movie has to an epic awesome story. As someone with movies ranging from To kill a mocking bird, À bout de souffle and Lawrence of Arabia to Point Break, Speed and Bad Boys I appreciate all of them and they have their time and place.
I know exactly what you mean which is why I didn't bother with Avatar. The last 3D movie I saw was My Bloody Valentine which wasn't *that* bad for that sort of movie but the hassle of wear cheap ill fitted glasses over my normal glasses sucks. From what I can tell I was more susceptible to looking at it wrong and not getting the full effect because the glasses don't set properly and move easily. They need to come up with a glasses-less system or keep a supply of clip-on glasses like you can get with sunglasses.
Slashdot Mirror
God forbid anyone have fun when someone dies. Just because people make jokes doesn't mean they hate the guy and quite frankly I rather people have fun and take the piss out of me at my funeral than sit there like a bunch of miserable people.
I hope it's not clogged, he deserves a good rest.
Yes because a good chunk of the voting public suck at their public duty and just don't care about politics. But they can be voted out if people care. If they don't then fine they must be happy with the mess they're in
It must suck getting old, fearing change and wishing that it could 1985 forever.
Being stuck in the past is a good sign that your life sucks.
If all businesses follow Verizon then you can say fuck you but you have no alternative. At least with the government you can vote people out. Shame more people don't take politics seriously and wisely exercise their rights.
I assume you mean games with DRM since the game in question is DRM-free.
I think their results show this whole idea that people pirate a game to really see what it is like and will then buy it is a load of shit. Some people just have an unjustified sense of self-entitlement. Everything seems too expensive to them because they can get it for free and the problem is that it will only hurt the honest people.
You can argue that they downloaded it, thought it sucked and didn't play it but that's not the case as proven with Tribes which was showing many more people playing the game than had actually bought it.
I'd like to see people be more active in their communities to stop piracy so we don't have to look forward to companies implementing even worse DRM.
Linux fans should be especially keen on doing this because I'm sure piracy is one big reason companies avoid Linux. The user base is much much smaller and if the majority pirate games then it's definitely going to be a complete loss. So I think we're only hurting ourselves by allowing it to happen.
I think the issue is more about whether most people need to go. If university was "free" then yes, I don't see why someone shouldn't go and in fact it would be harmful not to go.
But university isn't free. It can cost a lot of time and money and if the value if of that degree drops then you do need to question if it's worth the effort and more importantly the debt.
Too many people think a degree is some sort of magic bullet that will guarantee them success and that is not the case especially now. I believe the best route would be to raise elementary / high school standards much more so you can leave basic schooling better some do now. Then universities can raise their standards and the people who are serious about university can get on with their work and those who don't really need it can jump straight into work and start gaining experience or get specific cheaper and or quicker training for the job in question.
I believe this will also solve a lot of problems we have like people living with their parents far too long, having kids too late and people just being miserable because they're up to their necks in debt and debt they don't feel is really worth it.
If you haven't learned how to speak by the end of high school then you're not going to learn how to.
A $350 laptop is going to be shit. A decent windows laptop does cost a similar amount to a macbook. My laptop was around £900 (so around $1600) when I bought it a few years ago but it'll play SFIV nicely even with Aapche and mysql running on it and NetBeans open. I'll be surprised if you can buy a $350 laptop now that will play it decently on its own let alone with other things running.
True and lesbians are gay but we still reference gay men as gay and gay women as lesbians and they do it themselves with terms like LGBT.
The English language is full of crap that doesn't make sense.
Linux isn't on there because they didn't poll terrorists and communists.
Agreed, I don't use it much for my personal life but I used it loads at work for communication amongst team mates. It was very easy to communicate and get a clear break down of conversations and I do believe something similar will pop up in the future.
Clearly I am in the minority but it was really useful and good for collaboration, imo. Then again I enjoyed Google Notebook too. It will be a shame to see it go.
Awhile ago I compared the cost of an iPhone in the US and the UK. You had to pay for the phone, pay a higher per month cost, pay to receive calls, get fewer free minutes and fewer free texts. This is despite the fact the UK has a higher tax rate and considering most things are more expensive in the UK I think that speaks volumes about how much of a rip-off phones are in the US.
At the time there were exclusive deals so there was only one seller of the iPhone in both the UK and US.
In the US you can't take your phone to another network or you have to put up a fight. Where as I don't have to. Not that I really do take my phone across networks. It's just too easy to get a new phone for no cost.
It's not just the iphone and some sort of Apple elitist pricing like their computers. In general it just seems more expensive and it seems fairly standard to pay something for the phone while still having to take out a contract.
