I still think people should research their situation out fully as if they didn't have a lawyer, even if they get one, because it's a hell of a lot cheaper for you to do the research than to ask your lawyer to do it.
The only problem there is that no lawyer is just going to just accept any research you've done. Either they'll want to re-research themselves and charge you, or will need to check your research and charge you, so either way you're going to get charged. IMHO, I'd rather pay a lawyer to do the research (because they know where to go and what to look up), with the specification that they need to share everything with me so I'm kept in the loop. Any good lawyer will do that.
In my experiences with traffic court (lets not get into that), lawyers are especially helpful in the smaller courts. A lawyer on your side is helpful for two reasons I can think of right off. One, you don't do the speaking so you don't accidentally stick your foot in your mouth, and therefore lose the case. Two, when you have a lawyer on your side, no one screws with you. They don't play legal 'tricks' you don't know about, and you're sure to get a much more favorable ruling. If you can afford one (and better yet, if you have a lawyer friend even if it's not their specialty) get the lawyer before entering a courtroom.
Let me first say that I'm just going to stick with traffic courts for this comment, just to make things clear. Now, you explicitly call out "if you can afford [a lawyer]". What most people don't realize is that they can afford a lawyer, especially for traffic tickets. Ignoring the cost of the fine itself (anywhere between $70 and $500, depending on what you were doing), you are almost guaranteed an insurance hike in the case of a ticket. If a traffic lawyer costs $350 (at least, that's what my lawyer generally costs, with it being a bit higher for tickets out of her county), you've just saved close to $600 in insurance fees. It's very easy for a traffic lawyer to get your ticket dismissed or otherwise win the case. All they really have to do is drag out the process by asking for a discovery, which is usually not done in a traffic case but is allowed and must be honored by the court because a traffic ticket is considered a criminal offense and discovery is a right of the defendant in a criminal case. By doing that, the case will drag past the point where it's profitable for the court to continue trying it, and will likely just drop the charges (your lawyer will need to present some sort of plausible case for the charges to be dropped, so the judge can save face, but any good lawyer can do that in his or her sleep). Since traffic tickets are nothing but income for the issuing government, the simple act of fighting the ticket cuts into their profits. The governments prey on those that just blindly pay their tickets and go on their way. Don't you already pay enough in taxes?
The point, then, is that you can afford a lawyer, and should hire one. Sure, it's more expensive than representing yourself, but it's cheaper than paying the insurance increase, and there's a nearly-100% chance the lawyer will win your case (unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).
The Civilian Space eXploration Team (CSXT) had designed the unmanned Primera rocket to reach a height of more than 60 miles.... The Primera was expected to reach its lofty goal within 90 seconds, which would have broken CSXT's previous world record for amateur rocket speed of 3,205 mph.
Simple math says 60 miles in 90 seconds is 2400 mph, and 2400 mph is less than 3205 mph.
Several things:
Notice they say the goal is more than 60 miles. 60 miles would be the lower limit, but it sounds like they're aiming for higher.
The speed of 3,205 mph is their previous record.
There's no mention of the flight time or distance that set the previous record, only that it was measured at a maximum of 3,205 mph.
90 seconds is an upper bound on the flight time. With a goal of 60 miles at 3,205mph, that means a flight time of roughly 67.4 seconds.
Most importantly, the rocket will not start at 3,205 mph. It has to accelerate up to that, probably only reaching it near the very end of its flight. Without knowing the acceleration rate of the rocket (which itself may not even be constant), there's nothing more you can do here.
In short, there's not enough information here to do the proper math. Your "simple" math is just that -- "simple", and not applicable.
Hey now! Don't casually lump in the car that reintroduced the roadster as a viable car again in the 90's.
Dammit, you caught me!
Seriously, the Miata is generally considered a classic, C&D consistently puts it in their top 10, and I believe one of the car rags just put it into the top 10 cars of all time list, a weighted list that included value in its measures, putting the car right next to such lofty craft as the Ferrari Modena. And despite not having the supercar-horsepower of the other vehicles you mentioned, it is an incredibly performing roadster. For some reason, too, much of the public perceives it to be a cheap car, but mind that it tops out at ~$27k now. IMHO, it's the car that Austin Healey wishes they could've engineered (used to drive a 3000).
I agree that the Miata is an awesome little car. How many other cars can claim (almost) perfect 50/50 front/back weight distribution? The Boxster can't even claim that, and it's got mid-engine placement going for it. As well, roadsters aren't all about big horsepower and quick quarter mile times. They're about having fun, and if you have fun in a Miata, then great. I don't like some of the styling, though, which means I really never considered it when I was looking to buy a roadster.
