we should be recording the most appropriate application in the same metadata. This is how the Mac (used to) do it.
Oh yes, and that worked out so well when I received a file from somebody else but was unable to open it because it had some type that none of my programs recognized. Never mind the fact that I knew exactly what it was and I did have the program to open it. Thus requiring use of ResEdit or similar third party programs to actually change the 4 character file type into something I could use. God, I miss those days.
I reckon this is were we diverge - for me buying stuff is a method of aquiring the stuff that you need or gives you pleasure. Just buying stuff because you want it is a great way of spending your money in tons of wortless underused stuff and only a couple of really fun things. Personally, i'd rather invest the little time and brainpower required to discern the chaff from the rest and so that i only buy the fun stuff.
Are you suggesting that you want things you don't need *AND* which don't give you pleasure? Why in the hell would you want useless stuff that makes you unhappy?
Sorry, but I'm a bit more rational than all that. If I don't need it and I don't think it's fun, then I probably don't want it.:P
- Think before you buy stuff and you'll end up with a lot more stuff you really derive pleasure from instead of a ton of expensive stuff you never use (and a lot less fun stuff).
Where did you get the impression I just buy stuff on a whim? In point of fact, I buy very little "stuff", as I already have most everything I want and need. I know *very* few people who do nothing but impulse shopping.
- Work isn't everything. If you're spending so much time at work that you don't have the time to do other things you like (like playing with all the neat toys you bought) then your priorities are badly skewed: what's the point of working long hours to buy stuff you rarelly have the time to use?
Why not get a job where you can use those toys you bought instead? Or maybe, just maybe, do work that you *enjoy* doing, eh? I know, it's a crazy suggestion, but my opinion is that if you don't like your job, you should quit and find one you do like. Radical thinking, I know.
BTW: Use some common sense when buying or not white branded stuff - products in well developed, very mature product areas differ very little in quality, often there's no difference at all between branded and generics: thanks to outsourcing, they end up comming from the same factories More expensive is not necessarilly best, it's just more expensive. Ask yourself: is this product worth the extra money or am i paying extra just for a label?
True, however the "generic" version is usually exactly the same only in the case of very generic products. Commodoties (sugar/milk/basic foodstuffs), for example. Or drugs, sometimes. But don't tell me that you can't taste a difference between the brand name cereal and the white label stuff. Not everything is available in a generic at the same level of quality, and it's important to determine what is acceptable to you and what is unacceptable.
There are generics for virtually every product out there, but they are not always equal.
I see it as being a discerning consumer, not a sheep - u seem to see it as use substandard products and live joyless lives.
No. What I see is somebody who calls anybody who purchases brand name materials or buys anything above and beyond their basic needs is a "sheep".
What I am telling you is that I am not a sheep. The cases where I purchase brand name products because I have come to the conclusion that they are better than the competing generics. The cases where I buy beyond my needs are to fulfill my own desires. And I enjoy my work, therefore it is not a chore.
It is possible for somebody to be a discerning consumer and still disagree with you.
Is that brand new 35 inch plasma TV really worth working 60h/weeks? Of course not. It would take at least a 72 inch to be worth that.
Does buying a first generation Blu-Ray burner really compensates for commuting 2h/day every day? Actually, I walk to work as it's across the street. If I had a 2 hour commute, then I'd probably have to start actually killing people on my way to work.
Does getting a SUV instead of cheaper car really compensates for not going on vacations for 3 months to a paradisian island? 3 months of anything wears pretty thin, really. I've done it. After a couple weeks, you kinda want to go inland a bit. You can pull off the beach thing only for about a month before you need something else.
Oh, and BTW, railing on SUV owners is very passe nowadays, man. It just shows that you're one of the new enviromentohippies of this day and age, and that you really don't have to be taken seriously. Anybody who is unable to recognize that SUVs have their uses and place in society is generally not somebody worth listening to.
Buying stuff is a means to and end. Working is a means to an end. No.
Buying stuff is a method of acquiring the stuff you want. Working is a means of actually getting shit done.
In my experience most people could work 2/3 or even 1/2 as many hours as they do now and still have the same level of living that that have now...... if they didn't waste so much money in things that aren't really that much enjoyment-giving or in paying for the name of the product instead of the product itself. In many countries that would be 30 or even 20h/week.
Well, hey, I don't know about you, but I get great amounts of enjoyment out of my big screen TV, or my techno-nerd toys, or my quality vehicle (not an SUV, admittedly). I like to use products that work, which isn't always the case with generics (although some do indeed work well). I like to dress in nice clothes. I like to have nice vacations on the beach. What's more, I like my job. I get enjoyment out of doing what I do.
