Because you expected them to pack it with an Intel Atom CPU, a 1 GB SSD, 128 MB of RAM and a nice color LCD? Seriously, what did you expect? Its hard enough to get E-ink as it is, yet alone without substantially increasing the price.
Well, saying that it is hard to hack is a good article nonetheless as most of us if we saw an e-ink display would buy it to try to hack it, if it wasn't able to be hacked most of us would have wasted the price of the magazine.
Out of curiosity.. what is your exact problem with the way the system currently works? You can copy downloaded games to SD cards already. You can't play them from the card, which is mildly inconvenient,
Except for the fact that for a 200 some block game it takes ~15-20 minutes to move it to the SD card or back to the Wii. Its beyond mildly inconvenient whenever I have normal internet speeds that are faster. And the same SD card will read and write incredibly fast on my computer so it isn't an issue with the SD card speed...
The PS2 had an early head start with the DVD format. At the time of its launch, it was an affordable DVD player that played games. Secondly, it was backwards compatibly with all the PS1 games giving it a larger library of games. Third, it had a lot of exclusive system selling titles such as Final Fantasy. The Xbox had Halo which was a system seller. But the Gamecube had a lot of exclusive titles but just never managed for them to sell systems, Melee was a great game, and Tales of Symphonia is one of the best RPGs I have ever played, but Sunshine was mediocre, Luigi's Mansion was an average launch game, Double Dash was decent, but not a system seller. And the console had so many Mario Party games that were essentially the same to be even considered. The thing that I really liked about the gamecube was the short load times compared to the PS2 and Xbox. Seriously, it seemed to take at least a minute to go back to the world map after a battle in Final Fantasy...
The problem with that is, eventually record companies would charge for "premium" content and over 10-15 years all the new things become "premium" content while they rack up money by subscription fees. Not to mention that paying an extra fee for downloads is going to make the west head backwards in internet usage as 50-60 year olds aren't going to care about music but still have to pay for it.
But Google won't have to pay patent fees in international jurisdiction and Google wants to fight censorship as much as the average/.er, it makes ads better.
Evolution is to biology is what molecules are to chemistry. You really can't teach biology in any meaningful way without evolution.
For non college classes you can. All Biology is today is memorizing where a heart is in a cat, pig, frog, etc. And memorizing muscles, bones, and classifying animals. I would agree with you for college classes, but for high school classes, its really not needed.
Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs.
You mean that you don't think it already has? And the problem isn't a lack of education, its patent and copyright laws that have managed to screw up researchers because they can't use *insert groundbreaking research here* to come up with *insert even better research here* because of a patent or copyright.
Personally, I think it's important for the USA to stay competitive scientifically - but it seems that a lot of Republicans don't agree.
Clean up the patent mess and the US will be successful scientifically, public education doesn't affect how successful the US is scientifically, money does.
Yes, but if these boats are movable Google can easily say: Let us do *insert thing here* or we will move to *insert country here* that will let us do that and you lose our tax dollars.
Show me where in the constitution does it say anything about the separation of church and state?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Lets see, teaching creationism along with evolution violates no part of the constitution. Does teaching both say: A) Creationism is superior to the theory of evolution? B) You must believe in creationism to pass the class? No. It clearly does not violate the constitution.
If you think that we shouldn't be able to teach creationism in class (that by the way, a sizable amount of the population believes in) then lets see what else we would have to get rid of:
Anything that deals with mythology of any kind
Anything dealing with any sort of religious beliefs of any kind such as the reformation of the Christian church, a good portion of the Renaissance, heck, why not omit the Salem witch trials too!
yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone) and she would obviously like to see creationism taught. Go ahead, give her the power:)
Wow, someone has beliefs. She stated that she wouldn't push creationism over evolution in schools. And honestly, teaching creationism, evolution or that we all ended up here from the decedents of an alien race, doesn't affect the country much.
If they are really good at what they do, they will have a loyal fanbase that will support them via merchandise or donations. Just look at Homestar Runner, TBC makes a profit solely by merchandise sales.
Not to mention that a lot of sites that have ads (I'm looking at you cable news stations) already have a steady revenue of money from somewhere.
Creative Commons licenses are good for art, text and music. But the major flaw with art is that everything ends up looking the same. Voices are distinctive enough to tell who sang a song, and even writing styles are distinctive enough to let someone tell who wrote the book. But for art everything ends up looking the same for all but the biggest fans of an artist.