Of course, if you can afford German, by all means....I'd highly recommend it;-).
Can. Did. Enjoy it very, very much. I just need to make the time to get out to the track more often.
So you can fit out your Porsche 911 RC with a spoiler, super charger, nitros, chrome alloy mag wheels, cool purple fog downlights, tinted windows, a "SPEEED DEEEMON" windscreen decal, and tiny little "extra large" beverage holders and it will still be defeated by a carpet with only a moderate shag-pile rating.
Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.
Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.
1. Interface: My mouse 0wnz console controllers for analog input-- no argument.
Depends on the game, of course. However, while I recognize that mouse&keyboard rocks for FPS games, Halo did things right.
2. Modifications: The inherent difficuty of modifying or hacking content in consoles is a big bar to user-made content. You may get Counter-Strike ported to xbox... but it won't be independently developed there by a bunch of students with lots of time and a cool idea.
That's okay, Counter-Strike sucked anyway. Change that to TF1 (for Quake 1, not TFC for Half-Life), and I'll agree. However, as you mentioned, the line between PCs and consoles is blurring. The XBox's hard drive may eventually allow for this kind of modification. Maybe nobody's doing it yet, but we're just starting to get into real second generation games for the XBox. Give it a year.
3. Pure mind-bending speed. High-end PCs will *always* trump consoles for pure performance, simply because they cost more and don't operate on a 2-3 year product cycle.
Except that PC games will *always* pick a target platform that's 2-3 years old, simply because they need to maximize their audience. For example, Unreal Tournament 2003 just went gold (should be in stores soon), yet it's still targetting a 733MHz processor (minimum, with 1GHz recommended) and a TNT2-level video card (again, minimum, with a GF2 recommended). So what if you can buy 2.0+GHz CPUs and GeForce4 video cards if the games are still targetting two year old technology? With consoles, the hardware doesn't change, so developers gain experience and learn how to tweak it fully. Compare first generation PSX titles with the last generation of titles, for example.
4. Display: Until HDTV becomes completely standard, even low-end monitors blow TV quality out of the water. High-end displays will always be ahead of the broadcast standards.
HD is standard (or "standard enough", anyway). Sure, you have competing input methods, like RGBHV vs. YPrPb component vs. DVI vs. IEEE 1394, but most TVs at least support YPrPb (mine supports RGBHV and YPrPb on the same HD inputs, determined by a config menu setting). And since that's really just the connector, you can always make new connectors. If suddenly DVI becomes the standard for all HD signals (for example), then expect to see a new HD A/V pack released for the XBox the exact same day, this time with DVI outputs. The standard resolutions are already fixed (4:3 480p and 16:9 480p aren't HD, but 16:9 540p (based on 1080i), 16:9 720p, and 16:9 1080i are defined). I'm sure the PS2 and Gamecube will do exactly the same, even though neither of them have high definition support (progressive scan is not high definition, and only the Gamecube can do that between these two, and then only in certain games, and then only if you know the special button combination. The XBox does at least 4:3 480p for every game, and will do better if the game and your TV support better).
5. Online play: Consoles won't be caught up to PCs in the next few years... if then.
Of course, that depends on what online play you prefer (MMORPG? RTS over Battle.net? Hack 'n Slash like Diablo 2? FPS?). I think the main sticking point here will not be the quality of the gameplay (assuming that's what you mean with "[catching] up"), but that broadband is pretty much required (sure, Nintendo says they'll release a modem, and I think Sony has released a modem, but expect to see all three really pushing broadband as the way to play). Then again, maybe online console gaming will help push the broadband market into expanding. If that happens, we all win.
PC gaming is far from dead and and still offers choices far more varied than games available for consoles
Agreed, though not necessarily for the reasons you list.
It did have incopmatibilities. Each successive model needed an updated mod chip, the old ones would not work. The updated chips were always backwards compatible however. The number of wires needing soldered also changed, as well as their location on the board (obviously!;-)
I hope you were watching as the point flew right over your head. Of course there were incompatibilities with modchips. That's the point. There weren't any incompatibilities between the oldest and newest Playstation revisions with respect to legitimate games (except, as the parent said, for chipped playstations that tried to play chip-aware games).
unfortunately though, simpsons has been done to death. The new episodes, in my opinion, dont even compare to the old ones. Hopefully, futurama still has a fighting chance.
