I have the exact same setup at my house, and in fact I recommend reorganizing your home theater to accomodate such a setup. I moved my TV to be back to back with my computer, and I watch recorded TV shows and movies from the computer on the TV, at VHS quality.
My only complaint is that I can't use the computer at the same time, and that nView doesn't seem to let you play the video full screen on one monitor and use the other monitor for other purposes. Do you just use "Clone" or do you have something else set up?
People who would buy a game like that would only buy it because they are racists. Someone who was not racist would be absolutely uninterested in such a game. To the contrary, people who play GTA are almost invariably not murderers.
Actually, it only needs to be couple of employees. After all, it's not like there's a fatal backdoor vulnerability in every single product they release.
That never worked on me after the first time I mailed the food overseas. My mom never wanted to risk the postal charges and embarrassment at the post office again. I wonder what ever happened to that half eaten casserole I sent to Rwanda...
That was four years ago. I talked to him four weeks ago, and his stand on the issue has changed since then. The most recent opinion is the most important, and I was talking about his current stance. Which is, by the way, the one I was talking about.
What do you mean the others didn't bother to lie? Paul Wellstone is the one politician in Washington who does not lie on a regular basis, at any possible opportunity. Wellstone was the best man to have around; the rest were just a bunch liars. The scum of the earth. Go ahead, anonymous sir, elect those who you can trust to lie. I will continue to support the candidate I can trust to tell the truth. Hopefully he is replaced by such an option.
Indeed, while big business and the internet might seem just like the legalization of drugs, they're not. Conservatives are for the legalization of drugs. Republicans are not. Conservatives are for the freedom of the individual. Republicans are for the freedom of the corporation. Conservatives want the government to spend less than liberals do. Republicans spend the same amount as Democrats but they tax less (deficits) and they spend too much on a centralized, federal military. Despite these obvious contradictions in the conservative/Republican mindset, they all contend that they are on the side of logic and reason.
I don't think I tried to slam conservatives in my post, but if you, as a conservative, were offended, then I can only assume that it is on account of your insecurity with your beliefs and yourself. Note the anonymity.
What I did do, however, was say that censorship is not a liberal idea. It is an idea that seems to come from the "Religious Right" (which I take to mean people who are both conservative and Christian, and take both too seriously), and has spread into the ranks of both Republicans and Democrats. The folly of censorship is not a partisan idea; it comes from taking a lot of money from wealthy people who want their way, and catering to their needs. Many Republicans and many Democrats in office do this, though some on each side do not. That is, I assume that there are more than one man who do not, because Paul Wellstone was one who did not take large sums of money and did not cater to the bribery.
It is interesting that you have to start your little rant by a personal attack on me; that seems to be the mark of a true conservative. Perhaps you should think about your views a little bit more and allow them to fight your fights for you, rather than having to result to such immaturity.
Re:All hail the all powerful republicans!
on
First Worm with a EULA?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Actually, Wellstone was in favor of freedom on the internet, and he did not support the RIAA/MPAA. I personally talked to him about this, and he was, obviously, not a huge supporter of big business, and the RIAA/MPAA are a pretty big proponent of big business.
Why is it that people assume that censorship and the shutting down of the internet at the request of the industry is a liberal idea? Wellstone was the most liberal man in Washington, and he was against the above. Censorship does not fly along partisan lines, but if it did, it would not be a liberal idea.
The death of a senator probably won't affect the outcome of a national election two years down the road. The only way Bush gets elected in 2004 is if he is successful in keeping the voting public blind to the fact that the economy is more important than foreign policy, and that his failing policies both at home and overseas are, well, failing. Thus far he has been successful in keeping his blatant domestic failures a secret by focusing on foreign policy, and it is very ominous for the future of the republic if he is able to do it for an entire term and into another.
Either way, the death of Wellstone is not a political issue, and it should be looked at as the tragedy that it is. If anyone criticizes Wellstone as a man, they don't know who he was and are not qualified to talk about him. You can disagree with his views, but if you dislike him as a man, you are simply wrong.