So, from my perspective, you're basically suggesting that we all use substandard products and live joyless lives in order to actually work less.
So you'll have to forgive me, but I just don't think your argument holds a lot of water.
It is the use of public frequency to access a PRIVATE resource with a TOS attached to it.
If you don't acually notify people of your TOS, then you have no legitimate complaint when people don't obey that TOS.
If someone set up a hotspot with requirements, but doesn't know how to lock it down - it is ACCESABLE, but not because of any persons RIGHT to it.
You're correct there. Nobody has the right to use somebody's freely given internet access. But you also don't have the right to have them arrested for using that free internet access.
Here's the thing. You put internet access up for free and you do so in a way that it leaves your own property. Now somebody uses that access, and then you come along and complain that they didn't ask you. Well, you put it up there. You've taken positive action to make that access available to anybody, and in no way attempted to notify people that it had terms attached to it. Therefore you have no reasonable expectation for people to obey your terms.
The ignorance or inability of someone to protect their interests is not an invitation to take those interests from them, or use them for your own purposes without permission.
There is a real difference between being unable to secure your shit and being unwilling to do so but still expecting other people to follow your own arbitrary rules.
Yes, this guy was a prick for coming back after they told him not to do so, and deserved what he got because of that. But if I am driving by a place that has free wifi, and I use it as I drive by without going in and, say, buying coffee from them, then have I done something wrong? Their system was explicitly made to allow me to use that access, and I've done so. If they want terms attached to it, then they should at least *try* to prevent me from doing so without adhering to their terms.
If I leave my car unlocked, then it's not okay for people to steal my stuff, but at the same time, they are *broadcasting* outside their own property. If I leave stuff lying on the street and somebody else takes it, that's not against the law. It's actually expected in some places.
They are using a public resource (spectrum). By using that resource, they're intruding into my and everybody else's property as well. It's a shared resource. Now, I have no objection to them doing so, but at the same time, I do expect them to take affirmative action to protect themselves from people also using that resource.
Are we really so ignorant, or so self appointedly superior to everyone else because of our technical know how, that we really feel justified in this behavior.
Don't equate me or anybody else saying that they should secure their property to pricks like the guy in TFA. I think the guy was an ass too, and deserved to be arrested. But there are larger issues as well, and yes, I do say that people who use a public resource to make services available should expect that other people will use those services in the way that's most convienent to them, and not according to some unwritten and probably imaginary "terms of service".
It's not about "fuck you, you can't stop me", it's about "you should have damn well known better, or paid somebody else to know better and thus do it right". I have no respect for people half-assing it with things that they do not fundamentally understand.
Because it's not given away freely. Its a service provided by the Coffee shop to its paying customers. Complementary only applies to patrons.
IANAL, but you cannot set terms on the use of public spectrum. And if you're sticking your internet use on public spectrum for free, then you cannot set terms on who uses that free internet access.
I agree that after they told him to leave the property, then they had a case for trespass when he came back onto it, but I also argue that they don't have the right to restrict him from transmitting and receiving their signals.
The fact of the matter is that they are broadcasting and receiving on publically accessible frequencies. If they want to add access control to their systems, then they are free to do that all they like, but they are not free to attempt to prevent others from using that part of the spectrum as well just because they happen to be using it.
If he had sat off of their property and used their network access, then they would have had absolutely no legal ground to stand on. They are using public frequencies, and any other member of the public has exactly the same right to use those frequencies that they do.
It's one thing to use your arguments about people stealing signals meant to be private, but hey, this is in a coffee shop. It's there specifically so people can use it. It's an incentive for people to come to that coffee shop and buy coffee.
Now, if the TOS isn't posted anywhere and the signal makes its way off the property, and somebody uses it there knowing that the coffee shop specifically made it for people to use it... well... it's a bit harder to argue that the guy was "stealing".
How can you steal that which is given away freely?
In any case, they'll probably get him for trespassing or something, since he had been told to leave the property before and was back in their parking lot. But there's little chance of getting him for theft of services.
"Urbanized areas" is a pretty loose term. Do they mean urbanized like NYC? Or urbanized like Dallas, TX?
I used to live near Dallas/Fort Worth. You can drive 200 miles there and never leave an "urban" area, if you drive it East/West. Even North/South it's about 80 miles.
NYC's density is 26720 people per square mile. Chicago's is 12604/sq mi London's is ~12071/sq mi.
On the other hand... Dallas' is 3534/sq mi. Memphis' is 346.9/sq mi.
So you see, there's a bit of a difference there. Driving distance is indeed a factor for a large portion of the population. You really need a certain density to support this kind of thing on a local level.