And yet, the Simpsons games way back on the original NES sucked as well, even though the Simpsons was still in its prime then. Therefore, just because Futurama isn't quite as run into the ground yet doesn't mean a game based upon it will be any good.
First off snail mail volumes keep going up every year. All claims to the death of paper mail to the contrary.
I was speaking for me personally, not the populace in general. My own personal usage of snail mail has dropped very drastically, to the point where I'll probably make at most three mailings in the next year (barring any unforseen circumstances, of course, that would necessitate using the postal service).
1) The post office isn't the government
Huh. I would disagree on that. Sure, it's not the government proper, and with an ideal government the USPS would be a privatized business. But it's not. It's a government held and controlled business ("nationalized" I belive is the term...). It's a federal crime for anybody but US postal workers to put anything in your mailbox. That means UPS, Fed Ex, Airborne Express, or any of the other delivery companies (note, they're not "mail carriers") cannot drop their packages in your mailbox, even if they would fit.
2) The post office hates dealing with individually sent mail they'd love it if nobody sent any letters except large mailing house. Its the 80/20 rule the large mailing houses generate most the volume and everyone else generates most of the problems
They're doing a pretty good job of it, as far as I'm concerned. $0.34 was already too much for a single piece of mail, but $0.37? I'm sorry, but no. If they're happier not having my service, then great, because I don't want to give them my service.
...handwriting recognition eliminated postal workers.
I'm not so sure about handwriting recognition, but online bill payment has significantly reduced the amount of snail mail I send. In fact, in the past three months, I've sent exactly two pieces of mail (and those I probably could've gotten around by using a fax machine and a credit card...). Sure, I still get my statements in the mail, and I get more than my share of junk mail, but my outgoing mail has shrunk to a mere trickle, and will hopefully be reduced to maybe one or two physical mailings a year. Oh, yeah, and since my bank offers free online bill payment, I'm saving money and screwing the government at the same time by not having to buy stamps more than once a year (if even that!). Grumble grumble stupid $0.37 stamps grumble grumble.
Now that they've fixed the lack of transactions (twice. What was wrong with the first time?) they can implement subselects and relational integrity. When they have all three implemented, I'll think about replacing PostgreSQL.
Are you sure you'll be willing to give up your SQL-based stored procedures and triggers, though? I wouldn't (then again, to implement relational integrity, MySQL will probably think they have to implement triggers, which in turn requires stored procedures, and the proper way to do that is using SQL, so maybe they will have all of that. Or, maybe not).
Microsoft APIs are buggy, poorly documented, and inneficient. It's long been known that they change them to break specific products. Check this [ezboard.com] post for instance:
Yeah, let's trust a semi-anonymous post on an unknown message board rather than the metric pantload of documentation Microsoft provides FOR FREE to developers. Then again, the portion you quoted is pretty dumb, anyway. Another poster has commented on the WINSOCK.DLL thing, so I'll comment on the other -- Windows Media Player, like any other media player, asks you what files extensions it should handle. If you don't tell it otherwise, it's obviously going to pick all of the file extensions it supports. Thus, Real Player obviously won't run on those files (well, until Real Player takes over those extensions again, like it likes to do). It's no longer tied to those file types. Don't like it? Change it. Or don't let WMP do that in the first place.
Okay, I might buy that... but then why does Obi-wan send Luke to Yoda for training in the first place? If Yoda doesn't really repent until he's on his deathbed, why send him directly into the hands of the enemy?
For the same reason Vader wants to give Luke to the Emperor -- Yoda and the Emperor are two sides of the same coin, the ultimate power of the light side and the dark. I suggest that training Luke under Yoda or training Luke under the Emperor wouldn't have made much difference overall if the Obi-Wan/Vader plot was to "balance" the force by removing the ultimate powers on both sides. In either case, Obi-Wan (in his spirit form) or Vader would be there to guide Luke in their plot while Luke was developing his abilities under far more competent teachers. Obi-Wan just happened to get to Luke first, is all.
Or, alternatively, Obi-Wan wanted Luke to experience first-hand the issues he had with Yoda (whatever those may be). For the Emperor, that's pretty obvious by the point in time when Luke shows up -- the Emperor is blatantly evil. Yoda is more subtlely so ("evil", "misguided", "full of himself", whatever). To truly impress Luke with the importance of their plan, Obi-Wan must introduce Luke to Yoda's methods. Luke really didn't need to be trained by the Emperor to see the Emperor was terrible.
