Most of the injuries they talk about are caused primarily by a lack of exercise. It's not just that they're typing, or using mobile devices too much... It's that they're doing those things without exercising the parts of their bodies that are idle while they work.
Of course, people would rather blame somebody other than themselves for their injuries, and companies like Microsoft would rather sell you software or hardware to solve the problem...
Most people (not just Americans) care more about local issues than foreign policy. Nine times out of ten they'll pick the guy who is going to take less money out of their pocket over the one who wants to raise taxes, regardless of which country might get bombed.
As we've seen over the years, single-use DVDs are a product with zero demand. So why make them?
I'm sure that they pay a much lower royalty for the content when it is distributed on single-use discs. Now, put them in an impulse-buy area of a retail store at a price only slightly lower than people expect to pay for regular discount DVDs... The market for the product becomes people who don't realize that they are single use at the time of purchase. The only possible point of this product is to profit off the suckers.
.... He made a long-term decision instead of thinking about short-term profits. He's being sued for looking beyond the next few quarters.
If you think Yahoo can't turn it around, then yeah. He fucked up big-time. But if you think (as I'm sure he does) that Yahoo can be an innovative company that can step in to fill the gap as Microsoft declines, then he did the right thing. Hardly matters either way though. (Some profit now > Lots of profit over time) in the eyes of wall street.
So you saw the large fan-base and chose to ignore them?
Also, I hate to spoil your flaming, but it seems highly likely that the PS3 will be the best-selling high-def console of the current generation. It'll also likely be the only profitable high-def console this generation. What definition of "fail" are you using, exactly?
When you decided that 45 cm is the difference between toppling sooner, rather than later, you assumed (or ignored) a variable.
The 45cm that the moved the tower is probably almost completely unrelated to how long the tower will stand. What they likely altered was the rate at which the tower was moving.
Additionally, DLNA servers can transcode, and container-shift. So if you happen to have 90% of your "stuff" in a codec other than one of those (that are used by 90%+ of the video out there), you can still play them.
It sounds like you should get yourself a good DLNA server, and then try your PS3 again.
It's the same thing that happened with laserdisc after it was discontinued. No new content is being made, and old content is getting scarce. People with those players are willing to pay a premium to get the content before it's no longer available.
A secondary factor is that distributors are giving volume discounts to resellers for BluRay, but HD-DVD isn't selling enough anymore to qualify.
His GM solution is also why you have roundup, so quit bitching and get a shovel. (Or use a more traditional herbicide, or wait until Monsanto re-formulates it again, again.)
As an aside, am I the only person who gets annoyed by the mis-appropriation of the word "organic" by the natural food industry? It's ridiculous that chemists have to start referring to their carbon-based molecules as "synthetic organic" just because a bunch of clueless hippies didn't know what they were talking about and a multi-million dollar marketing machine tricked self-conscious people into using it.
"It was taking too long for us to evolve the game from a fantastic, fun, innovative environmental puzzle game to a boring, cookie cutter, simplistic 3D brawling game, so we're going to start from 'scratch' to make the transition all at once."
Heh... Written as if by a weapons-system engineer that doesn't realize his work is designed to kill people...
I'll just comment on one choice quote:
The cable companies like that better too because the thing that has to be installed on the client side is small and may not even require a cable employee to install.
The licensing agreements for CableCARD (which all cable companies are required to agree to essentially by FCC mandate) requires that a technician install the card. This is to prevent the card from being paired to an unauthorized device.
Your description of the technology is spot on, but your description of the motivations behind the technology are a little naive.
Many things you said are wrong. They're wrong because you bought into the bill of goods the cable companies sold you, even though you think you saw through it.
The history of the CableCard is long and confusing. Particularly because the cable companies don't want you to adopt it. Then they lose their cable box renting fee. 2truway is just the next step in the CableCard evolution.
