usually if a major patch comes out, a new cracked version of the executable for that patch is out within hours. you just restore the original exe (you kept a copy, right?), run the patch, download the new cracked exe, and you're set to go.
You were right about DLC until the past year or two, now you can get those too. Don't even get me started on the gigantic scam most DLC is. "Wait, this game went gold two weeks ago, I bought it today on release day, and -somehow- in those two weeks you managed to get another 8 to 12 hours of content polished and ready to go that you want to charge me for on top of the $60 I just paid for the game? if the additional content was that close to being done, why didn't you wait two weeks to release the game with the additional content included?" There IS some good DLC that is worth your money, the GTA4 addons, or undead nightmare for RDR, etc... but most of it is just blatently trying to drill you for yet more money.
Now, if you're worried about whether that keygen is going to hose your system, then A. virus scan it, B. run it sandboxed in a VM, and C. try to keep from using your gaming machine for anything important if you can help it.
I managed to make it 3 years before I realized I was using my gaming machine for anything other than gaming and web browsing... and that was just dicking around with android development.
an Ion drive (which I'm sure you know we have today) firing constantly (which they can do) will eventually build up pretty damn absurd speeds given enough time... and if you're traveling between stars, time is something you have in abundance.
There is a second page to the article where the author brings up mining Mars. He says it would be impractical.
Yes, and he says it in perfect hand-waving "doesn't work with my argument so I'm going to ignore it" fashion.
His contention is that the the quality of the resulting fuels and resources would be low. Why? Where is his data? Last I read on the subject, when we test out the same technologies and processes on earth that we'd be sending to mars, the results are will within tolerances. It's not like the chemical equations and processes involved haven't been around since we were using gaslights.
On top of that, it's not really that major a concern. if we can currently send a probe to mars that can detect miniscule trace elements in martian soil, we can damn well smack a sensor on the side of those rapidly filling methane and water tanks on mars to send us back a signal on their purity. if for some unforseen reason the process that works on hydrogen and carbon dioxide here doesn't work right there, we analyze the data, figure out why, and then send up another converter to do the job right.
You wait until the tank is full of good stuff before sending the people.
I thought the big problem with nuke ships was the momentum incurred, and shedding it in time to land without detonating on impact. Slowing down in space is a sonofabitch. On a trip to somewhere like Mars, you have to expend nearly as much energy slowing down as you did speeding up. You can't air brake into mars without one HELL of a big shield/parachute due to the relatively low atmospheric density (about 1% of earth). You basically gotta turn around and thrust directly 180' into your forward path until you're slow enough not to escape the gravitational pull of your destination.
Oh I'll give you that, I just thing OP was trying to work magic with electrons.
Really though, I have a charger at home, a charger in the car, and my phone is constantly charging at work due to being tethered to one of my laptops. Battery life isn't a big deal to me.
Assuming clock speed remains the same, 4 cores isn't even 4x as fast as a single core, even under the best of circumstances, due to overhead and and inefficiency derived by of breaking up one task into multiple threads. That isn't even counting the "turbo" feature that modern cpus have to increase clock speed when only a single core is in use.
Unless you're a multi-millionare and have a real "Movie room" in your mansion, chances are good that going to a real theatre is something that you simply can't replicate at home 2 years later. That I understand. it's an "experience" thing.
What I'm saying is whether I read stephan king's new ebook for my nook on release day, or 2 years later, it will be the same experience. Whether I play mass effect 3 on release day or 2 years later, it will be the same experience (probably better 2 years later as my computer will likely be newer/upgraded further so i'll have a higher res or better frame rate or both).
The only benefit to getting/watching things on release day that would have the same experience 2 years later is the camaraderie of discussing it with friends or "at the water cooler" the next day. Me, I don't care that much. I miss most of a season of ultimate fighter or big bang theory or whatever and then catch up all at once watching 10 episodes in a single week. Sometimes I wait years and watch several seasons of a show like Breaking Bad over a month period or something like that. I didn't read the harry potter books until all 7 were released and the psychotic fan hype wore down. I'll occasionally buy something on release day, but not often (WoW expansions and Civ 5 were about the extent of my release day purchases in the past several years).
Now of course I benefit from lower prices doing this, but most of it is purely by accident. I just don't care that much anymore about getting the latest and the greatest just because it is new, I'll get around to it when I get around to it. That's just the way I am. My point is that since I have that predisposition anyway (and I would imagine I'm not truly unique in that regard either), if I knew that waiting 2 years would make most of my entertainment completely free (legally, obviously it's all on bittorrent and usenet illegally already), I'd actually go out of my way to wait without much effort needed to do so. 2 years is way too short.