Several stores have tried it in the past and failed. Kroger tried it in a few test markets. I was in Huntsville at the time they tried it there, but it only lasted about 6 months. They couldn't get enough people to use it to make it worth hiring more drivers, and they couldn't get the groceries to all the people in enough time to make more people want to use it.
Yeah. Let's find out. I just ordered a book and 20 rolls of toilet paper. With free shipping, it says it'll be here in about 10 days. I hope my current stock hold out that long. For that matter, I hope the TP arrives before the book, or I may be forced into drastic measures.
On a more serious note, UPS just recently announced another billion dollar addition to their Louisville facility. I wonder if these facts are loosely related...
Their portfolio is already huge. Electronics, clothing, you name it, they probably sell it.
A lot of what Amazon does nowadays is to act as a broker between the people who want product and the people who have product. All their newer stuff doesn't really involve having large quantities of items on hand, as such.
They have warehouses and they do keep them stocked, but for the most part they've gone over to "just in time" shipping, where the stuff in the warehouse is only there a short time. Predict your future sales and you'll be able to get the stuff in just before you have to ship it out again. It becomes not so much a warehouse as a place to receive goods, package them, and then send trucks of packages over to UPS/Fedex and such.
In one room there is a crystal ball with a fortune tellers head projected on the inside somehow. As you ride all the way around it the face somehow matches every angle even as a dozen people are looking at different spots. I always figured it was some kind of multiple projectors, but how they got the overlapping and made it so smooth I never could guess.
For fixed objects, all you really have to do is to make it reversed and light it correctly. For animated ones, they use projectors onto a background that is the inside of the sphere. You see through the front, but it's actually projected on the back. This depth reversal is what gives you the "follows you around" look.
So if a mod team wants to make their own map you either need to reuse one of these behemoth textures or find an artist that can wrap their head around the technology and create one themselves.
Nah, you just need good tools. Use the game itself as a tool and let people run around the level spraying the texture with spray paint cans (or the digital equivalent). Then spit the MegaTexture out after they're done.
Wrong. A faraday cage _has_ to be a completely closed structure. Even a tiny gap is enough for it to not totally exclude radiation.
You are correct that he was wrong, in that it's not "absolutely impossible" for the radio signals to make it around the tin roof. For it to be "impossible", then yes, the cage would have to be fully enclosed.
However, partial enclosure is effective at reducing signals as well. The point of a Faraday cage is that radio signals of certain frequencies cannot travel through the mesh. Fully enclose the space, and the signals can't get in (or out). But even when the thing is partially enclosed, those signals *still* cannot travel through the mesh. They have to go around to where the mesh isn't there.
I was on vacation once and the place I was staying had this big boathouse/dock thing on the water. Screened in porch on all 4 sides, and a tin roof. The floor was just wood, however, so it was not fully enclosed, but cell phones were useless inside the structure and XM radio got no signal unless you put the antenna outside the screen. FM Radio, however, came through reasonably well, and got noticably better signal when you set the radio on the floor.
Not to be a troll, just Devils Advocate. What do you think would happen if Cox "blocked" Google. Do you think the vast majority of Cox users would care enough to switch?
Think of it the other way. What if Cox lowered Google's bandwidth, making them much slower than Cox's own offering to Cox's users, and asked Google for money for the priority. In response, Google flat out cuts off all of Cox's network from any response by their systems.
Now, if they did it to just Google? No, many would not switch. Some would, but most would find alternatives. However, if Cox did this to just Google, then Google probably would respond by suing them for something. Probably wouldn't be hard.
But let's say Cox tried to do it to all the major websites. Amazon, eBay, Google, just everybody you can think off whom lots of their customers would use. They could probably do this by claiming to boost traffic to their own services, and could charge for "increased priority" for other people's traffic. Same thing, but in a different form. Probably they could get away with it legally too.
Now say that all of those providers, or even just a lot of them, cut off Cox's network. How many of Cox's customers would switch now? Internet with no Google, Amazon, or eBay? Lots of their home users wouldn't see the point of having high speed internet access anymore at all.
It would be a suicidal move by Cox, and the important thing here is for the major providers to all realize that and to be willing to cut off whole ISPs if they start demanding payments for improved service. It'll be cheaper for them in the long run.
Do you think they have the ability to switch ? Many of them no, but a larger and larger number of them are getting that ability. Also remember than some of these providers are national, not regional. They'd lose a lot of customers in a lot of markets. Big city markets mostly, where people can switch and where they're paying more for broadband than those people out in the country are paying. A majority of people can't switch, but the majority of *dollars* probably can.