The difference is, you usually don't have to pay that much for a computer. You pay a one time fee of ~$500 and that lasts you a good year or two. On the other hand, a hybrid costs $25000 and still uses up gas money and will have some expensive repairs before it breaks beyond repair.
The problem is with hybrids is that for most you end up paying more than you would your current car:
If you have your car payed off and spend $70 a week for gas, that is a total of
$3640 for an entire year.
On the other hand, if you buy a $25000 hybrid, you might only need to buy $30 of gas a week, but unless your car payments are less than $120 a month, you aren't saving any money by buying a hybrid.
Yes, over time a hybrid is going to save you money, but by the time you get it payed off, there will be a more effective hybrid that costs less.
Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.
2 main reasons. Right now, Chrome is essentially Windows only, and as we know, most people who use Windows don't care about EULAs. And secondly, Chrome isn't used much, right now people are wondering if it is the future or nothing more then a nice experiment, if Chrome stays around then expect Debian to fork it like they did with Mozilla. If it dies, expect a very small fork to continue development of it.
Almost any software program does that, why? Because the Windows registry is an absolute pain. Its like saying that apt-get remove still leaves some files behind. Unfortunately there isn't an apt-get purge function for Windows.
But what happens when you navigate to other pages? In Firefox, the browser starts out lean and mean but when you start browsing for an hour, you can expect really high RAM usage, but if Chrome can stay at ~400 MB on a 3 GB machine, thats good compared to Firefox which would happily eat 1 GB of RAM after a few hours of browsing
Slashdot Mirror
Because you expected them to pack it with an Intel Atom CPU, a 1 GB SSD, 128 MB of RAM and a nice color LCD? Seriously, what did you expect? Its hard enough to get E-ink as it is, yet alone without substantially increasing the price.
Well, saying that it is hard to hack is a good article nonetheless as most of us if we saw an e-ink display would buy it to try to hack it, if it wasn't able to be hacked most of us would have wasted the price of the magazine.
Out of curiosity.. what is your exact problem with the way the system currently works? You can copy downloaded games to SD cards already. You can't play them from the card, which is mildly inconvenient,
Except for the fact that for a 200 some block game it takes ~15-20 minutes to move it to the SD card or back to the Wii. Its beyond mildly inconvenient whenever I have normal internet speeds that are faster. And the same SD card will read and write incredibly fast on my computer so it isn't an issue with the SD card speed...
But the languages should be more resistant to crashes and downtime even with less then ideal coding.
But new computer systems should make things more reliable, along with more experienced coders and better languages.
The PS2 had an early head start with the DVD format. At the time of its launch, it was an affordable DVD player that played games. Secondly, it was backwards compatibly with all the PS1 games giving it a larger library of games. Third, it had a lot of exclusive system selling titles such as Final Fantasy. The Xbox had Halo which was a system seller. But the Gamecube had a lot of exclusive titles but just never managed for them to sell systems, Melee was a great game, and Tales of Symphonia is one of the best RPGs I have ever played, but Sunshine was mediocre, Luigi's Mansion was an average launch game, Double Dash was decent, but not a system seller. And the console had so many Mario Party games that were essentially the same to be even considered. The thing that I really liked about the gamecube was the short load times compared to the PS2 and Xbox. Seriously, it seemed to take at least a minute to go back to the world map after a battle in Final Fantasy...
The problem with that is, eventually record companies would charge for "premium" content and over 10-15 years all the new things become "premium" content while they rack up money by subscription fees. Not to mention that paying an extra fee for downloads is going to make the west head backwards in internet usage as 50-60 year olds aren't going to care about music but still have to pay for it.
Sure, but the RIAA seems to have no problem with performing DoS attacks on the sites. Yet they cry foul whenever anyone hacks the RIAA's site.
Legality has never stopped the record companies before.
So does this mean that I can actually frag an astronaut in a FPS? Or pwn them in WoW? Wouldn't that give you bragging rights...
There has to be at least one press member there that decides to go check his e-mail...
Yes, but why would they? They can charge $300 for a business to get important data back, why bother with $40 and a HD?
But Google won't have to pay patent fees in international jurisdiction and Google wants to fight censorship as much as the average /.er, it makes ads better.