I agree that 5+ years, as you suggest, is a much better timeframe to convince me to purchase something instead of waiting for it to enter public domain.
How would TV shows work? After season 2 every other network just takes your characters and starts making episodes of the same show?
While I certainly agree with you, I feel the need to point out that TV networks have been doing exactly this for decades, they just rename the characters and add in a random quirk the original show didn't have.
For instance, the sentences "It snowed 3 times last winter." and "We had 3 snows last winter." are functionally equivalent.
Whether or not you agree that is correct usage depends on how quickly you update your dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snow for instance seems to think that usage is correct (definition #3).
The rest of the world does not. Every currency in history has fluctuated, but for some reason that continues to confound me, precious metals just keep getting more valuable (averaged over time of course there are dips and plateaus).
It seems that the entirety of humanity has decided that shiny really does = valuable, and thousands of years of tradition seems to overrule common sense. I think at this point it is one of those things that just isn't going to go away. May as well accept it.
Man, I thought for sure that Reorx forged the world on his anvil, Chislev breathed life into the world's plants, Habbakuk filled the oceans, and the mortal races were created by Paladine, Gilean, and Takhisis.
I watched a youtube video not long ago where as an experiment, a guy tried to pay for his taco bell meal with a $50 us gold coin. The gold coin -was- legal tender, stamped as such, but the drive through window didn't want to take it.
Just as well, at that day's exchange rate, the gold content in the coin was worth about $1400. I believe the quote was "If they take it, this may be the most expensive fast food meal ever"
Actually, I believe that technically Mercury is more earth-like than Mars is, in terms of composition, magnetic field, etc. It's just that it's small, hot as shit (not as bad as venus actually though, surprisingly), and lacking much in the way of an atmosphere.
That said, what it is -incredibly- similar to is Luna. If we ever finally get around to setting up a polar moon base, the technology can be almost directly ported to setting up a polar base on Mercury. The solar power generation would be fantastic there, but I can't think of much other reason to go.
No, it doesn't, but it stops well in excess of 99%. I am far more surprised when I do see an ad than when I don't. I'd call that "good enough". I don't care for the hassle of trying to keep an updated hosts file.
oh of course I have. I have to make a concerted effort not to read the comments on articles, because the level of stupidity of my fellow countrymen angers me to no end. Often the article itself is not much better. That said, that's just journalism in the 21st century (Really, it's been that bad since the late 80s at least). Any of these sources will stop the stupidity when something of actual importance happens. nobody was reporting on lindsay lohan on september 11th 2001.
That said, they're just doing what any business does, cater to their customers. Take a look at the most popular articles on a given day, usually lindsay articles are near the top, regardless of what the front page article is at the moment. People want their distractions, can't blame the news outlet for providing them. MSNBC, Fox, and even NPR do the same, to different target audiences.
The only one who doesn't do that, at least not nearly as much, is BBC news, but I often find them so dry as to be boring.
I just don't care about the news as much as I did a couple years ago. I used to sort through a half dozen different sources daily to try and keep myself as updated as possible on as many issues as possible from as many point of views as possible. Know what I finally realized? 95% or more of it doesn't matter. Now I check the news every other day or so, for about 15-30 min total. I keep fairly well informed nonetheless.
Your automotive knowledge is incredibly thin, which is ok, but you present the topic as if you are informed, which is not ok.
Also, "domestic cars are junk, foreign cars are awesome" is such an 80s/90s remnant attitude. Time to drop it, just as the "domestic cars are awesome, foreign cars have horrible ergonomics and build quality" was a 60s/70s remnant attitude that was also rightfully dropped.
I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?
I've got free news from: cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, bbc.uk, new radio, various news apps on my smartphone, and tens of thousands of idiotic commentary available to me across the web.
What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?
Slashdot Mirror
Who are the people least bothered by DRM? Pirates.
If DRM completely 100% fails to do its intended job, why is it still around?
usually if a major patch comes out, a new cracked version of the executable for that patch is out within hours. you just restore the original exe (you kept a copy, right?), run the patch, download the new cracked exe, and you're set to go.