Yes, I'm middle-aged & I tend to listen mainly to classic rock albums with a little blues & soul thrown in. Most of the stuff I listen to, I can get fairly cheaply either second-hand or on eBay/Amazon marketplace - generally, I'll pick up a brand new CD for around £6 ($10). For that money, I get a nice uncompressed shiny CD with some liner notes and a hard case that I can rip at whatever bit rates I want to (I do listen to a lot of MP3-based music when I'm travelling or in the gym).
Okay, but a lot of people don't like physical media. That shiny CD you like, with it's hard care and liner notes and such, it's completely worthless to me. Liner notes? Direct to the trash can. Hard case? Ditto. CD? Ripped to the PC before I even listen to the thing. And after it's ripped, it'll be shoved into a large CD collection case and probably never see daylight ever again. Because its only value to me now is as an absolute last resort backup, in case my digitized collection happens to take a dive despite the daily second hard drive backup and the DVDR archives.
What I'm saying is that your preferred media has absolutely no value to me other than as a carrier of the information contained upon it. As such, I consider $10 to be way overpriced. I listen exclusively to compressed music, although I use better quality compression than your average person does, being a geek in the know and all.
Hell, I don't even *own* a CD player anymore. What would be the point?
I don't go near Virgin or HMV record stores in the UK because I simply cannot justify paying anything up to £17 ($28) for a new CD but the prices that I do get my CDs at seem to be as cheap as paying to download each track individually - plus I get something tangible in the process.
Obviously you're assuming that it's $10 an album, which is more or less true on iTunes. Although there are other places where the data can be bought much cheaper than that. But more to the point, you're getting this whole album. Assuming I've listened to the album enough to form an opinion on it, then I probably only want 1 or 2 songs off the album. $2 vs. $10? Pretty straightforward logic there. The other $8 of songs are not worth $8 to me. And the "something tangible" we've already covered above.
I know a lot of people don't want to buy "filler" tracks on CDs and prefer downloading the tracks they want but I still don't get it - I've a collection of about 800 CDs at home and I'd say at least half of those are recordings I consider as "classics" that I can happily listen to from start to finish as completely good albums.
Good for you. Myself, I'd be hard pressed to name more than 40 albums that I could listen to the whole way through without hearing something that sucks. But then again, I don't like most "classic rock with a little blues & soul thrown in" either. It's all about taste, and I was born too late to really share your tastes....I've more than enough great music in CD album format to last me a lifetime now & if the younger generation of today has difficulty finding modern albums that are themselves "classics" in their entirety, then doesn't the "pick and mix music tracks" attitude perhaps make more of a statement about the quality of modern music than music downloads as being "the modern way" of distributing music?
No doubt at all. Quite a lot of modern music sucks. What you're failing to see here is that quite a lot of older music sucks too. It's easy to look back on a 20-30 year period of musical history, pick the best albums and then say "look, I've got 800 albums here that don't suck", but you're really not taking into consideration the other 100 million albums made in that time period that did suck.
There are some gems out there, depending on your tastes. Finding them now is just as difficult or easy as finding them was back then. Singles tend to be more the style nowadays because finding individual songs that don't suck is a lot easier than finding whole albums. As true today as it was then; my parents have a fairly large collection of old 45's.
True, in those two particular cases, the stories were actually deleted. Why, i cannot say, but it is not unusual. I've seen stories deleted before. Usually it's because somebody is spamming links to their blog with all of their posts and such.
The URL is not unusual, BTW, digg auto-replaces many characters with underscores.
Yeah, and somebody pointed out the Digg Spy to me as well, which I had forgotten about. If you turn off all but the red icons, you'll see only the reports on stories. And stories get reported almost as fast as they get dugg.
If you mark somebody as a friend, you see the stories they submit.
If you have a group of people, all friends, and they routinely check out and digg stories submitted by their friends, then that explains the identical users.
The order being the same would be expected in such a case because that's simply the order in which they viewed their "friend's stories" page. They then each just digg all the stories on their list. Since most stories are not on the homepage (and have no diggs), the result is the result being talked about.
It's a pretty straightforward explanation, really. You just have to assume that this group of users is routinely checking their friend's submissions and automatically digging them (since they were submitted by their friend).
Slashdot Mirror
we should be recording the most appropriate application in the same metadata. This is how the Mac (used to) do it.
Oh yes, and that worked out so well when I received a file from somebody else but was unable to open it because it had some type that none of my programs recognized. Never mind the fact that I knew exactly what it was and I did have the program to open it. Thus requiring use of ResEdit or similar third party programs to actually change the 4 character file type into something I could use. God, I miss those days.
Oh wait, no I don't.
I reckon this is were we diverge - for me buying stuff is a method of aquiring the stuff that you need or gives you pleasure.