This isn't entirely true. Cable companies still rent out the cable cards, so they don't lose the fee. The real reason they don't want you to adopt it is that they want you to be trapped in their "interactive TV" system, instead of seeing somebody else's screens.
Originally, CableCards only had one directional transmission capability. This prevented services such as on demand, pay per view, and guide data. At least, that's what the cable companies wanted you to think. In actuality, the hardware (developed by independent companies) for the cards supported 2-way transmissions. The hardware complied with the CableCard 2.0 specification but the software for each card did not.
This also misses the big point that most people miss when it comes to CableCARD 2.0. Specifically that there is no reason for the card to support bi-directional communications for any of the services that the cable companies claim it will be used for. Switched digital video, video on demand, pay-per-view, etc... Those can all be supported with any device at all doing the transmitting. Since the CableCARD is supposedly a decryption device primarily, there's no reason that outgoing communications need to pass through the card. This is especially true since in a CableCARD 2.0 bi-directional device, the DOCSIS hardware is in the CableCARD compliant device, and not in the card itself. The only reasons to have a bi-directional CableCARD are so the cable company can choose what data to send back (things a third party box might not choose to send, like what channels you're watching, etc..), and to lock you into their screens. A bi-directional CableCARD is essentially a PCMCIA form-factor cable box.
Frankly, my only concern is that I'm allowed to use my open source MythTV box with a CableCard in order to record shows off encrypted QAM channels like Discovery HD. Currently, I cannot do this due to the ridiculous certified media center PC and Vista requirement. If anyone knows a way around this, please tell me. The analog cutoff is looming and I don't want to lose my recording ability.
This will never happen. The cable industry has tricked the FCC into a back-door in the integration ban. You will have a cable box, but it will be tiny, and unlike old-style cable boxes they can now also dictate what you can attach it to. This is why this new spec is suddenly getting more support. They are claiming more control over their customer's use of their signal, while claiming openness.
Massachusetts (where TJX is located) has a generous unemployment benefit, which continues to pay you even you move out of state to find another job. Additionally, the job market in the area for good IT workers is strong. He should have no trouble finding better employment if he's good at his job.
There is only a problem here if TJX isn't punished for mis-appropriating the trust of their customers, and for attempting to cover-up their misdeeds.
I think your "walking around naked" example is more nuanced than that. For example, I think few people would argue that you don't have the right to walk around naked, and most societies merely limit where you can walk around naked. Similarly, the right to live doesn't necessarily imply that you have the right to be alive and anywhere you want. There is an appropriate time and place for you to exercise your rights, and those limits don't make them any less of a right.
I basically took an end-run around your question, but I didn't really buy into the premise of it. My argument wasn't necessarily based on "action" vs "inaction", but more on the imposition of actions onto others. In other words, it isn't a right if it impedes the rights of others. Again, that doesn't answer your question, since it's a rule to use to determine if something is *not* a right, but answering your question is significantly more difficult, and I don't think it is necessary in the context of this discussion.
How can you not see a massive difference between the right to live without somebody unjustly taking your life away from you (requires only inaction by others), and a theoretical right to health care (which requires active input and effort from others to support you)?
That is WHY they are different. One is an individual thing, and the other puts a burden on other individuals. If anything, I'd say that people have the right to let you rot if they don't feel like providing you with health care, rather than the other way around. What right do you have to force others to provide for you?
That's an easy question. Everybody benefits from genetic testing. The individual benefits because they can possibly have diseases detected sooner, thus increasing the likelihood of being cured. The system in general benefits, because it becomes easier to focus testing efforts on the people who need it, etc...
I'm not sure how genetic testing improves your marketability in the workplace. Unless you're on death's door, the types of diseases you can do genetic tests for aren't diseases that employers really care about. Almost nobody is going to say "Well, you're probably going to get cancer, so we're not going to hire you". No intelligent employer thinks like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Sprint does, however, have the cheapest wireless data plans in the US. I guess we can kiss those goodbye soon.