Just so you know, "upsampling" and "high fidelity" are not used in the same sentence in the article. But your reaction is the same as mine when I read the quoted paragraph; upsampling doesn't help the sound quality much.
Thus, this unidentified object is between 8.6*10^5 and 1.23*10^6 times as dense as the solar system. This is very dense, and puts it into the category of a super-massive black hole. These guys are scientists.
That question is risky from the anti-Microsoft standpoint, because it sets up the MS guy to give a really slick answer. He could say something like "while it would not be strictly beneficial for Microsoft, we care more about internet security and the end of piracy than about our own bottom line. After all, we are the ultimate Good Guys."
That sounds like it's pretty good for Apple, Sony, and IBM. And if the 970 is a Cell-compatible chip it benefits Toshiba and any other company that jumps on the Cell bandwagon between now and then. Not to mention the fact that it is good for the consumer that is buying into the Cell system, because they need as many Cell compatible chips as they can get. Please explain to me why this is bad, or, as you say, insidious.
Note: I am not being a troll, I honestly don't see why it's bad. Maybe I'm too high.
They are talking about minimizing the batteries, so they would be much less of a hassle and annoyance to have to carry them around. And how much hydrogen do you carry around? Would it be easier to carry the hydrogen outside of the fuel than inside? After all, one of the concerns with creating a fuel cell is how to contain the hydrogen.
Maybe they can't be recharged in 10 seconds, but they can be replaced in less. And it isn't difficult to carry several spare sets of batteries around if they are made smaller. It is, however, difficult to carry extra fuel cells around, as they are expected to be rather large.
India has always been known for their contributions to the software world...
Really? I thought India had been known for its rich spiritual heritage that had lasted for thousands of years before any contributions to the software world were made. I can just imagine Columbus trying to convince Ferdinand and Isabella... "And not only that, but they have so many good programmers over there that the Open Source community will be greatly benefited! And they use Linux!" I bet that was what convinced the monarch.
In order to charge people for what they download, especially from a P2P network, it has to be assured that what they actually get is what they paid for, if you know what I mean. You know, it is quite irritating when you try clicking on a Pearl Jam song but when you get it it turns out to be a cover by some crappy local band, or worse, a different song altogether. I'm sure this has happened to all of you. We pay for electricity, but it doesn't occasionally spike for no reason and destroy your appliances, so it's worth paying for (actually, I recently had all my stuff destroyed by a spike in the power, but it happened because of a lightning strike, not just because some guy thinks the Backstreet Boys sound like Pearl Jam). We pay for water, but it is always water that comes from the tap, we never get sewage or anything else undesirable, so it's worth paying for.
Internet access is becoming a utility, but it won't be worth paying a metered fee until the service is actually reliable and trustworthy. And as long as anyone still has freedom, I don't see how that can be assured. So give me my free internet access.
It is often very difficult to spread word like this to non-technical people. They will be much more inclined to take the word of Microsoft over yours or mine. Even if they're looking at an ad and ignoring an article, they will try everything they can to disbelieve you. That is what Microsoft is counting on.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the exact same setup at my house, and in fact I recommend reorganizing your home theater to accomodate such a setup. I moved my TV to be back to back with my computer, and I watch recorded TV shows and movies from the computer on the TV, at VHS quality.
My only complaint is that I can't use the computer at the same time, and that nView doesn't seem to let you play the video full screen on one monitor and use the other monitor for other purposes. Do you just use "Clone" or do you have something else set up?
People who would buy a game like that would only buy it because they are racists. Someone who was not racist would be absolutely uninterested in such a game. To the contrary, people who play GTA are almost invariably not murderers.
Actually, it only needs to be couple of employees. After all, it's not like there's a fatal backdoor vulnerability in every single product they release.
Oh wait, never mind.
BoP is MS's middle name? Would that make them MBoPS? Wasn't that an old Hanson song a few years ago...?
That never worked on me after the first time I mailed the food overseas. My mom never wanted to risk the postal charges and embarrassment at the post office again. I wonder what ever happened to that half eaten casserole I sent to Rwanda...