:P
Just buying stuff because you want it is a great way of spending your money in tons of wortless underused stuff and only a couple of really fun things.
Personally, i'd rather invest the little time and brainpower required to discern the chaff from the rest and so that i only buy the fun stuff.
Are you suggesting that you want things you don't need *AND* which don't give you pleasure? Why in the hell would you want useless stuff that makes you unhappy?
Sorry, but I'm a bit more rational than all that. If I don't need it and I don't think it's fun, then I probably don't want it.
- Think before you buy stuff and you'll end up with a lot more stuff you really derive pleasure from instead of a ton of expensive stuff you never use (and a lot less fun stuff).
Where did you get the impression I just buy stuff on a whim? In point of fact, I buy very little "stuff", as I already have most everything I want and need. I know *very* few people who do nothing but impulse shopping.
- Work isn't everything. If you're spending so much time at work that you don't have the time to do other things you like (like playing with all the neat toys you bought) then your priorities are badly skewed: what's the point of working long hours to buy stuff you rarelly have the time to use?
Why not get a job where you can use those toys you bought instead? Or maybe, just maybe, do work that you *enjoy* doing, eh? I know, it's a crazy suggestion, but my opinion is that if you don't like your job, you should quit and find one you do like. Radical thinking, I know.
BTW: Use some common sense when buying or not white branded stuff - products in well developed, very mature product areas differ very little in quality, often there's no difference at all between branded and generics: thanks to outsourcing, they end up comming from the same factories
More expensive is not necessarilly best, it's just more expensive. Ask yourself: is this product worth the extra money or am i paying extra just for a label?
True, however the "generic" version is usually exactly the same only in the case of very generic products. Commodoties (sugar/milk/basic foodstuffs), for example. Or drugs, sometimes. But don't tell me that you can't taste a difference between the brand name cereal and the white label stuff. Not everything is available in a generic at the same level of quality, and it's important to determine what is acceptable to you and what is unacceptable.
There are generics for virtually every product out there, but they are not always equal.
I see it as being a discerning consumer, not a sheep - u seem to see it as use substandard products and live joyless lives.
No. What I see is somebody who calls anybody who purchases brand name materials or buys anything above and beyond their basic needs is a "sheep".
What I am telling you is that I am not a sheep. The cases where I purchase brand name products because I have come to the conclusion that they are better than the competing generics. The cases where I buy beyond my needs are to fulfill my own desires. And I enjoy my work, therefore it is not a chore.
It is possible for somebody to be a discerning consumer and still disagree with you.
Yes, thus making it easy for crafty homeless people to undo those bolts, rig up a winch, and turn the space underneath into public toilets.
Or even homes, if you make the space big enough...
Is that brand new 35 inch plasma TV really worth working 60h/weeks?
...... if they didn't waste so much money in things that aren't really that much enjoyment-giving or in paying for the name of the product instead of the product itself.
Of course not. It would take at least a 72 inch to be worth that.
Does buying a first generation Blu-Ray burner really compensates for commuting 2h/day every day?
Actually, I walk to work as it's across the street. If I had a 2 hour commute, then I'd probably have to start actually killing people on my way to work.
Does getting a SUV instead of cheaper car really compensates for not going on vacations for 3 months to a paradisian island?
3 months of anything wears pretty thin, really. I've done it. After a couple weeks, you kinda want to go inland a bit. You can pull off the beach thing only for about a month before you need something else.
Oh, and BTW, railing on SUV owners is very passe nowadays, man. It just shows that you're one of the new enviromentohippies of this day and age, and that you really don't have to be taken seriously. Anybody who is unable to recognize that SUVs have their uses and place in society is generally not somebody worth listening to.
Buying stuff is a means to and end.
Working is a means to an end.
No.
Buying stuff is a method of acquiring the stuff you want.
Working is a means of actually getting shit done.
In my experience most people could work 2/3 or even 1/2 as many hours as they do now and still have the same level of living that that have now
In many countries that would be 30 or even 20h/week.
Well, hey, I don't know about you, but I get great amounts of enjoyment out of my big screen TV, or my techno-nerd toys, or my quality vehicle (not an SUV, admittedly). I like to use products that work, which isn't always the case with generics (although some do indeed work well). I like to dress in nice clothes. I like to have nice vacations on the beach. What's more, I like my job. I get enjoyment out of doing what I do.
So, from my perspective, you're basically suggesting that we all use substandard products and live joyless lives in order to actually work less.
So you'll have to forgive me, but I just don't think your argument holds a lot of water.
It is the use of public frequency to access a PRIVATE resource with a TOS attached to it.
If you don't acually notify people of your TOS, then you have no legitimate complaint when people don't obey that TOS.