However I don't agree that it resolves everything... in particular, it doesn't explain why Yoda tells Luke about Leia.
<geek>Yoda never does exactly tell Luke about Leia. He only mentions, with his last breath (deathbed confessional type of thing) that there is another Skywalker. It's then Obi-wan that explains enough to Luke to allow him to figure out who the other Skywalker is. This would still fit -- Yoda, on his deathbed, tries to make amends in what little way he can, but in true Yoda fashion is secretive and cryptic. Obi-wan, being in league with Vader, explains further to Luke. Obi-wan doesn't talk shit about Yoda, because Yoda obviously tried to make amends (train Luke, etc), so when he died and part of the Vader/Obi-wan plot was finished, there's no reason to disparage Yoda to Luke.</geek>
Damn, that was geeky. Anyway, Brin's plot twist would be awesome to see, but highly unlikely.
Why don't you do some real human interface work and develop a new look?
Because real human interface work ("research" is a better term) is expensive and time consuming. Independent programmers and teams of programmers tend not to be able to afford that kind of thing, and Linux software companies don't have the cash to spare. Sun made some effort with GNOME, but I'm not sure what ever came from that.
Seriously, I understand now that cheap bikes are cheap, but I can't justify buying a bike for more than $500. I want to 10-15 miles each night after I get home from work, and I don't want to repair flat tires or gear systems every night to do it. Any tips on buying bikes?
If you're lucky enough to live in an area where you can buy these, or can find someone to import them for you (and have a hell of a lot of money to spend on a bike...), you could always buy a Porsche bicycle. Of course, if you don't want to go to all the trouble for the Porsche name, I'm told that those are just rebranded Klein bicycles. Yes, the bikes are expensive, but the only person I know who has a Klein just loves hers.
but they don't include some brands because they cannot get a license (Ferrari and Porsche)
They couldn't get a license, or they were unwilling to pay for a license? Or Porsche or Ferrari didn't care enough for the game to grant a license? Project: Gotham on the XBox was able to get both the Ferrari and Porsche licenses, AND were allowed to do damage modelling, but I don't know if they paid for the licenses or were paid for them (from heresay, I've been told that Ferrari has a pretty close relationship with the Project: Gotham guys, even going so far as to push back the formal introduction of the new Enzo model to coincide with the announcement of Project: Gotham 2). Either way, these guys did it right -- real cars, real licenses, real damage (well, within reason, of course -- you can't total the car, and the damage is purely cosmetic, but at least there is still damage). Just because the Carrera GT bungs itself up really easily in Project: Gotham doesn't mean I'm going to stop lusting after one (well, there's also the matter of those cars being $350,000 to $400,000 USD, with production to begin in 2003, with the run limited to at most a few thousand of the cars...).
Perhaps the licenses didn't really fit with what Polyphony was aiming for in their Gran Turismo series, which seems to have a major focus on import street racing. Ferraris are little more than street-legal F1 cars, and Porsches just don't seem to fit in the same class as Honda/Acura, Toyota, Nissan, etc (to me, anyway).
And what would you rather have had happen? Wouldn't you have been "bitching and moaning" about the slashdot bias if this article hadn't been posted?
I think what he's getting at is that the editors need to be consistent. Either no unwarranted bitching about Microsoft in the article (screw the comments, there's nothing anyone can do about those), or bitch equally about other topics. For instance, if this were an IE problem, the Slashdot article would've mentioned that the problem has been known for months and nothing's been done about it yet, but since this is about Mozilla, and Slashdot likes Mozilla, there's no mention at all about this.
Bitch or don't bitch, but do it equally. Since this site is read by quite a few people, and many use it as a major source of news, the best thing would be to present a professional front and don't bitch at all (save it for the comments). <rant>Editors, like it or not, your little site isn't so little anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're a respectable, legitimate news clearinghouse (whether that's what you want or not), or you're not. If you are, let's see less bias, better spell checking, no duplicated stories (except in Slashback), fact-checked articles, due diligence about small sites with respect to the Slashdot effect, and so on. If you're not, fine. But don't represent yourself as if you are.</rant>
And just to head off the trolls -- Yes, I know I can simply not read Slashdot. That's a valid solution, but I doubt you'd really like what the site becomes if everyone who has a grievance with the management just up and left.
From what I see of it, apparently he drilled his board in order to mount it. BAD IDEA!!! I'm willing to bet that there are solder traces that are under the board that you can't see. Cut one, and you can kiss the board goodbye - and if you're unlucky, you might've even killed other components in your system.