That was four years ago. I talked to him four weeks ago, and his stand on the issue has changed since then. The most recent opinion is the most important, and I was talking about his current stance. Which is, by the way, the one I was talking about.
What do you mean the others didn't bother to lie? Paul Wellstone is the one politician in Washington who does not lie on a regular basis, at any possible opportunity. Wellstone was the best man to have around; the rest were just a bunch liars. The scum of the earth. Go ahead, anonymous sir, elect those who you can trust to lie. I will continue to support the candidate I can trust to tell the truth. Hopefully he is replaced by such an option.
Where exactly are you coming from? That vote was unanimous. Look it up.
Indeed, while big business and the internet might seem just like the legalization of drugs, they're not. Conservatives are for the legalization of drugs. Republicans are not. Conservatives are for the freedom of the individual. Republicans are for the freedom of the corporation. Conservatives want the government to spend less than liberals do. Republicans spend the same amount as Democrats but they tax less (deficits) and they spend too much on a centralized, federal military. Despite these obvious contradictions in the conservative/Republican mindset, they all contend that they are on the side of logic and reason.
I don't think I tried to slam conservatives in my post, but if you, as a conservative, were offended, then I can only assume that it is on account of your insecurity with your beliefs and yourself. Note the anonymity.
What I did do, however, was say that censorship is not a liberal idea. It is an idea that seems to come from the "Religious Right" (which I take to mean people who are both conservative and Christian, and take both too seriously), and has spread into the ranks of both Republicans and Democrats. The folly of censorship is not a partisan idea; it comes from taking a lot of money from wealthy people who want their way, and catering to their needs. Many Republicans and many Democrats in office do this, though some on each side do not. That is, I assume that there are more than one man who do not, because Paul Wellstone was one who did not take large sums of money and did not cater to the bribery.
It is interesting that you have to start your little rant by a personal attack on me; that seems to be the mark of a true conservative. Perhaps you should think about your views a little bit more and allow them to fight your fights for you, rather than having to result to such immaturity.
Actually, Wellstone was in favor of freedom on the internet, and he did not support the RIAA/MPAA. I personally talked to him about this, and he was, obviously, not a huge supporter of big business, and the RIAA/MPAA are a pretty big proponent of big business.
Why is it that people assume that censorship and the shutting down of the internet at the request of the industry is a liberal idea? Wellstone was the most liberal man in Washington, and he was against the above. Censorship does not fly along partisan lines, but if it did, it would not be a liberal idea.
The death of a senator probably won't affect the outcome of a national election two years down the road. The only way Bush gets elected in 2004 is if he is successful in keeping the voting public blind to the fact that the economy is more important than foreign policy, and that his failing policies both at home and overseas are, well, failing. Thus far he has been successful in keeping his blatant domestic failures a secret by focusing on foreign policy, and it is very ominous for the future of the republic if he is able to do it for an entire term and into another.
Either way, the death of Wellstone is not a political issue, and it should be looked at as the tragedy that it is. If anyone criticizes Wellstone as a man, they don't know who he was and are not qualified to talk about him. You can disagree with his views, but if you dislike him as a man, you are simply wrong.
Just so you know, "upsampling" and "high fidelity" are not used in the same sentence in the article. But your reaction is the same as mine when I read the quoted paragraph; upsampling doesn't help the sound quality much.
Given that his paragraph contains no unsupported statements, he is one unsupported statement per paragraph further from the record than you are.
Think about it.
Cocaine? I thought he was on Neuroine. A little bit of clarity, that is.
Oh, wait...
A subterranean bunker is designed to withstand nuclear wars, but what do you think would happen if the nuke was inside the bunker?
Ummm... a lot more people would be safe? That is, the people who didn't fit in the bunker...
Proverbial drain? No, Florida prefers to be known as America's wang.
:) )
(The Simpson's can be included in any discussion...
Average orbital radius of Pluto's orbit is 3660 million miles.
