This isn't a TOTALLY bad idea... it's just not cutting everyone in on the action who needs to be benefitting, namely the account holder. Yahoo! would clean up in a heartbeat if they announce that they will divvy up the fee they collect so that the account holder gets a slice.
I'd take 500 Yahoo!mail spamaccounts if Yahoo cut me in for a penny on every spam that made it to my inbox. If they really want this to succeed, they need to come up with a Yahoo!SpamRewards(tm) program and allow JoeBlowEndUser2341 to cash in. Who needs a retirement plan?
That's what I was going to say, bug reports flooding in are a sign of a successful beta test. I wonder how many of them Microsoft will actually be fixing, though... that's kindof the whole point of it all.
I only read through the 8-bit NES controller before I gave up.
The Atari 2600 joysticks were actually damn good joysticks. There were plenty of knockoff and lookalike joysticks in the aftermarket that sucked, but the actual Atari-manufactured joysticks were of superb quality. They were durable and lasted through years and years of heavy use and abuse. The reviewer probably took some 30 year old worn out third-party sticks and tried them out for 10 minutes before determining that they were inferior.
The NES cross pad was hardly looked at as an improvement at the time. Gamers accepted it because it worked well enough, and it did grant a master very fine control over his game character, but it was less comfortable for long playing than holding a joystick. It was cheaper to manufacture, and due to the lesser stresses involved in the design (the joystick is a lever which magnifies the force applied to the sensors the longer the stick is) and it was smaller and lighter and could be manufactured more cheaply.
The article confuses "analog" and "digital", claiming that the Atari 2600 joystick was not "analog" "because it only had 8 directions". Analog has nothing to do with how many directions, and everything to do with whether you have discrete states or a continuum of potential states in the joystick's range. On a digital stick, you're either applying force in a direction or you're not. On an analog stick, the degree to which your stick is pushed toward the extreme end of the stick's range of motion determines just how "hard" or "fast" you're pushing in that direction.
Modern analog sticks are horrible compared to true joysticks of days gone by. Give me something I can wrap my entire hand around, not some wimpy little "hat" stick controller that I have to diddle with my thumb. The current generation consoles largely suck to play in their standard configuration because they don't give the user a flightstick type control, and the button layouts on flightstick type controls are not well laid out for most types of games outside of flight simulation.
Why is it that science journalism is always confirming what we already know and reinforcing common sense? Does science never reveal anything new, unknown, and counter-intuitive? According to journalism, apparently not.
My question is: Why? I think some investigation would reveal some juicy info on the true purpose of mainstream science journalism.
I expect this hunch to be proven within the next 24 months by a scientific story that gets covered by the AP or Reuters.
So a typical DVD pirate (the real kind, not the regular folks who just want to make backup copies) rips and burns copies of a DVD and then sells the copies. The pirate is obviously motivated by financial gain from this activity.
The MPAA rips and burns a DVD to prove how easy it is in order to light a fire under Congress to get them to rip Fair Use out of copyright law and make illegal technologies that would enable exercise of Fair Use rights, all in the name of protecting the MPAA's "limited time" (read: infinitely extending) monopoly as afforded to them by copyright law and international treaties, with the ultimate goal being to charge every pair of eyeballs for every single access of MPAA-cartel content.
How, then is the MPAA's illegal duplication of a DVD not motivated by financial gain?
If it costs $10,000/kg to lift something to LEO, then how are you going to make any money off of salvaging this stuff? How many substances can you name that are worth the $10,000/kg needed to offset the cost of lifting a salvage collector into orbit?
How is the collector supposed to do its thing up there without having a mishap that will cause even more orbiting debris?
You can't use magnets to collect everything, it's not all magnetic debris. You can't physically catch stuff, it's too tiny and matching velocities with every little speck in order to capture them is unfeasible. Even if we managed to put up a space elevator to bring down the cost-to-orbit of a salvage collector, you still have a problem of matching vectors with every little piece of debris you want to capture.
There might be solutions for this problem, but salvaging it is not going to be economically feasible. Not unless you can convince a collector's market that the stuff is worth way more than it actually is, like with baseball cards.
No, the real value will be in clearing out a safe launch corridor, or providing that as a service -- not in the stuff you bring back.
Yeah, dude, I'm going to spend $10,000/kg to lift myself up to orbit to go and collect paint chips. They're so valuable, because, like, because they're there, man.
While I'm up there, I'm sure I won't cause any additional space junk, either.
If the sentences contain spelling or grammar mistakes, the player is rejected.
This must be the most exclusive gamer clan in the entire universe, second only to the 1337chix0rs clan with their "check for boobs" pre-screening exam.
There is some Roland guy who's last name i can't spell
That could be anyone. I don't think Taco could spell Roland Smith right.
This is my favorite kind of hack...
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't really do anything practically useful, but something you ordinarily wouldn't think of. I always think they're the funnest kind of hack to pull off.