Next time, read closer. He drilled the case, not the board. Reason being, the board didn't line up with the ATX mobo mounts in the case, so he marked out a couple of the mounting holes on the mobo and drilled those holes into the case. That way, he could mount the board without having to resort to rely on ties and PCI cards to keep the mobo stable.
What the heck do you want a laptop to do for you? Play Q3 with the best fps or just be able to write some documents with some formulas and graphs?
More importantly, w.r.t a laptop, what kind of screen do you want? Are you fine with a 1024x768 TFT, or do you need a 1600x1200 UXGA screen? Personally, I like as large of a desktop as possible, so I'd go for the larger screen. However, that means $2000+ for a laptop, rather than $1000 or even less. How it perfoms in Q3 doesn't matter (though the laptops with the nicer screens tend to have nicer video chipsets).
The author makes some interesting (though debatable, and sometimes flat-out wrong) points, yet while he declares that "I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'," implying that this is targeted towards commercial software companies, the article is written as a rant (as the Slashdot article notes), which is definitely the wrong way to get the attention of commercial software houses. The author needs to make up his mind. What is the goal here? Is it to rant and rave about the lack of quality commercial software for Linux? If so, then don't try to represent the rant as a plea to ISVs to properly port their software. Is it a plea to these ISVs for proper and consistent support of Linux? In that case, the author needs to lose all the inflammatory points (the not-so-subtle insinuations that you're a moron if you use Windows, the incorrect information on the stability and performance of current versions of Windows, and so on). At least he didn't stoop to the level of slashbots and use such derogatory terms as "Windoze", "Winblows", "Microsuck", and the like. Had he used one of those, his credibility would've been completely shot, rather than just undermined and on shakey ground.
What this author really needs to do, if he cares about influencing ISVs to seriously consider the Linux market segment is do (or commission from a trusted third-party) a study on the purchasing habits of primary Linux users. It's all well and good to assert that people you know are willing to pay for software, but it's anything but concrete. I can make the assertion that Linux users I know are not willing to pay for software and it would be just as valid.
Author, make up your mind! Are you preaching to the choir, or are you trying to get your points heard? The two are different, and what flies with one generally won't fly with the other.
Slashdot Mirror
The only problem there is that no lawyer is just going to just accept any research you've done. Either they'll want to re-research themselves and charge you, or will need to check your research and charge you, so either way you're going to get charged. IMHO, I'd rather pay a lawyer to do the research (because they know where to go and what to look up), with the specification that they need to share everything with me so I'm kept in the loop. Any good lawyer will do that.
(Emphasis added by me.)
Let me first say that I'm just going to stick with traffic courts for this comment, just to make things clear. Now, you explicitly call out "if you can afford [a lawyer]". What most people don't realize is that they can afford a lawyer, especially for traffic tickets. Ignoring the cost of the fine itself (anywhere between $70 and $500, depending on what you were doing), you are almost guaranteed an insurance hike in the case of a ticket. If a traffic lawyer costs $350 (at least, that's what my lawyer generally costs, with it being a bit higher for tickets out of her county), you've just saved close to $600 in insurance fees. It's very easy for a traffic lawyer to get your ticket dismissed or otherwise win the case. All they really have to do is drag out the process by asking for a discovery, which is usually not done in a traffic case but is allowed and must be honored by the court because a traffic ticket is considered a criminal offense and discovery is a right of the defendant in a criminal case. By doing that, the case will drag past the point where it's profitable for the court to continue trying it, and will likely just drop the charges (your lawyer will need to present some sort of plausible case for the charges to be dropped, so the judge can save face, but any good lawyer can do that in his or her sleep). Since traffic tickets are nothing but income for the issuing government, the simple act of fighting the ticket cuts into their profits. The governments prey on those that just blindly pay their tickets and go on their way. Don't you already pay enough in taxes?
The point, then, is that you can afford a lawyer, and should hire one. Sure, it's more expensive than representing yourself, but it's cheaper than paying the insurance increase, and there's a nearly-100% chance the lawyer will win your case (unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).
You say "Capitalist" like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with you?
Several things:
In short, there's not enough information here to do the proper math. Your "simple" math is just that -- "simple", and not applicable.
Dammit, you caught me!
I agree that the Miata is an awesome little car. How many other cars can claim (almost) perfect 50/50 front/back weight distribution? The Boxster can't even claim that, and it's got mid-engine placement going for it. As well, roadsters aren't all about big horsepower and quick quarter mile times. They're about having fun, and if you have fun in a Miata, then great. I don't like some of the styling, though, which means I really never considered it when I was looking to buy a roadster.