1.2010984306567283*10^7
3 5*10^6
rs=3660000000;
Volume of solar system (based on assumption that the solar system is considered a sphere) in cubic:
vs=(4/3) Pi rs^3
2.0536757052608588*10^29
Mass in the solar system is approximately 2*10^30:
ms=2*10^30
2.*10^30
Density of the solar system is given by the mass divided by the volume:
ds=ms/vs
9.73864
Mass of the unknown object is between 2.6 million and 3.7 million times the mass of the sun (which is 99% of the mass of the solar system):
mo1=2.6 10^6 * ms
5.1999999999999997*10^36
mo2=3.7 10^6 * ms
7.4*10^36
The volume of the object is about three times that of the solar system:
vo=3 vs
6.161027115782576*10^29
The density of the object is given by the mass divided by the volume:
do1=mo1/vo
8.440151134344576*10^6
do2=mo2/vo
The ratio of the density of the object to the density of the solar system:
r1=do1/ds
866667.
r2=do2/ds
1.23333333333333
Thus, this unidentified object is between 8.6*10^5 and 1.23*10^6 times as dense as the solar system. This is very dense, and puts it into the category of a super-massive black hole. These guys are scientists.
That question is risky from the anti-Microsoft standpoint, because it sets up the MS guy to give a really slick answer. He could say something like "while it would not be strictly beneficial for Microsoft, we care more about internet security and the end of piracy than about our own bottom line. After all, we are the ultimate Good Guys."
I'd avoid setting them up like that.
That sounds like it's pretty good for Apple, Sony, and IBM. And if the 970 is a Cell-compatible chip it benefits Toshiba and any other company that jumps on the Cell bandwagon between now and then. Not to mention the fact that it is good for the consumer that is buying into the Cell system, because they need as many Cell compatible chips as they can get. Please explain to me why this is bad, or, as you say, insidious.
Note: I am not being a troll, I honestly don't see why it's bad. Maybe I'm too high.
They are talking about minimizing the batteries, so they would be much less of a hassle and annoyance to have to carry them around. And how much hydrogen do you carry around? Would it be easier to carry the hydrogen outside of the fuel than inside? After all, one of the concerns with creating a fuel cell is how to contain the hydrogen.
Maybe they can't be recharged in 10 seconds, but they can be replaced in less. And it isn't difficult to carry several spare sets of batteries around if they are made smaller. It is, however, difficult to carry extra fuel cells around, as they are expected to be rather large.
Step 3.1: Get called on blunder by everyone on Slashdot.
Step 3.2: Hang head in shame and disappointment.
Step 3.3: Get arrested for grand theft (see above post about grand theft).
Step 3.4: Spend 5-10 in a maximum security federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Crap.
India has always been known for their contributions to the software world...
Really? I thought India had been known for its rich spiritual heritage that had lasted for thousands of years before any contributions to the software world were made. I can just imagine Columbus trying to convince Ferdinand and Isabella... "And not only that, but they have so many good programmers over there that the Open Source community will be greatly benefited! And they use Linux!" I bet that was what convinced the monarch.
Ummm... stole them from the natives who they killed? I'm just fishin' for options here.
Actually, it reeks of marketing monkey dung; it wreaks havoc on the olfactory glands that have to smell such dung.
In order to charge people for what they download, especially from a P2P network, it has to be assured that what they actually get is what they paid for, if you know what I mean. You know, it is quite irritating when you try clicking on a Pearl Jam song but when you get it it turns out to be a cover by some crappy local band, or worse, a different song altogether. I'm sure this has happened to all of you. We pay for electricity, but it doesn't occasionally spike for no reason and destroy your appliances, so it's worth paying for (actually, I recently had all my stuff destroyed by a spike in the power, but it happened because of a lightning strike, not just because some guy thinks the Backstreet Boys sound like Pearl Jam). We pay for water, but it is always water that comes from the tap, we never get sewage or anything else undesirable, so it's worth paying for.
Internet access is becoming a utility, but it won't be worth paying a metered fee until the service is actually reliable and trustworthy. And as long as anyone still has freedom, I don't see how that can be assured. So give me my free internet access.
It is often very difficult to spread word like this to non-technical people. They will be much more inclined to take the word of Microsoft over yours or mine. Even if they're looking at an ad and ignoring an article, they will try everything they can to disbelieve you. That is what Microsoft is counting on.