They do, but they do not advertise the other shows during the podcast.
So I don't know weather to listen to Fresh Air and Marketplace or BBC World Service and News and Notes.
I have to go to each website, and read the summary of each podcast and figure it out. When a 3 second clip of the guest on Fresh Air during Marketplace could make my mind up for me.
I know it is an out there case, but I would love to hear the show broadcast on my local station rather than the generic nation-wide podcast.
It's the same with TV. I now watch all my TV without adds, but as shows I watch get cancelled I have nothing else to watch. At least with TV it is wasted time freed up though. I am driving 1.5-3 hours a day anyway.
I wouldn't mind being able to record my own "podcasts" off of the waves from NPR. Then I could hear the other stuf that would be playing in the next few days, and only listen to the most interesting hour or two of the 5 hours I could potentially want to hear in a day. BBC World Service, Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered, Market Place, and News and Notes can all be worth listening too. Without hearing bumps for other upcoming shows I don't know which to choose. If I could program to record one while listening to another I would be pleased.
The biggest thing (from a basic user perspective) is that when you drag one window over another you don't get a nasty dragging/bluring problem. It will pave the way for more advanced stuff later on (semi-transparent window dragging for example).
I imagine metacity will be lighter weight than compiz too.
Because I don't think we have had SDD for long enough to really know what the average lifespan would be. Also it could very likely be increasing as HDD has been decreasing.
1) What you are demonstrating is that even non-add donations can influence (or try). 2) You may repay by editing, but unless you define "us" in "most of us" as people who edit wikipedia than most do not. I will go as far as saying that I live with 2 people who have found errors in wikipedia and not fixed them (one that I remember was the date of a French author's birth, that burned 1/4 of the people in the class (the rest used the text book), and still didn't get fixed.
I would personally think the best way for wikipedia to remain neutral is for it to take advertising from something such as adsense, clearly marking it as advertising. If I go to look up info on a a game, and I get a clearly marked add to buy it, no one loses. Wikipedia would only need to protect itself from the influence of one company, and it should be easier than policing the thousands of donations they get now that may or may not be influencing them.
1) wireless internet on the small and cheap 2) A good way to read Project Gutenberg (this is the big one, there is probably enough "required" reading I have not read to pay for a Kindle 3) If I want to read something more than a short paper back it is easier to travel with 4) If I am traveling long enough that I want 2 books it is easier to travel with
All that said, I am not ready to drop $400.00 because of the durability issue. But come $200.00 or less, I will be buying one happily.
Well, if you take the stance that Americans are inherently more deserving than people of other countries, than your point stands. But only if you accept that your lifestyle could double the wages of tens of thousands of people. Do you really feel you are tens of of thousands of times more deserving than the median person on this planet (assuming about 6 billion people).
You are proposing surpressing global wages for the majority to maintain the wages of the few.
As economies develop they will run into their own shortages, and just as the industrial revolution caused massive suffering, but in the end made things better. So too will the global revolution. I hope I don't live to see it at its worse, it's going to suck for a lot of people like me (middle class Americans), but when it is done life will be better (barring global warming or massive war).
It really is no different than when machines replaced people in textile mills, and they will do it even further when non-tearing robot fingers are perfected.
We don't morn the loss of what were thought to be decent jobs from the industrial revolution, and 10 generations these jobs won't be morned either. That's what progress is. Keeping half the global population for the sake of keeping American's making 6000 times as much for minimum wage is just un-ethical. Much better is to slow down the progress of countries that are beginning to be able to afford it (China/India) by enforcing international laws protecting intellectual property, allowing us to ride their improvement some and somewhat less painfully adjust.
Lack of proper investment by American companies in our workforce just shows that they are being short sighted, and probably should be replaced.
The market will fix the problem. No need for special legislation or hire wages.
Sorry, I don't mean to be an ass, I just am, but your post bothers me because it appears to imply legislation allowing more people into our country is market interference, but the most true solution to letting the market decide is to let people in willing to work for less. We all save money as the cost of services is reduced, and unless we value Americans as people more than others it is a net positive. Even if we don't value Americans for it can be a net positive for our country. As long as foreign workers are not being abused (paid way to little, or forced to take pay cuts or lose their work status, in other words, as long as their foreignness is not being used to artificially suppress the wage), then it is a good thing. It is exactly the same economically as a machine getting invented to do the work. I mean think of the number of farm workers put out of business by the diesel engine. Or the number of computers put out of work by computer scientists and electric engineers.
I be the one (CEO at 30) has something to do with the other (suit and tie) though.
Not to imply your not talented, or event hat perception is everything. Just that perception is something, and something that is probably worth it when you are trying to overvalue your company at such ridiculous levels.
Civilization, or even XCOM would be awful with a control pad. I think computers excel when lots of information needs to be displayed, since even though console resolutions now beat/match the PC, there is something to be said for being 18-30 inches from a 17" monitor as far as reading and seeing details.