Can. Did. Enjoy it very, very much. I just need to make the time to get out to the track more often.
Because anyone who would do that to the actual thing deserves to be drawn and quartered.
Oh, yeah, and these cars aren't roadsters. In fact, there's not even a single roadster in the bunch. Not your quote, of course, but that of the article. Just pointing it out. To claim they have roadsters, they would need cars like the Boxster, Z3 series or M roadster (hrm, it's in the name!), Audi TT, Honda S2000, or even a Miata. But a 911 is not a roadster (the Turbo is only available as a coupe, but the 996 cab is considered a 911, so technically the 911 is available as coupe or cabriolet), nor is a Mustang Cobra (coupe), Honda Civic (coupe), nor a PT Cruiser (not sure what the heck that is -- sport compact utility vehicle? then again, it's just a Neon frame with a fancy body shell, so maybe it's a compact sedan?). Silly journalists don't know their car terms.
Depends on the game, of course. However, while I recognize that mouse&keyboard rocks for FPS games, Halo did things right.
That's okay, Counter-Strike sucked anyway. Change that to TF1 (for Quake 1, not TFC for Half-Life), and I'll agree. However, as you mentioned, the line between PCs and consoles is blurring. The XBox's hard drive may eventually allow for this kind of modification. Maybe nobody's doing it yet, but we're just starting to get into real second generation games for the XBox. Give it a year.
Except that PC games will *always* pick a target platform that's 2-3 years old, simply because they need to maximize their audience. For example, Unreal Tournament 2003 just went gold (should be in stores soon), yet it's still targetting a 733MHz processor (minimum, with 1GHz recommended) and a TNT2-level video card (again, minimum, with a GF2 recommended). So what if you can buy 2.0+GHz CPUs and GeForce4 video cards if the games are still targetting two year old technology? With consoles, the hardware doesn't change, so developers gain experience and learn how to tweak it fully. Compare first generation PSX titles with the last generation of titles, for example.
HD is standard (or "standard enough", anyway). Sure, you have competing input methods, like RGBHV vs. YPrPb component vs. DVI vs. IEEE 1394, but most TVs at least support YPrPb (mine supports RGBHV and YPrPb on the same HD inputs, determined by a config menu setting). And since that's really just the connector, you can always make new connectors. If suddenly DVI becomes the standard for all HD signals (for example), then expect to see a new HD A/V pack released for the XBox the exact same day, this time with DVI outputs. The standard resolutions are already fixed (4:3 480p and 16:9 480p aren't HD, but 16:9 540p (based on 1080i), 16:9 720p, and 16:9 1080i are defined). I'm sure the PS2 and Gamecube will do exactly the same, even though neither of them have high definition support (progressive scan is not high definition, and only the Gamecube can do that between these two, and then only in certain games, and then only if you know the special button combination. The XBox does at least 4:3 480p for every game, and will do better if the game and your TV support better).
Of course, that depends on what online play you prefer (MMORPG? RTS over Battle.net? Hack 'n Slash like Diablo 2? FPS?). I think the main sticking point here will not be the quality of the gameplay (assuming that's what you mean with "[catching] up"), but that broadband is pretty much required (sure, Nintendo says they'll release a modem, and I think Sony has released a modem, but expect to see all three really pushing broadband as the way to play). Then again, maybe online console gaming will help push the broadband market into expanding. If that happens, we all win.
Agreed, though not necessarily for the reasons you list.
I hope you were watching as the point flew right over your head. Of course there were incompatibilities with modchips. That's the point. There weren't any incompatibilities between the oldest and newest Playstation revisions with respect to legitimate games (except, as the parent said, for chipped playstations that tried to play chip-aware games).
I still have my tech job, and it's still too much for a single piece of mail.
And yet, the Simpsons games way back on the original NES sucked as well, even though the Simpsons was still in its prime then. Therefore, just because Futurama isn't quite as run into the ground yet doesn't mean a game based upon it will be any good.
That's because I'm not a sysadmin. I'm a developer.
I was speaking for me personally, not the populace in general. My own personal usage of snail mail has dropped very drastically, to the point where I'll probably make at most three mailings in the next year (barring any unforseen circumstances, of course, that would necessitate using the postal service).