If someone set up a hotspot with requirements, but doesn't know how to lock it down - it is ACCESABLE, but not because of any persons RIGHT to it.
You're correct there. Nobody has the right to use somebody's freely given internet access. But you also don't have the right to have them arrested for using that free internet access.
Here's the thing. You put internet access up for free and you do so in a way that it leaves your own property. Now somebody uses that access, and then you come along and complain that they didn't ask you. Well, you put it up there. You've taken positive action to make that access available to anybody, and in no way attempted to notify people that it had terms attached to it. Therefore you have no reasonable expectation for people to obey your terms.
The ignorance or inability of someone to protect their interests is not an invitation to take those interests from them, or use them for your own purposes without permission.
There is a real difference between being unable to secure your shit and being unwilling to do so but still expecting other people to follow your own arbitrary rules.
Yes, this guy was a prick for coming back after they told him not to do so, and deserved what he got because of that. But if I am driving by a place that has free wifi, and I use it as I drive by without going in and, say, buying coffee from them, then have I done something wrong? Their system was explicitly made to allow me to use that access, and I've done so. If they want terms attached to it, then they should at least *try* to prevent me from doing so without adhering to their terms.
If I leave my car unlocked, then it's not okay for people to steal my stuff, but at the same time, they are *broadcasting* outside their own property. If I leave stuff lying on the street and somebody else takes it, that's not against the law. It's actually expected in some places.
They are using a public resource (spectrum). By using that resource, they're intruding into my and everybody else's property as well. It's a shared resource. Now, I have no objection to them doing so, but at the same time, I do expect them to take affirmative action to protect themselves from people also using that resource.
Are we really so ignorant, or so self appointedly superior to everyone else because of our technical know how, that we really feel justified in this behavior.
Don't equate me or anybody else saying that they should secure their property to pricks like the guy in TFA. I think the guy was an ass too, and deserved to be arrested. But there are larger issues as well, and yes, I do say that people who use a public resource to make services available should expect that other people will use those services in the way that's most convienent to them, and not according to some unwritten and probably imaginary "terms of service".
It's not about "fuck you, you can't stop me", it's about "you should have damn well known better, or paid somebody else to know better and thus do it right". I have no respect for people half-assing it with things that they do not fundamentally understand.
Because it's not given away freely. Its a service provided by the Coffee shop to its paying customers. Complementary only applies to patrons.
IANAL, but you cannot set terms on the use of public spectrum. And if you're sticking your internet use on public spectrum for free, then you cannot set terms on who uses that free internet access.
I agree that after they told him to leave the property, then they had a case for trespass when he came back onto it, but I also argue that they don't have the right to restrict him from transmitting and receiving their signals.
The fact of the matter is that they are broadcasting and receiving on publically accessible frequencies. If they want to add access control to their systems, then they are free to do that all they like, but they are not free to attempt to prevent others from using that part of the spectrum as well just because they happen to be using it.
If he had sat off of their property and used their network access, then they would have had absolutely no legal ground to stand on. They are using public frequencies, and any other member of the public has exactly the same right to use those frequencies that they do.
It's one thing to use your arguments about people stealing signals meant to be private, but hey, this is in a coffee shop. It's there specifically so people can use it. It's an incentive for people to come to that coffee shop and buy coffee.
Now, if the TOS isn't posted anywhere and the signal makes its way off the property, and somebody uses it there knowing that the coffee shop specifically made it for people to use it... well... it's a bit harder to argue that the guy was "stealing".
How can you steal that which is given away freely?
In any case, they'll probably get him for trespassing or something, since he had been told to leave the property before and was back in their parking lot. But there's little chance of getting him for theft of services.
"Urbanized areas" is a pretty loose term. Do they mean urbanized like NYC? Or urbanized like Dallas, TX?
I used to live near Dallas/Fort Worth. You can drive 200 miles there and never leave an "urban" area, if you drive it East/West. Even North/South it's about 80 miles.
NYC's density is 26720 people per square mile.
Chicago's is 12604/sq mi
London's is ~12071/sq mi.
On the other hand...
Dallas' is 3534/sq mi.
Memphis' is 346.9/sq mi.
So you see, there's a bit of a difference there. Driving distance is indeed a factor for a large portion of the population. You really need a certain density to support this kind of thing on a local level.
Several stores have tried it in the past and failed. Kroger tried it in a few test markets. I was in Huntsville at the time they tried it there, but it only lasted about 6 months. They couldn't get enough people to use it to make it worth hiring more drivers, and they couldn't get the groceries to all the people in enough time to make more people want to use it.