I guess I can hope the FCC says "no" to this deal...
And transfer it to your PSP and play it there too for no additional charge.
Most of the injuries they talk about are caused primarily by a lack of exercise. It's not just that they're typing, or using mobile devices too much... It's that they're doing those things without exercising the parts of their bodies that are idle while they work.
Of course, people would rather blame somebody other than themselves for their injuries, and companies like Microsoft would rather sell you software or hardware to solve the problem...
Your question has an easy answer.
Most people (not just Americans) care more about local issues than foreign policy. Nine times out of ten they'll pick the guy who is going to take less money out of their pocket over the one who wants to raise taxes, regardless of which country might get bombed.
Yeah, that's the definition I thought he was using.
I'd phrase it differently though. I'd call it "My mommy bought me a 360".
As we've seen over the years, single-use DVDs are a product with zero demand. So why make them?
I'm sure that they pay a much lower royalty for the content when it is distributed on single-use discs. Now, put them in an impulse-buy area of a retail store at a price only slightly lower than people expect to pay for regular discount DVDs... The market for the product becomes people who don't realize that they are single use at the time of purchase. The only possible point of this product is to profit off the suckers.
The best part about GTA4 cover is the "One shot then back in cover" mechanic. It's much more realistic than popping up and shooting multiple times.
.... He made a long-term decision instead of thinking about short-term profits. He's being sued for looking beyond the next few quarters.
If you think Yahoo can't turn it around, then yeah. He fucked up big-time. But if you think (as I'm sure he does) that Yahoo can be an innovative company that can step in to fill the gap as Microsoft declines, then he did the right thing. Hardly matters either way though. (Some profit now > Lots of profit over time) in the eyes of wall street.
So you saw the large fan-base and chose to ignore them?
Also, I hate to spoil your flaming, but it seems highly likely that the PS3 will be the best-selling high-def console of the current generation. It'll also likely be the only profitable high-def console this generation. What definition of "fail" are you using, exactly?
Where have you been for the last decade?
When you decided that 45 cm is the difference between toppling sooner, rather than later, you assumed (or ignored) a variable.
The 45cm that the moved the tower is probably almost completely unrelated to how long the tower will stand. What they likely altered was the rate at which the tower was moving.
The only one I know of for linux that is full-featured is Media Tomb, but it is non-trivial to configure transcoding.
The fast-forwarding and rewinding are a function of the DLNA server. The PS3 happily supports both of those features if the server supports them.
More codecs were added in the December 18th firmware. It supports:
MPEG-1
MPEG-2 (PS,TS)
H.264/MEPG-4 AVC
MPEG-4 SP
DiVX/XViD
Additionally, DLNA servers can transcode, and container-shift. So if you happen to have 90% of your "stuff" in a codec other than one of those (that are used by 90%+ of the video out there), you can still play them.
It sounds like you should get yourself a good DLNA server, and then try your PS3 again.
Sounds like somebody has never heard of DLNA, and has never used a PS3.
Why not play from an SMB share? Easy. Every SMB player out there uses a different method of storing meta-data, or disregards meta-data entirely.
It's the same thing that happened with laserdisc after it was discontinued. No new content is being made, and old content is getting scarce. People with those players are willing to pay a premium to get the content before it's no longer available.
A secondary factor is that distributors are giving volume discounts to resellers for BluRay, but HD-DVD isn't selling enough anymore to qualify.
His GM solution is also why you have roundup, so quit bitching and get a shovel. (Or use a more traditional herbicide, or wait until Monsanto re-formulates it again, again.)
As an aside, am I the only person who gets annoyed by the mis-appropriation of the word "organic" by the natural food industry? It's ridiculous that chemists have to start referring to their carbon-based molecules as "synthetic organic" just because a bunch of clueless hippies didn't know what they were talking about and a multi-million dollar marketing machine tricked self-conscious people into using it.