Huh. I would disagree on that. Sure, it's not the government proper, and with an ideal government the USPS would be a privatized business. But it's not. It's a government held and controlled business ("nationalized" I belive is the term ...). It's a federal crime for anybody but US postal workers to put anything in your mailbox. That means UPS, Fed Ex, Airborne Express, or any of the other delivery companies (note, they're not "mail carriers") cannot drop their packages in your mailbox, even if they would fit.
They're doing a pretty good job of it, as far as I'm concerned. $0.34 was already too much for a single piece of mail, but $0.37? I'm sorry, but no. If they're happier not having my service, then great, because I don't want to give them my service.
I'm not so sure about handwriting recognition, but online bill payment has significantly reduced the amount of snail mail I send. In fact, in the past three months, I've sent exactly two pieces of mail (and those I probably could've gotten around by using a fax machine and a credit card ...). Sure, I still get my statements in the mail, and I get more than my share of junk mail, but my outgoing mail has shrunk to a mere trickle, and will hopefully be reduced to maybe one or two physical mailings a year. Oh, yeah, and since my bank offers free online bill payment, I'm saving money and screwing the government at the same time by not having to buy stamps more than once a year (if even that!). Grumble grumble stupid $0.37 stamps grumble grumble.
That's helpdesk work, not system administration. If your job consists mostly of that, then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're not a sysadmin.
Are you sure you'll be willing to give up your SQL-based stored procedures and triggers, though? I wouldn't (then again, to implement relational integrity, MySQL will probably think they have to implement triggers, which in turn requires stored procedures, and the proper way to do that is using SQL, so maybe they will have all of that. Or, maybe not).
Yeah, let's trust a semi-anonymous post on an unknown message board rather than the metric pantload of documentation Microsoft provides FOR FREE to developers. Then again, the portion you quoted is pretty dumb, anyway. Another poster has commented on the WINSOCK.DLL thing, so I'll comment on the other -- Windows Media Player, like any other media player, asks you what files extensions it should handle. If you don't tell it otherwise, it's obviously going to pick all of the file extensions it supports. Thus, Real Player obviously won't run on those files (well, until Real Player takes over those extensions again, like it likes to do). It's no longer tied to those file types. Don't like it? Change it. Or don't let WMP do that in the first place.
For the same reason Vader wants to give Luke to the Emperor -- Yoda and the Emperor are two sides of the same coin, the ultimate power of the light side and the dark. I suggest that training Luke under Yoda or training Luke under the Emperor wouldn't have made much difference overall if the Obi-Wan/Vader plot was to "balance" the force by removing the ultimate powers on both sides. In either case, Obi-Wan (in his spirit form) or Vader would be there to guide Luke in their plot while Luke was developing his abilities under far more competent teachers. Obi-Wan just happened to get to Luke first, is all.
Or, alternatively, Obi-Wan wanted Luke to experience first-hand the issues he had with Yoda (whatever those may be). For the Emperor, that's pretty obvious by the point in time when Luke shows up -- the Emperor is blatantly evil. Yoda is more subtlely so ("evil", "misguided", "full of himself", whatever). To truly impress Luke with the importance of their plan, Obi-Wan must introduce Luke to Yoda's methods. Luke really didn't need to be trained by the Emperor to see the Emperor was terrible.
<geek>Yoda never does exactly tell Luke about Leia. He only mentions, with his last breath (deathbed confessional type of thing) that there is another Skywalker. It's then Obi-wan that explains enough to Luke to allow him to figure out who the other Skywalker is. This would still fit -- Yoda, on his deathbed, tries to make amends in what little way he can, but in true Yoda fashion is secretive and cryptic. Obi-wan, being in league with Vader, explains further to Luke. Obi-wan doesn't talk shit about Yoda, because Yoda obviously tried to make amends (train Luke, etc), so when he died and part of the Vader/Obi-wan plot was finished, there's no reason to disparage Yoda to Luke.</geek>
Damn, that was geeky. Anyway, Brin's plot twist would be awesome to see, but highly unlikely.
Because real human interface work ("research" is a better term) is expensive and time consuming. Independent programmers and teams of programmers tend not to be able to afford that kind of thing, and Linux software companies don't have the cash to spare. Sun made some effort with GNOME, but I'm not sure what ever came from that.
If you're lucky enough to live in an area where you can buy these, or can find someone to import them for you (and have a hell of a lot of money to spend on a bike ...), you could always buy a Porsche bicycle. Of course, if you don't want to go to all the trouble for the Porsche name, I'm told that those are just rebranded Klein bicycles. Yes, the bikes are expensive, but the only person I know who has a Klein just loves hers.