You were right about DLC until the past year or two, now you can get those too. Don't even get me started on the gigantic scam most DLC is. "Wait, this game went gold two weeks ago, I bought it today on release day, and -somehow- in those two weeks you managed to get another 8 to 12 hours of content polished and ready to go that you want to charge me for on top of the $60 I just paid for the game? if the additional content was that close to being done, why didn't you wait two weeks to release the game with the additional content included?" There IS some good DLC that is worth your money, the GTA4 addons, or undead nightmare for RDR, etc... but most of it is just blatently trying to drill you for yet more money.
Now, if you're worried about whether that keygen is going to hose your system, then A. virus scan it, B. run it sandboxed in a VM, and C. try to keep from using your gaming machine for anything important if you can help it.
I managed to make it 3 years before I realized I was using my gaming machine for anything other than gaming and web browsing... and that was just dicking around with android development.
an Ion drive (which I'm sure you know we have today) firing constantly (which they can do) will eventually build up pretty damn absurd speeds given enough time... and if you're traveling between stars, time is something you have in abundance.
Slowing down though, that's another matter.
There is a second page to the article where the author brings up mining Mars. He says it would be impractical.
Yes, and he says it in perfect hand-waving "doesn't work with my argument so I'm going to ignore it" fashion.
His contention is that the the quality of the resulting fuels and resources would be low. Why? Where is his data? Last I read on the subject, when we test out the same technologies and processes on earth that we'd be sending to mars, the results are will within tolerances. It's not like the chemical equations and processes involved haven't been around since we were using gaslights.
On top of that, it's not really that major a concern. if we can currently send a probe to mars that can detect miniscule trace elements in martian soil, we can damn well smack a sensor on the side of those rapidly filling methane and water tanks on mars to send us back a signal on their purity. if for some unforseen reason the process that works on hydrogen and carbon dioxide here doesn't work right there, we analyze the data, figure out why, and then send up another converter to do the job right.
You wait until the tank is full of good stuff before sending the people.
I thought the big problem with nuke ships was the momentum incurred, and shedding it in time to land without detonating on impact. Slowing down in space is a sonofabitch. On a trip to somewhere like Mars, you have to expend nearly as much energy slowing down as you did speeding up. You can't air brake into mars without one HELL of a big shield/parachute due to the relatively low atmospheric density (about 1% of earth). You basically gotta turn around and thrust directly 180' into your forward path until you're slow enough not to escape the gravitational pull of your destination.
Oh I'll give you that, I just thing OP was trying to work magic with electrons.
Really though, I have a charger at home, a charger in the car, and my phone is constantly charging at work due to being tethered to one of my laptops. Battery life isn't a big deal to me.
why would 4 cores be 6x as fast as a single core?
Assuming clock speed remains the same, 4 cores isn't even 4x as fast as a single core, even under the best of circumstances, due to overhead and and inefficiency derived by of breaking up one task into multiple threads. That isn't even counting the "turbo" feature that modern cpus have to increase clock speed when only a single core is in use.
my smartphone will replace my desktop probably around the same time my bicycle gets a V6, power steering, awd, a nice stereo, and can tow a trailer.
What's wrong with having different tools for different jobs?
Unless you're a multi-millionare and have a real "Movie room" in your mansion, chances are good that going to a real theatre is something that you simply can't replicate at home 2 years later. That I understand. it's an "experience" thing.
What I'm saying is whether I read stephan king's new ebook for my nook on release day, or 2 years later, it will be the same experience. Whether I play mass effect 3 on release day or 2 years later, it will be the same experience (probably better 2 years later as my computer will likely be newer/upgraded further so i'll have a higher res or better frame rate or both).
The only benefit to getting/watching things on release day that would have the same experience 2 years later is the camaraderie of discussing it with friends or "at the water cooler" the next day. Me, I don't care that much. I miss most of a season of ultimate fighter or big bang theory or whatever and then catch up all at once watching 10 episodes in a single week. Sometimes I wait years and watch several seasons of a show like Breaking Bad over a month period or something like that. I didn't read the harry potter books until all 7 were released and the psychotic fan hype wore down. I'll occasionally buy something on release day, but not often (WoW expansions and Civ 5 were about the extent of my release day purchases in the past several years).
Now of course I benefit from lower prices doing this, but most of it is purely by accident. I just don't care that much anymore about getting the latest and the greatest just because it is new, I'll get around to it when I get around to it. That's just the way I am. My point is that since I have that predisposition anyway (and I would imagine I'm not truly unique in that regard either), if I knew that waiting 2 years would make most of my entertainment completely free (legally, obviously it's all on bittorrent and usenet illegally already), I'd actually go out of my way to wait without much effort needed to do so. 2 years is way too short.