Evolution is to biology is what molecules are to chemistry. You really can't teach biology in any meaningful way without evolution.
For non college classes you can. All Biology is today is memorizing where a heart is in a cat, pig, frog, etc. And memorizing muscles, bones, and classifying animals. I would agree with you for college classes, but for high school classes, its really not needed.
Either way, under Palin, science in the USA is likely to go into steep decline with many US scientists moving to other countries to find jobs.
You mean that you don't think it already has? And the problem isn't a lack of education, its patent and copyright laws that have managed to screw up researchers because they can't use *insert groundbreaking research here* to come up with *insert even better research here* because of a patent or copyright.
Personally, I think it's important for the USA to stay competitive scientifically - but it seems that a lot of Republicans don't agree.
Clean up the patent mess and the US will be successful scientifically, public education doesn't affect how successful the US is scientifically, money does.
Yes, but if these boats are movable Google can easily say: Let us do *insert thing here* or we will move to *insert country here* that will let us do that and you lose our tax dollars.
Is there more than just being eco-friendly to this? I can see this being used to avoid taxes, censorship laws, etc.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Lets see, teaching creationism along with evolution violates no part of the constitution. Does teaching both say: A) Creationism is superior to the theory of evolution? B) You must believe in creationism to pass the class? No. It clearly does not violate the constitution.
If you think that we shouldn't be able to teach creationism in class (that by the way, a sizable amount of the population believes in) then lets see what else we would have to get rid of:
Anything that deals with mythology of any kind
Anything dealing with any sort of religious beliefs of any kind such as the reformation of the Christian church, a good portion of the Renaissance, heck, why not omit the Salem witch trials too!
yet she does not believe in evolution ("believe in evolution"??? I cringe even typing such a phrase about someone) and she would obviously like to see creationism taught. Go ahead, give her the power :)
Wow, someone has beliefs. She stated that she wouldn't push creationism over evolution in schools. And honestly, teaching creationism, evolution or that we all ended up here from the decedents of an alien race, doesn't affect the country much.
If they are really good at what they do, they will have a loyal fanbase that will support them via merchandise or donations. Just look at Homestar Runner, TBC makes a profit solely by merchandise sales.
Not to mention that a lot of sites that have ads (I'm looking at you cable news stations) already have a steady revenue of money from somewhere.
Why is it that every internet business thinks that in order to profit they need to stick ads everywhere?
Creative Commons licenses are good for art, text and music. But the major flaw with art is that everything ends up looking the same. Voices are distinctive enough to tell who sang a song, and even writing styles are distinctive enough to let someone tell who wrote the book. But for art everything ends up looking the same for all but the biggest fans of an artist.
The difference is, you usually don't have to pay that much for a computer. You pay a one time fee of ~$500 and that lasts you a good year or two. On the other hand, a hybrid costs $25000 and still uses up gas money and will have some expensive repairs before it breaks beyond repair.
The problem is with hybrids is that for most you end up paying more than you would your current car:
If you have your car payed off and spend $70 a week for gas, that is a total of $3640 for an entire year.
On the other hand, if you buy a $25000 hybrid, you might only need to buy $30 of gas a week, but unless your car payments are less than $120 a month, you aren't saving any money by buying a hybrid.
Yes, over time a hybrid is going to save you money, but by the time you get it payed off, there will be a more effective hybrid that costs less.
Heck, I'm surprised there's no community project out there to provide an EULA-free Chrome fork.
2 main reasons. Right now, Chrome is essentially Windows only, and as we know, most people who use Windows don't care about EULAs. And secondly, Chrome isn't used much, right now people are wondering if it is the future or nothing more then a nice experiment, if Chrome stays around then expect Debian to fork it like they did with Mozilla. If it dies, expect a very small fork to continue development of it.
Almost any software program does that, why? Because the Windows registry is an absolute pain. Its like saying that apt-get remove still leaves some files behind. Unfortunately there isn't an apt-get purge function for Windows.
But what happens when you navigate to other pages? In Firefox, the browser starts out lean and mean but when you start browsing for an hour, you can expect really high RAM usage, but if Chrome can stay at ~400 MB on a 3 GB machine, thats good compared to Firefox which would happily eat 1 GB of RAM after a few hours of browsing