That's what I learned in high school chemistry, too, but I don't see how this is true. There have to be local areas in the glass of water that are of a higher temperature. Scale this up for a quick thought experiment. We have oceanic water frozen in polar ice caps. This ice melts and accumulates all the time. Yet the temperature at the earth's equator of oceanic water is NOT 0 degrees C. Obviously, local application of heat from solar radiation is capable of heating up the water BEFORE all the ice has melted off the poles. The same must be possible and is almost certainly true (just run an experiment and prove it) for a smaller body of liquid water with some amount of ice in it that is melting due to the application of an outside heat source.
My high school government teacher said so, 16 years ago. Is that a good enough cite for you? It seemed reasonable at the time, so I believed him.
No, really, I'm actually curious to know. How does copyright provide privacy protection?
As far as I'm aware, (and I am not a legal professional, just a concerned citizen who's annoyed as hell at how obfuscated our legal system is, and would like it if things were orderly, made sense, and were accessible without mountains of academic credentials, just so I could know what my actual rights fucking are... ) copyright provides a few protections to an author, and has little to nothing to do with privacy, at least in any relevant way that I can imagine.
Copyright (1) establishes authorship, and (2) provides a limited time monopoly on publishing rights, which means (3) you can't copy it without permission, unless said copying falls under "fair use" privileges.
Now, I know IP isn't just copyright, there's also trademark law, patent law, etc. I still don't see how any of it creates privacy rights, which are actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and then systematically dismantled by subsequent legislation too numerous to mention. If someone reads a copyrighted work of my authorship, it's very likely that it's not a breach of privacy. Considering that copyrighted works are often published, it's difficult to see how copyright law protects privacy.
If I'm wrong, don't just hold it over me that I'm wrong, tell me. I'm an ignoramus, and am only passingly familiar with the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure based on my understanding of it that I have a solid grasp of what my privacy rights are and where they originate. If you're a real legal eagle, take the opportunity to do some pro bono work and educate this idiot.
I have some understanding of the law. IANAL, but I don't think there's any copyright infringement going on if a peeping tom looks in my window. I don't think there's any copyright infringement going on as I create "intellectual property" during a phone conversation which is being monitored without my knowledge by a third party. If I'm wrong, cite a legal document -- law, court decision, something.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't a TOTALLY bad idea... it's just not cutting everyone in on the action who needs to be benefitting, namely the account holder. Yahoo! would clean up in a heartbeat if they announce that they will divvy up the fee they collect so that the account holder gets a slice.
I'd take 500 Yahoo!mail spamaccounts if Yahoo cut me in for a penny on every spam that made it to my inbox. If they really want this to succeed, they need to come up with a Yahoo!SpamRewards(tm) program and allow JoeBlowEndUser2341 to cash in. Who needs a retirement plan?
At least google's official "spam" spams you off to the side with ads that are actually for products, in a way that is inobtrusive.
That's what I was going to say, bug reports flooding in are a sign of a successful beta test. I wonder how many of them Microsoft will actually be fixing, though... that's kindof the whole point of it all.
Not to worry, we'll be porting it to Indrema as soon as we can get a hold of the binaries.
I only read through the 8-bit NES controller before I gave up.
The Atari 2600 joysticks were actually damn good joysticks. There were plenty of knockoff and lookalike joysticks in the aftermarket that sucked, but the actual Atari-manufactured joysticks were of superb quality. They were durable and lasted through years and years of heavy use and abuse. The reviewer probably took some 30 year old worn out third-party sticks and tried them out for 10 minutes before determining that they were inferior.
The NES cross pad was hardly looked at as an improvement at the time. Gamers accepted it because it worked well enough, and it did grant a master very fine control over his game character, but it was less comfortable for long playing than holding a joystick. It was cheaper to manufacture, and due to the lesser stresses involved in the design (the joystick is a lever which magnifies the force applied to the sensors the longer the stick is) and it was smaller and lighter and could be manufactured more cheaply.
The article confuses "analog" and "digital", claiming that the Atari 2600 joystick was not "analog" "because it only had 8 directions". Analog has nothing to do with how many directions, and everything to do with whether you have discrete states or a continuum of potential states in the joystick's range. On a digital stick, you're either applying force in a direction or you're not. On an analog stick, the degree to which your stick is pushed toward the extreme end of the stick's range of motion determines just how "hard" or "fast" you're pushing in that direction.
Modern analog sticks are horrible compared to true joysticks of days gone by. Give me something I can wrap my entire hand around, not some wimpy little "hat" stick controller that I have to diddle with my thumb. The current generation consoles largely suck to play in their standard configuration because they don't give the user a flightstick type control, and the button layouts on flightstick type controls are not well laid out for most types of games outside of flight simulation.
Why is it that science journalism is always confirming what we already know and reinforcing common sense? Does science never reveal anything new, unknown, and counter-intuitive? According to journalism, apparently not.
My question is: Why? I think some investigation would reveal some juicy info on the true purpose of mainstream science journalism.
I expect this hunch to be proven within the next 24 months by a scientific story that gets covered by the AP or Reuters.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!!?
$1.4 billion ought to be enough for anybody.
So a typical DVD pirate (the real kind, not the regular folks who just want to make backup copies) rips and burns copies of a DVD and then sells the copies. The pirate is obviously motivated by financial gain from this activity.