Of course many wondered how Puzzle Quest would fit on a DS, but it did, so there are ways to get around these things.
Is this really true (that it takes far more PC)? or is it simply that it takes a little bit more GPU (as in, a $150 GPU would fix the problem)?
I think Sweeny is probably accurate in blaming the on board GPUs as being the problem.
An old decent PC can still play reasonably new games (they just look like older ones).
For example my 3+ Year old PC (AMD 3500+, 1GB RAM, 6600GT 128MB AGP) runs Enemy Territory Quake Wars just fine at 1024x768 (with all settings low).
This essentially cost $250.00 (little more than the price of a PS2 at the time) for the graphics card (everything else was needed anyway).
It still looks far better than a PS2 game, and it is sort-of High Def.
I am sure a lot of people can't run Doom 3, but as Sweeny is pointing out, it has a lot to do with crappy on board video and consumer ignorance (after all the manufacturers don't want to let people know they can't play 3D games on the computer being sold). The game makers need to find a way to educate people that it is not too scary to buy an inexpensive graphics card and install it (or have it installed).
I would personally probably use a license that allowed GPL 2+ use for everything. And only accept submissions that were given to me as GPL and BSD so that I could later change it as I pleased. The Submitters would have to trust me not to close off their code. But even if I did, hopefully the part I released for Free would be enough not to receive too much spite.
I don't disagree with the GPL 3 in principal, I just don't want stuff closed off from v2 (or vice-a-versa).
If I was feeling generous I may perhaps also dual license some of the assets in a BSD style license too.
I really don't want to advocate a specific license though, I just think that compatibility (amongst FOSS) is important. I think for the most part the LGPL+ is probably the best compromise between computability and protecting the openess of the code. I think BSD allowing the non-creator to close off their improvements is bad, and the GPLs aggressive opening of code is perhaps to big a hindrance to other developers who don't want to go totally Free.
Of course with wrappers for binary code, it is kind of a non-issue.
It would be nice if people stuck to LGPL 2+, GPL 2+, Old X11/New BSD or multi-licenses that included them. This would allow for compatibility for the most part. Other licenses that are compatible but not multi-license are OK too, but really should just be one of those IMO (based solely on momentum, not quality).
CC is not a Free or Open license (as it is used for the most part anyway). So I think your post is just further muddying the waters.
The only comparison I was trying to draw to Hyper Transport is that it requires OS awareness to appear as anything different than 2 processors. The fallout of the OS getting this wrong is very different though, with one possibly tanking performance, and the other simply not running as optimally as possible.
That number averages in the $0's (62 % of those who got it from the site). Those who cose to pay picked $6.00 on average. This is slightly less than Magnatunes which lets people pay $5-$15 and has an average of $7.50 or so.
If you consider that the free version of In Rainbows cost $.90 (£.45),there were probably a lot of P2P downloads, and you might as well average those into your price if you are going to count the non-payers.
The NIN method here is closer to the Magnatunes model, except as you choose to pay more you get more. Also P2P downloading (and even off of personal sites) is legal.
I have not had a contract for a while, but I am still paying the same for my service as I was with one. And as I shop around I still can't find a better deal (39.99 1500/month no free nights/weekends). I've paid this rate for 2.5 years now, and only when there are promotional rates does anything even come close.
No, I think medicine would be a compound you can weigh on a scale.
It would mean you could not patent something such as radiation therepy, only the machine that does it. I could come along and develope my own machine that does it and do the same treatment.
It actually looks like a pretty strait forward test that makes sense.
Perhaps I was being to literal, or Adam Smith is too old to be completly relavent, but I think a strong and compelling argument can be made that the "real wealth" is "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society" Adam Smith
As such, any money spent goes to wealth, it simply at the very worse accumulates an opportunity cost (in the case of the broken window, or software when a free option is available).
PS. The broken window link is not for your benefit, since I assume you are familiar with it, but for those reading whom may not be. So don't take offense
PPS. The Wikipedia link uses your definition of wealth, so there.
Slashdot Mirror
the code the clusters was actually running was pretty much always compiled by hand.
You really oughta use a compiler for that.
They do, but they do not advertise the other shows during the podcast.
So I don't know weather to listen to Fresh Air and Marketplace or BBC World Service and News and Notes.
I have to go to each website, and read the summary of each podcast and figure it out. When a 3 second clip of the guest on Fresh Air during Marketplace could make my mind up for me.
I know it is an out there case, but I would love to hear the show broadcast on my local station rather than the generic nation-wide podcast.
It's the same with TV. I now watch all my TV without adds, but as shows I watch get cancelled I have nothing else to watch. At least with TV it is wasted time freed up though. I am driving 1.5-3 hours a day anyway.