Yeah. Let's find out. I just ordered a book and 20 rolls of toilet paper. With free shipping, it says it'll be here in about 10 days. I hope my current stock hold out that long. For that matter, I hope the TP arrives before the book, or I may be forced into drastic measures.
On a more serious note, UPS just recently announced another billion dollar addition to their Louisville facility. I wonder if these facts are loosely related...
Their portfolio is already huge. Electronics, clothing, you name it, they probably sell it.
A lot of what Amazon does nowadays is to act as a broker between the people who want product and the people who have product. All their newer stuff doesn't really involve having large quantities of items on hand, as such.
They have warehouses and they do keep them stocked, but for the most part they've gone over to "just in time" shipping, where the stuff in the warehouse is only there a short time. Predict your future sales and you'll be able to get the stuff in just before you have to ship it out again. It becomes not so much a warehouse as a place to receive goods, package them, and then send trucks of packages over to UPS/Fedex and such.
In one room there is a crystal ball with a fortune tellers head projected on the inside somehow. As you ride all the way around it the face somehow matches every angle even as a dozen people are looking at different spots. I always figured it was some kind of multiple projectors, but how they got the overlapping and made it so smooth I never could guess.
o llow_face_illusion/
The illusion has to do with reversing of the depth of field. There's several good illusions like this, this Einstein one is truly awesome: http://www.grand-illusions.com/toyshop/einstein_h
For fixed objects, all you really have to do is to make it reversed and light it correctly. For animated ones, they use projectors onto a background that is the inside of the sphere. You see through the front, but it's actually projected on the back. This depth reversal is what gives you the "follows you around" look.
Gotta hang the thing from something anyway, run them in the top.
I don't think it could easily be done without shadows from the internal structure though.
"I'm not gonna lie to you, that's a healthy piece of real estate!"
I can assure you, the use of force to combat civil conversion of property is a crime anywhere in the united states, no matter what you have posted.
Clearly you've never been to Texas.
So if a mod team wants to make their own map you either need to reuse one of these behemoth textures or find an artist that can wrap their head around the technology and create one themselves.
Nah, you just need good tools. Use the game itself as a tool and let people run around the level spraying the texture with spray paint cans (or the digital equivalent). Then spit the MegaTexture out after they're done.
Wrong. A faraday cage _has_ to be a completely closed structure. Even a tiny gap is enough for it to not totally exclude radiation.
You are correct that he was wrong, in that it's not "absolutely impossible" for the radio signals to make it around the tin roof. For it to be "impossible", then yes, the cage would have to be fully enclosed.
However, partial enclosure is effective at reducing signals as well. The point of a Faraday cage is that radio signals of certain frequencies cannot travel through the mesh. Fully enclose the space, and the signals can't get in (or out). But even when the thing is partially enclosed, those signals *still* cannot travel through the mesh. They have to go around to where the mesh isn't there.
I was on vacation once and the place I was staying had this big boathouse/dock thing on the water. Screened in porch on all 4 sides, and a tin roof. The floor was just wood, however, so it was not fully enclosed, but cell phones were useless inside the structure and XM radio got no signal unless you put the antenna outside the screen. FM Radio, however, came through reasonably well, and got noticably better signal when you set the radio on the floor.
If you can do that and still be able to close the door, then yeah, that would be an incredibly bad idea.
Though it would make for a unusual and rather disturbing video.
Not to be a troll, just Devils Advocate. What do you think would happen if Cox "blocked" Google. Do you think the vast majority of Cox users would care enough to switch?
Think of it the other way. What if Cox lowered Google's bandwidth, making them much slower than Cox's own offering to Cox's users, and asked Google for money for the priority. In response, Google flat out cuts off all of Cox's network from any response by their systems.
Now, if they did it to just Google? No, many would not switch. Some would, but most would find alternatives. However, if Cox did this to just Google, then Google probably would respond by suing them for something. Probably wouldn't be hard.
But let's say Cox tried to do it to all the major websites. Amazon, eBay, Google, just everybody you can think off whom lots of their customers would use. They could probably do this by claiming to boost traffic to their own services, and could charge for "increased priority" for other people's traffic. Same thing, but in a different form. Probably they could get away with it legally too.
Now say that all of those providers, or even just a lot of them, cut off Cox's network. How many of Cox's customers would switch now? Internet with no Google, Amazon, or eBay? Lots of their home users wouldn't see the point of having high speed internet access anymore at all.
It would be a suicidal move by Cox, and the important thing here is for the major providers to all realize that and to be willing to cut off whole ISPs if they start demanding payments for improved service. It'll be cheaper for them in the long run.
Do you think they have the ability to switch ?