A quick look at verizon shows only 7 phones that can be had for free on a 2 year contract and they're all old phones and it would appear their cheapest package is $39.99 and that's just for talking. Where as for $42.92 I got a completely free Android G1 when it came out on a 18 month contract with unlimited internet, unlimited texts and 800 minutes which I only use when I call people because I receive calls for free. Plus the phone was unlocked from day one without me having to ask so I can put any SIM card in it that I want. The reason is because standards have been set and they have to operate in a more open and cooperative way so really the only way to draw customers in is with better deals rather than locking them in with a different network or closed phone.
CDMA might have a superior signal but I have no problems with my network and I prefer being able to take my phone to whoever has the best deal. That and if I want to take my phone abroad I will have more luck with GSM. I've not seen anything that says CDMA is by far a clear winner and I believe this link is a fair comparison.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07119/781379-371.stm
GSM came out of Finland and was helped by multiple funding EU funding which sort of proves my point that the best option doesn't come from corporations only or the government only but instead a combination of both.
The bulk of the US population isn't that spread out. By far most people live along the coasts and believe it or not if you go outside of cities, like London not everyone lives right beside each other in Europe. I live out in the fens so most of the land around my small village is flat farm land but I get 3G and 8 meg broadband. Where I lived in the US was a fairly similar area with similar spread between towns / villages and my only option, if I still lived there would be dial-up and a costly mobile phone which may or may not have a decent connection.
Thanks to the land being cheaper here (because there isn't much here) they're going to put a data center on the outskirts and loads of fiber to connect it up with London so I can probably look forward to a fiber connection in a few years.
I'm not sure if I can think of anything that came about in modern day America where corporations have had a lot of control or full control and they have competed through providing a superior services with competitive prices rather than lock in and anti competitive actions.
That's because there is no incentive for a company to provide an open standard unless absolutely necessary. It just makes sense. If you have something people want why would you want to allow other companies to leech off of your work?
I think people that bang on about free markets just don't think. A completely free market would be just as bad as a completely government controlled society. The ideal situation will always be a fine mix of the two that will require fine tuning over time. There will never be a one size fits all solution.
Yes it would very elegant and perfect just like AOL was.
If it's that easy why doesn't the US have the best mobile phone market rather than having one of the shittiest ones? That probably is one of the most free markets in the US especially when compared to Europe or pretty much the rest of the world.
Changing your government is fairly easy if you take government seriously and vote. The problem is that people can't be bothered so the government won't change and that is why businesses won't do the right thing. They don't have to if the government doesn't make them because people are generally too lazy to care enough and that is why a totally free market would never work.
I think too many people talk about free markets without actually knowing what it means. A free market means companies regulate the market not the government so if companies decide to team up and agree not to compete on price in order to keep prices artificially high then that is still a free market.
The US mobile phone market is awful. It's a much more free market than Europe yet it's less competitive and more expensive and your phones are still locked down more than Europe and you have incompatible networks where as I can buy any phone in the UK use it on any network without thinking about it.
Companies are self serving and will not give people what they want if they can get away with it and people will generally let them get away with it because they just assume all businesses are greedy and you have to live with it because that's just the way it is.
If the internet were created solely by private businesses it would be nothing more than incompatible AOL networks for people to pick from. It would be utter shit.
Yeah because the mobile phone market in the US is so much better than Europe. The free market gave people exactly what they wanted.
If the pipes are the company's property then they are responsible for the content on it and should be held responsible for anything illegal found on their property.
But more importantly their "property" runs all over other people's property in part thanks to the government's right of way. If they want compensation for being made to open their pipes then they should start paying up for laying their property on other people's property and the government should charge them for using their right of way.
He is biased and the technology isn't perfect and probably partly to blame but I'd tend to agree with him. Just within one movie you can have varying quality of 3D effects. With the technology we have you probably can't just do any shot in 3D and the film industry will have to learn how to use it to its fullest.
What is awesome is in at this time, perhaps more than any other, we have the choice of both types and that is much better than being stuck with one or the other.
I like having ability to choose from either. We have plenty of awesome B&W movies. I see no reason we can't have 3D movies to pick form as well and not every movie has to an epic awesome story. As someone with movies ranging from To kill a mocking bird, À bout de souffle and Lawrence of Arabia to Point Break, Speed and Bad Boys I appreciate all of them and they have their time and place.
I think it's time to take a break and step out of mother's basement for a breather.
I know exactly what you mean which is why I didn't bother with Avatar. The last 3D movie I saw was My Bloody Valentine which wasn't *that* bad for that sort of movie but the hassle of wear cheap ill fitted glasses over my normal glasses sucks. From what I can tell I was more susceptible to looking at it wrong and not getting the full effect because the glasses don't set properly and move easily. They need to come up with a glasses-less system or keep a supply of clip-on glasses like you can get with sunglasses.