The MPAA rips and burns a DVD to prove how easy it is in order to light a fire under Congress to get them to rip Fair Use out of copyright law and make illegal technologies that would enable exercise of Fair Use rights, all in the name of protecting the MPAA's "limited time" (read: infinitely extending) monopoly as afforded to them by copyright law and international treaties, with the ultimate goal being to charge every pair of eyeballs for every single access of MPAA-cartel content.
How, then is the MPAA's illegal duplication of a DVD not motivated by financial gain?
**Yawn**
Someone wake me when it's $1,000,000 and a Stanford grad.
You obviously don't understand the problem.
If it costs $10,000/kg to lift something to LEO, then how are you going to make any money off of salvaging this stuff? How many substances can you name that are worth the $10,000/kg needed to offset the cost of lifting a salvage collector into orbit?
How is the collector supposed to do its thing up there without having a mishap that will cause even more orbiting debris?
You can't use magnets to collect everything, it's not all magnetic debris. You can't physically catch stuff, it's too tiny and matching velocities with every little speck in order to capture them is unfeasible. Even if we managed to put up a space elevator to bring down the cost-to-orbit of a salvage collector, you still have a problem of matching vectors with every little piece of debris you want to capture.
There might be solutions for this problem, but salvaging it is not going to be economically feasible. Not unless you can convince a collector's market that the stuff is worth way more than it actually is, like with baseball cards.
No, the real value will be in clearing out a safe launch corridor, or providing that as a service -- not in the stuff you bring back.
Yeah, dude, I'm going to spend $10,000/kg to lift myself up to orbit to go and collect paint chips. They're so valuable, because, like, because they're there, man.
While I'm up there, I'm sure I won't cause any additional space junk, either.
If the sentences contain spelling or grammar mistakes, the player is rejected.
This must be the most exclusive gamer clan in the entire universe, second only to the 1337chix0rs clan with their "check for boobs" pre-screening exam.
I think Planck would beg to differ with you on that...
There is some Roland guy who's last name i can't spell
That could be anyone. I don't think Taco could spell Roland Smith right.
It doesn't really do anything practically useful, but something you ordinarily wouldn't think of. I always think they're the funnest kind of hack to pull off.
July 20004
I hear this is the version that will be required for running Duke Nukem Forever, once it's released.
That's likely because it'd probably double the size of the download, if not more than that. Sad, but true.
That's what I learned in high school chemistry, too, but I don't see how this is true. There have to be local areas in the glass of water that are of a higher temperature. Scale this up for a quick thought experiment. We have oceanic water frozen in polar ice caps. This ice melts and accumulates all the time. Yet the temperature at the earth's equator of oceanic water is NOT 0 degrees C. Obviously, local application of heat from solar radiation is capable of heating up the water BEFORE all the ice has melted off the poles. The same must be possible and is almost certainly true (just run an experiment and prove it) for a smaller body of liquid water with some amount of ice in it that is melting due to the application of an outside heat source.
The second amendment provides more than adequate fix for the citizen brave and dutiful enough to carry out his or her full civic duty.
Also, aside from "ox"/"oxen", there are no other such plurals of nouns ending in "ox" (no "foxen").
Won't somebody think of the childrEN!
My high school government teacher said so, 16 years ago. Is that a good enough cite for you? It seemed reasonable at the time, so I believed him.
No, really, I'm actually curious to know. How does copyright provide privacy protection?
As far as I'm aware, (and I am not a legal professional, just a concerned citizen who's annoyed as hell at how obfuscated our legal system is, and would like it if things were orderly, made sense, and were accessible without mountains of academic credentials, just so I could know what my actual rights fucking are... ) copyright provides a few protections to an author, and has little to nothing to do with privacy, at least in any relevant way that I can imagine.
Copyright (1) establishes authorship, and (2) provides a limited time monopoly on publishing rights, which means (3) you can't copy it without permission, unless said copying falls under "fair use" privileges.
Now, I know IP isn't just copyright, there's also trademark law, patent law, etc. I still don't see how any of it creates privacy rights, which are actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and then systematically dismantled by subsequent legislation too numerous to mention. If someone reads a copyrighted work of my authorship, it's very likely that it's not a breach of privacy. Considering that copyrighted works are often published, it's difficult to see how copyright law protects privacy.
If I'm wrong, don't just hold it over me that I'm wrong, tell me. I'm an ignoramus, and am only passingly familiar with the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure based on my understanding of it that I have a solid grasp of what my privacy rights are and where they originate. If you're a real legal eagle, take the opportunity to do some pro bono work and educate this idiot.
I have some understanding of the law. IANAL, but I don't think there's any copyright infringement going on if a peeping tom looks in my window. I don't think there's any copyright infringement going on as I create "intellectual property" during a phone conversation which is being monitored without my knowledge by a third party. If I'm wrong, cite a legal document -- law, court decision, something.
Right, I think I'll go sue the NSA for violating the, uh, copyright on my telephone conversations.
(Hint: Even if they don't make a recording of the conversation, it's still illegal to listen in without a warrant.)
Through privacy laws, obviously. You don't honestly think that copyright law has ANYTHING to do with your right to privacy, do you?
Also, look into strong encryption.