I agree that 5+ years, as you suggest, is a much better timeframe to convince me to purchase something instead of waiting for it to enter public domain.
How would TV shows work? After season 2 every other network just takes your characters and starts making episodes of the same show?
While I certainly agree with you, I feel the need to point out that TV networks have been doing exactly this for decades, they just rename the characters and add in a random quirk the original show didn't have.
Why would you buy any form of entertainment new if you knew you would be able to get it legally for free in 2 years?
I sure wouldn't. Any book, movie, video game, tv show etc, can wait. I'll just watch/read whatever was the big deal in 2009 while I wait.
Popular culture moves quickly, but not as quickly as you think.
Isn't this the same culture that wrote the Kama Sutra?
That's a hell of a turnaround.
You can if you refer to a snowstorm as a "snow".
For instance, the sentences "It snowed 3 times last winter." and "We had 3 snows last winter." are functionally equivalent.
Whether or not you agree that is correct usage depends on how quickly you update your dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snow for instance seems to think that usage is correct (definition #3).
would it surprise you to know that I agree 100%?
The rest of the world does not. Every currency in history has fluctuated, but for some reason that continues to confound me, precious metals just keep getting more valuable (averaged over time of course there are dips and plateaus).
It seems that the entirety of humanity has decided that shiny really does = valuable, and thousands of years of tradition seems to overrule common sense. I think at this point it is one of those things that just isn't going to go away. May as well accept it.
Man, I thought for sure that Reorx forged the world on his anvil, Chislev breathed life into the world's plants, Habbakuk filled the oceans, and the mortal races were created by Paladine, Gilean, and Takhisis.
Was I taught wrong?
I watched a youtube video not long ago where as an experiment, a guy tried to pay for his taco bell meal with a $50 us gold coin. The gold coin -was- legal tender, stamped as such, but the drive through window didn't want to take it.
Just as well, at that day's exchange rate, the gold content in the coin was worth about $1400. I believe the quote was "If they take it, this may be the most expensive fast food meal ever"
The proposal will never work for any number of reasons, but the economic basis of having precious metal-backed currency is sound.
The word "Theory", as used in a scientific context, does not mean the same thing as in common conversational usage.
Actually, I believe that technically Mercury is more earth-like than Mars is, in terms of composition, magnetic field, etc. It's just that it's small, hot as shit (not as bad as venus actually though, surprisingly), and lacking much in the way of an atmosphere.
That said, what it is -incredibly- similar to is Luna. If we ever finally get around to setting up a polar moon base, the technology can be almost directly ported to setting up a polar base on Mercury. The solar power generation would be fantastic there, but I can't think of much other reason to go.
No, it doesn't, but it stops well in excess of 99%. I am far more surprised when I do see an ad than when I don't. I'd call that "good enough". I don't care for the hassle of trying to keep an updated hosts file.
oh of course I have. I have to make a concerted effort not to read the comments on articles, because the level of stupidity of my fellow countrymen angers me to no end. Often the article itself is not much better. That said, that's just journalism in the 21st century (Really, it's been that bad since the late 80s at least). Any of these sources will stop the stupidity when something of actual importance happens. nobody was reporting on lindsay lohan on september 11th 2001.
That said, they're just doing what any business does, cater to their customers. Take a look at the most popular articles on a given day, usually lindsay articles are near the top, regardless of what the front page article is at the moment. People want their distractions, can't blame the news outlet for providing them. MSNBC, Fox, and even NPR do the same, to different target audiences.
The only one who doesn't do that, at least not nearly as much, is BBC news, but I often find them so dry as to be boring.
I just don't care about the news as much as I did a couple years ago. I used to sort through a half dozen different sources daily to try and keep myself as updated as possible on as many issues as possible from as many point of views as possible. Know what I finally realized? 95% or more of it doesn't matter. Now I check the news every other day or so, for about 15-30 min total. I keep fairly well informed nonetheless.
I would tell you who is paying for my news, but I have adblock installed so I don't see the advertisements.
Your automotive knowledge is incredibly thin, which is ok, but you present the topic as if you are informed, which is not ok.
Also, "domestic cars are junk, foreign cars are awesome" is such an 80s/90s remnant attitude. Time to drop it, just as the "domestic cars are awesome, foreign cars have horrible ergonomics and build quality" was a 60s/70s remnant attitude that was also rightfully dropped.
I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?
I've got free news from: cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, bbc.uk, new radio, various news apps on my smartphone, and tens of thousands of idiotic commentary available to me across the web.
What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?
It's a trap!