They couldn't get a license, or they were unwilling to pay for a license? Or Porsche or Ferrari didn't care enough for the game to grant a license? Project: Gotham on the XBox was able to get both the Ferrari and Porsche licenses, AND were allowed to do damage modelling, but I don't know if they paid for the licenses or were paid for them (from heresay, I've been told that Ferrari has a pretty close relationship with the Project: Gotham guys, even going so far as to push back the formal introduction of the new Enzo model to coincide with the announcement of Project: Gotham 2). Either way, these guys did it right -- real cars, real licenses, real damage (well, within reason, of course -- you can't total the car, and the damage is purely cosmetic, but at least there is still damage). Just because the Carrera GT bungs itself up really easily in Project: Gotham doesn't mean I'm going to stop lusting after one (well, there's also the matter of those cars being $350,000 to $400,000 USD, with production to begin in 2003, with the run limited to at most a few thousand of the cars ...).
Perhaps the licenses didn't really fit with what Polyphony was aiming for in their Gran Turismo series, which seems to have a major focus on import street racing. Ferraris are little more than street-legal F1 cars, and Porsches just don't seem to fit in the same class as Honda/Acura, Toyota, Nissan, etc (to me, anyway).
I think what he's getting at is that the editors need to be consistent. Either no unwarranted bitching about Microsoft in the article (screw the comments, there's nothing anyone can do about those), or bitch equally about other topics. For instance, if this were an IE problem, the Slashdot article would've mentioned that the problem has been known for months and nothing's been done about it yet, but since this is about Mozilla, and Slashdot likes Mozilla, there's no mention at all about this.
Bitch or don't bitch, but do it equally. Since this site is read by quite a few people, and many use it as a major source of news, the best thing would be to present a professional front and don't bitch at all (save it for the comments). <rant>Editors, like it or not, your little site isn't so little anymore. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're a respectable, legitimate news clearinghouse (whether that's what you want or not), or you're not. If you are, let's see less bias, better spell checking, no duplicated stories (except in Slashback), fact-checked articles, due diligence about small sites with respect to the Slashdot effect, and so on. If you're not, fine. But don't represent yourself as if you are.</rant>
And just to head off the trolls -- Yes, I know I can simply not read Slashdot. That's a valid solution, but I doubt you'd really like what the site becomes if everyone who has a grievance with the management just up and left.
Next time, read closer. He drilled the case, not the board. Reason being, the board didn't line up with the ATX mobo mounts in the case, so he marked out a couple of the mounting holes on the mobo and drilled those holes into the case. That way, he could mount the board without having to resort to rely on ties and PCI cards to keep the mobo stable.
More importantly, w.r.t a laptop, what kind of screen do you want? Are you fine with a 1024x768 TFT, or do you need a 1600x1200 UXGA screen? Personally, I like as large of a desktop as possible, so I'd go for the larger screen. However, that means $2000+ for a laptop, rather than $1000 or even less. How it perfoms in Q3 doesn't matter (though the laptops with the nicer screens tend to have nicer video chipsets).
The author makes some interesting (though debatable, and sometimes flat-out wrong) points, yet while he declares that "I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'," implying that this is targeted towards commercial software companies, the article is written as a rant (as the Slashdot article notes), which is definitely the wrong way to get the attention of commercial software houses. The author needs to make up his mind. What is the goal here? Is it to rant and rave about the lack of quality commercial software for Linux? If so, then don't try to represent the rant as a plea to ISVs to properly port their software. Is it a plea to these ISVs for proper and consistent support of Linux? In that case, the author needs to lose all the inflammatory points (the not-so-subtle insinuations that you're a moron if you use Windows, the incorrect information on the stability and performance of current versions of Windows, and so on). At least he didn't stoop to the level of slashbots and use such derogatory terms as "Windoze", "Winblows", "Microsuck", and the like. Had he used one of those, his credibility would've been completely shot, rather than just undermined and on shakey ground.
What this author really needs to do, if he cares about influencing ISVs to seriously consider the Linux market segment is do (or commission from a trusted third-party) a study on the purchasing habits of primary Linux users. It's all well and good to assert that people you know are willing to pay for software, but it's anything but concrete. I can make the assertion that Linux users I know are not willing to pay for software and it would be just as valid.
Author, make up your mind! Are you preaching to the choir, or are you trying to get your points heard? The two are different, and what flies with one generally won't fly with the other.