Many of them no, but a larger and larger number of them are getting that ability. Also remember than some of these providers are national, not regional. They'd lose a lot of customers in a lot of markets. Big city markets mostly, where people can switch and where they're paying more for broadband than those people out in the country are paying. A majority of people can't switch, but the majority of *dollars* probably can.
It's not solid iron. The Mole People couldn't live in solid iron. It's gaseous iron, at best.
Yes, I'm middle-aged & I tend to listen mainly to classic rock albums with a little blues & soul thrown in. Most of the stuff I listen to, I can get fairly cheaply either second-hand or on eBay/Amazon marketplace - generally, I'll pick up a brand new CD for around £6 ($10). For that money, I get a nice uncompressed shiny CD with some liner notes and a hard case that I can rip at whatever bit rates I want to (I do listen to a lot of MP3-based music when I'm travelling or in the gym).
...I've more than enough great music in CD album format to last me a lifetime now & if the younger generation of today has difficulty finding modern albums that are themselves "classics" in their entirety, then doesn't the "pick and mix music tracks" attitude perhaps make more of a statement about the quality of modern music than music downloads as being "the modern way" of distributing music?
Okay, but a lot of people don't like physical media. That shiny CD you like, with it's hard care and liner notes and such, it's completely worthless to me. Liner notes? Direct to the trash can. Hard case? Ditto. CD? Ripped to the PC before I even listen to the thing. And after it's ripped, it'll be shoved into a large CD collection case and probably never see daylight ever again. Because its only value to me now is as an absolute last resort backup, in case my digitized collection happens to take a dive despite the daily second hard drive backup and the DVDR archives.
What I'm saying is that your preferred media has absolutely no value to me other than as a carrier of the information contained upon it. As such, I consider $10 to be way overpriced. I listen exclusively to compressed music, although I use better quality compression than your average person does, being a geek in the know and all.
Hell, I don't even *own* a CD player anymore. What would be the point?
I don't go near Virgin or HMV record stores in the UK because I simply cannot justify paying anything up to £17 ($28) for a new CD but the prices that I do get my CDs at seem to be as cheap as paying to download each track individually - plus I get something tangible in the process.
Obviously you're assuming that it's $10 an album, which is more or less true on iTunes. Although there are other places where the data can be bought much cheaper than that. But more to the point, you're getting this whole album. Assuming I've listened to the album enough to form an opinion on it, then I probably only want 1 or 2 songs off the album. $2 vs. $10? Pretty straightforward logic there. The other $8 of songs are not worth $8 to me. And the "something tangible" we've already covered above.
I know a lot of people don't want to buy "filler" tracks on CDs and prefer downloading the tracks they want but I still don't get it - I've a collection of about 800 CDs at home and I'd say at least half of those are recordings I consider as "classics" that I can happily listen to from start to finish as completely good albums.
Good for you. Myself, I'd be hard pressed to name more than 40 albums that I could listen to the whole way through without hearing something that sucks. But then again, I don't like most "classic rock with a little blues & soul thrown in" either. It's all about taste, and I was born too late to really share your tastes.
No doubt at all. Quite a lot of modern music sucks. What you're failing to see here is that quite a lot of older music sucks too. It's easy to look back on a 20-30 year period of musical history, pick the best albums and then say "look, I've got 800 albums here that don't suck", but you're really not taking into consideration the other 100 million albums made in that time period that did suck.
There are some gems out there, depending on your tastes. Finding them now is just as difficult or easy as finding them was back then. Singles tend to be more the style nowadays because finding individual songs that don't suck is a lot easier than finding whole albums. As true today as it was then; my parents have a fairly large collection of old 45's.
Yeah, and afterwards, you feel like you've wasted your life watching it.
True, in those two particular cases, the stories were actually deleted. Why, i cannot say, but it is not unusual. I've seen stories deleted before. Usually it's because somebody is spamming links to their blog with all of their posts and such.
The URL is not unusual, BTW, digg auto-replaces many characters with underscores.
Corporations are made up of people. Hence they are not amoral.
Yeah, and somebody pointed out the Digg Spy to me as well, which I had forgotten about. If you turn off all but the red icons, you'll see only the reports on stories. And stories get reported almost as fast as they get dugg.
If you mark somebody as a friend, you see the stories they submit.
If you have a group of people, all friends, and they routinely check out and digg stories submitted by their friends, then that explains the identical users.
The order being the same would be expected in such a case because that's simply the order in which they viewed their "friend's stories" page. They then each just digg all the stories on their list. Since most stories are not on the homepage (and have no diggs), the result is the result being talked about.
It's a pretty straightforward explanation, really. You just have to assume that this group of users is routinely checking their friend's submissions and automatically digging them (since they were submitted by their friend).