The way I read this was:
"It was taking too long for us to evolve the game from a fantastic, fun, innovative environmental puzzle game to a boring, cookie cutter, simplistic 3D brawling game, so we're going to start from 'scratch' to make the transition all at once."
In this case, he's a hacker using the Slashdot/ESR definition, instead of the typical everyday definition. People around here should be excited.
I'll just comment on one choice quote:
The licensing agreements for CableCARD (which all cable companies are required to agree to essentially by FCC mandate) requires that a technician install the card. This is to prevent the card from being paired to an unauthorized device.
Your description of the technology is spot on, but your description of the motivations behind the technology are a little naive.
This isn't entirely true. Cable companies still rent out the cable cards, so they don't lose the fee. The real reason they don't want you to adopt it is that they want you to be trapped in their "interactive TV" system, instead of seeing somebody else's screens.
This also misses the big point that most people miss when it comes to CableCARD 2.0. Specifically that there is no reason for the card to support bi-directional communications for any of the services that the cable companies claim it will be used for. Switched digital video, video on demand, pay-per-view, etc... Those can all be supported with any device at all doing the transmitting. Since the CableCARD is supposedly a decryption device primarily, there's no reason that outgoing communications need to pass through the card. This is especially true since in a CableCARD 2.0 bi-directional device, the DOCSIS hardware is in the CableCARD compliant device, and not in the card itself. The only reasons to have a bi-directional CableCARD are so the cable company can choose what data to send back (things a third party box might not choose to send, like what channels you're watching, etc..), and to lock you into their screens. A bi-directional CableCARD is essentially a PCMCIA form-factor cable box.
This will never happen. The cable industry has tricked the FCC into a back-door in the integration ban. You will have a cable box, but it will be tiny, and unlike old-style cable boxes they can now also dictate what you can attach it to. This is why this new spec is suddenly getting more support. They are claiming more control over their customer's use of their signal, while claiming openness.
Wait... He was an hourly associate in one of their retail outlets?
McDonalds is always hiring. It'll be a step up for him.
Massachusetts (where TJX is located) has a generous unemployment benefit, which continues to pay you even you move out of state to find another job. Additionally, the job market in the area for good IT workers is strong. He should have no trouble finding better employment if he's good at his job.
There is only a problem here if TJX isn't punished for mis-appropriating the trust of their customers, and for attempting to cover-up their misdeeds.
I think your "walking around naked" example is more nuanced than that. For example, I think few people would argue that you don't have the right to walk around naked, and most societies merely limit where you can walk around naked. Similarly, the right to live doesn't necessarily imply that you have the right to be alive and anywhere you want. There is an appropriate time and place for you to exercise your rights, and those limits don't make them any less of a right.
I basically took an end-run around your question, but I didn't really buy into the premise of it. My argument wasn't necessarily based on "action" vs "inaction", but more on the imposition of actions onto others. In other words, it isn't a right if it impedes the rights of others. Again, that doesn't answer your question, since it's a rule to use to determine if something is *not* a right, but answering your question is significantly more difficult, and I don't think it is necessary in the context of this discussion.
How can you not see a massive difference between the right to live without somebody unjustly taking your life away from you (requires only inaction by others), and a theoretical right to health care (which requires active input and effort from others to support you)?
That is WHY they are different. One is an individual thing, and the other puts a burden on other individuals. If anything, I'd say that people have the right to let you rot if they don't feel like providing you with health care, rather than the other way around. What right do you have to force others to provide for you?
That's an easy question. Everybody benefits from genetic testing. The individual benefits because they can possibly have diseases detected sooner, thus increasing the likelihood of being cured. The system in general benefits, because it becomes easier to focus testing efforts on the people who need it, etc...
I'm not sure how genetic testing improves your marketability in the workplace. Unless you're on death's door, the types of diseases you can do genetic tests for aren't diseases that employers really care about. Almost nobody is going to say "Well, you're probably going to get cancer, so we're not going to hire you". No intelligent employer thinks like that.