I wouldn't mind being able to record my own "podcasts" off of the waves from NPR. Then I could hear the other stuf that would be playing in the next few days, and only listen to the most interesting hour or two of the 5 hours I could potentially want to hear in a day. BBC World Service, Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered, Market Place, and News and Notes can all be worth listening too. Without hearing bumps for other upcoming shows I don't know which to choose. If I could program to record one while listening to another I would be pleased.
The biggest thing (from a basic user perspective) is that when you drag one window over another you don't get a nasty dragging/bluring problem. It will pave the way for more advanced stuff later on (semi-transparent window dragging for example).
I imagine metacity will be lighter weight than compiz too.
Is that true?
Because I don't think we have had SDD for long enough to really know what the average lifespan would be. Also it could very likely be increasing as HDD has been decreasing.
Agreed.
Well under 15% of my data is personal photos, music, and reports. Probably something like 1% of the stuff on my computer is personal (5GB)
Even my sisters computer only had a gig or so of personal data, with 8 times that is installed programs, and then the music...
you'll either have to buy 'em or deal with the crazed screaming/whining/sulking that will ensue.
That's why my wife won't let me in the cereal isle, and I'm an adult.
1) What you are demonstrating is that even non-add donations can influence (or try).
2) You may repay by editing, but unless you define "us" in "most of us" as people who edit wikipedia than most do not. I will go as far as saying that I live with 2 people who have found errors in wikipedia and not fixed them (one that I remember was the date of a French author's birth, that burned 1/4 of the people in the class (the rest used the text book), and still didn't get fixed.
I would personally think the best way for wikipedia to remain neutral is for it to take advertising from something such as adsense, clearly marking it as advertising. If I go to look up info on a a game, and I get a clearly marked add to buy it, no one loses. Wikipedia would only need to protect itself from the influence of one company, and it should be easier than policing the thousands of donations they get now that may or may not be influencing them.
The ebook fills a few needs for me.
1) wireless internet on the small and cheap
2) A good way to read Project Gutenberg (this is the big one, there is probably enough "required" reading I have not read to pay for a Kindle
3) If I want to read something more than a short paper back it is easier to travel with
4) If I am traveling long enough that I want 2 books it is easier to travel with
All that said, I am not ready to drop $400.00 because of the durability issue. But come $200.00 or less, I will be buying one happily.
Well, if you take the stance that Americans are inherently more deserving than people of other countries, than your point stands. But only if you accept that your lifestyle could double the wages of tens of thousands of people. Do you really feel you are tens of of thousands of times more deserving than the median person on this planet (assuming about 6 billion people).
You are proposing surpressing global wages for the majority to maintain the wages of the few.
As economies develop they will run into their own shortages, and just as the industrial revolution caused massive suffering, but in the end made things better. So too will the global revolution. I hope I don't live to see it at its worse, it's going to suck for a lot of people like me (middle class Americans), but when it is done life will be better (barring global warming or massive war).
It really is no different than when machines replaced people in textile mills, and they will do it even further when non-tearing robot fingers are perfected.
We don't morn the loss of what were thought to be decent jobs from the industrial revolution, and 10 generations these jobs won't be morned either. That's what progress is. Keeping half the global population for the sake of keeping American's making 6000 times as much for minimum wage is just un-ethical.
Much better is to slow down the progress of countries that are beginning to be able to afford it (China/India) by enforcing international laws protecting intellectual property, allowing us to ride their improvement some and somewhat less painfully adjust.
Lack of proper investment by American companies in our workforce just shows that they are being short sighted, and probably should be replaced.
Got a labor shortage?
Hire people willing to work for less.
The market will fix the problem. No need for special legislation or hire wages.
Sorry, I don't mean to be an ass, I just am, but your post bothers me because it appears to imply legislation allowing more people into our country is market interference, but the most true solution to letting the market decide is to let people in willing to work for less. We all save money as the cost of services is reduced, and unless we value Americans as people more than others it is a net positive. Even if we don't value Americans for it can be a net positive for our country. As long as foreign workers are not being abused (paid way to little, or forced to take pay cuts or lose their work status, in other words, as long as their foreignness is not being used to artificially suppress the wage), then it is a good thing. It is exactly the same economically as a machine getting invented to do the work. I mean think of the number of farm workers put out of business by the diesel engine. Or the number of computers put out of work by computer scientists and electric engineers.
I be the one (CEO at 30) has something to do with the other (suit and tie) though.
Not to imply your not talented, or event hat perception is everything. Just that perception is something, and something that is probably worth it when you are trying to overvalue your company at such ridiculous levels.
Actually I took it to mean women are influenced by what they read, and no more.
Being inundated with mis-information will influence either gender I would think, this is simply a type of mis-information targeted at women.
Lets not leave out Turn Based Strategy either.
Civilization, or even XCOM would be awful with a control pad. I think computers excel when lots of information needs to be displayed, since even though console resolutions now beat/match the PC, there is something to be said for being 18-30 inches from a 17" monitor as far as reading and seeing details.
Of course many wondered how Puzzle Quest would fit on a DS, but it did, so there are ways to get around these things.
Is this really true (that it takes far more PC)? or is it simply that it takes a little bit more GPU (as in, a $150 GPU would fix the problem)?
I think Sweeny is probably accurate in blaming the on board GPUs as being the problem.
An old decent PC can still play reasonably new games (they just look like older ones).
For example my 3+ Year old PC (AMD 3500+, 1GB RAM, 6600GT 128MB AGP) runs Enemy Territory Quake Wars just fine at 1024x768 (with all settings low).
This essentially cost $250.00 (little more than the price of a PS2 at the time) for the graphics card (everything else was needed anyway).
It still looks far better than a PS2 game, and it is sort-of High Def.
I am sure a lot of people can't run Doom 3, but as Sweeny is pointing out, it has a lot to do with crappy on board video and consumer ignorance (after all the manufacturers don't want to let people know they can't play 3D games on the computer being sold). The game makers need to find a way to educate people that it is not too scary to buy an inexpensive graphics card and install it (or have it installed).
I would personally probably use a license that allowed GPL 2+ use for everything. And only accept submissions that were given to me as GPL and BSD so that I could later change it as I pleased. The Submitters would have to trust me not to close off their code. But even if I did, hopefully the part I released for Free would be enough not to receive too much spite.
I don't disagree with the GPL 3 in principal, I just don't want stuff closed off from v2 (or vice-a-versa).
If I was feeling generous I may perhaps also dual license some of the assets in a BSD style license too.
I really don't want to advocate a specific license though, I just think that compatibility (amongst FOSS) is important. I think for the most part the LGPL+ is probably the best compromise between computability and protecting the openess of the code. I think BSD allowing the non-creator to close off their improvements is bad, and the GPLs aggressive opening of code is perhaps to big a hindrance to other developers who don't want to go totally Free.
Of course with wrappers for binary code, it is kind of a non-issue.
It would be nice if people stuck to LGPL 2+, GPL 2+, Old X11/New BSD or multi-licenses that included them. This would allow for compatibility for the most part. Other licenses that are compatible but not multi-license are OK too, but really should just be one of those IMO (based solely on momentum, not quality).
CC is not a Free or Open license (as it is used for the most part anyway). So I think your post is just further muddying the waters.
The only comparison I was trying to draw to Hyper Transport is that it requires OS awareness to appear as anything different than 2 processors. The fallout of the OS getting this wrong is very different though, with one possibly tanking performance, and the other simply not running as optimally as possible.
Don't dual core CPUs share components (cache maybe?) that an aware OS can exploit for performance improvements?
The same way an HT CPU shows up as 2 CPUs (with disasterous effects) unless the OS is away and can properly exploit it?
That number averages in the $0's (62 % of those who got it from the site). Those who cose to pay picked $6.00 on average. This is slightly less than Magnatunes which lets people pay $5-$15 and has an average of $7.50 or so.
If you consider that the free version of In Rainbows cost $.90 (£.45),there were probably a lot of P2P downloads, and you might as well average those into your price if you are going to count the non-payers.
The NIN method here is closer to the Magnatunes model, except as you choose to pay more you get more. Also P2P downloading (and even off of personal sites) is legal.
How is creative comons fundamentaly different than this?
All he is saying is that $5 is what I want in support, not $7.50, and not $2.50. I will only let you pay more in exchnge for getting more.
Payment is optional 100% (creative commons and all), and there is no $1 service fee.
I do think the numbers on Raidioheead at least showed the name your price averaged over $5.00 though.
Where do you save?
I have not had a contract for a while, but I am still paying the same for my service as I was with one. And as I shop around I still can't find a better deal (39.99 1500/month no free nights/weekends). I've paid this rate for 2.5 years now, and only when there are promotional rates does anything even come close.
If we feed them, then there will be even more demand for amluminum. That sounds like a bad idea.
No, I think medicine would be a compound you can weigh on a scale.
It would mean you could not patent something such as radiation therepy, only the machine that does it. I could come along and develope my own machine that does it and do the same treatment.
It actually looks like a pretty strait forward test that makes sense.
Perhaps I was being to literal, or Adam Smith is too old to be completly relavent, but I think a strong and compelling argument can be made that the "real wealth" is "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society" Adam Smith
As such, any money spent goes to wealth, it simply at the very worse accumulates an opportunity cost (in the case of the broken window, or software when a free option is available).
PS. The broken window link is not for your benefit, since I assume you are familiar with it, but for those reading whom may not be. So don't take offense
PPS. The Wikipedia link uses your definition of wealth, so there.