If you're going to be biased just because you get something for free, I guess you're going to be biased because you get something for free.
Usually, being provided with free stuff doesn't have this effect on a reviewer, because they usually get a free sample of EVERYONE's product, and thus there's no special reason to like Brand X's widget any more than Brand Y's widget, just because a free copy was provided for evaluation and review purposes.
The problem being discussed here is not just that reviewers get free cool stuff, but that what they get is a better quality item than what you'd get if you bought it at a store. Like, if you were a soup reviewer, Campell's sends you a special gourmet-prepared soup in a gold-plated can, and then puts the label on the packaging that identifies it as what you'd get if you went to the store and plunked down $1.19.
Right, well obviously pre-release reviews would not be able to be done this way. That doesn't mean you can't do pre-release reviews anymore; it just means you call them previews, and attach a disclaimer.
He writes the best hardware reviews on the net. Always informative and interesting, always clearly written, with full disclosure of all testing methods, and always good for a chuckle or two. The internet would be a poorer place without his site. Dan's should be in every browser's bookmarks list.
Also, a lot of the time, reviewers get sneak previews of stuff before it's available to the general public.
For the cost prohibitiion, though, it should be a simple matter for a manufacturer to supply a "reviewer coupon" to a reviewer, which can be exchanged at any retail establishment that carries the item, effectively allowing the reviewer to pick up the real deal item off the shelf at a real store, yet have the full cost picked up by the manufacturer.
Anything I post that's work-related is set to be accessible to people on my friends list only. Got to compartmentalize... work isn't life, and life isn't work. Keep the two separate.
Anyone have a stat for how many tons of corn it takes to yield a gallon of ethanol? It'd be really interesting to see a direct comparison of the next closest competitor to oil.
If you have access to the source, you could probably find a way to remove the watermarks, unless they are somehow tightly worked into the executable code itself. And, if they're tightly worked into the executable code itself, then this has to mean that the code will not be as efficient, and that there'd be some kind of performance cost to watermarking that does not benefit the end user at runtime.
Someone find a 1st level Cleric so they can cast Protection from Evil on these Lawful Good CD-ROMs. That should keep the evil Mandrakes from destroying them.
At least they should get a freakin' saving throw. What a harsh DM.
www.dpreview.com has very good reviews. Lots of in-depth information, and glossaries to explain the terminologies for newbies who want to learn photogeekery.
And they'd probably cost around $699/hr. or more. For a small department on retainer. That's actually a pretty small estimate for a Fortune 1000 company.
$699 is probably less than you pay your legal department for an hour of sitting around on retainer. Thus, it starts making more sense to just pay SCO this one time to get them to shut up and go away.
The question: "Which is less: the number of processors in your enterprise, or the number of legal man-hours it'd take to fight of a SCO lawsuit?" becomes relevant.
Of course, once SCO starts getting companies to pay up, then it sets an established precedent which they can use to bully the small fry and extract the money from them.
But how does iTunes restrict you from obtaining music from other sources? I can go to a concert. I can listen to the radio. I can play my own music. I can go to the record store. I can even use Kazaa. How is iTunes restricting me?
Slashdot Mirror
That's why you burn to DVD.
If you're going to be biased just because you get something for free, I guess you're going to be biased because you get something for free.
Usually, being provided with free stuff doesn't have this effect on a reviewer, because they usually get a free sample of EVERYONE's product, and thus there's no special reason to like Brand X's widget any more than Brand Y's widget, just because a free copy was provided for evaluation and review purposes.
The problem being discussed here is not just that reviewers get free cool stuff, but that what they get is a better quality item than what you'd get if you bought it at a store. Like, if you were a soup reviewer, Campell's sends you a special gourmet-prepared soup in a gold-plated can, and then puts the label on the packaging that identifies it as what you'd get if you went to the store and plunked down $1.19.
Right, well obviously pre-release reviews would not be able to be done this way. That doesn't mean you can't do pre-release reviews anymore; it just means you call them previews, and attach a disclaimer.
Absolutely. I love Dan's Data.
He writes the best hardware reviews on the net. Always informative and interesting, always clearly written, with full disclosure of all testing methods, and always good for a chuckle or two. The internet would be a poorer place without his site. Dan's should be in every browser's bookmarks list.
Also, a lot of the time, reviewers get sneak previews of stuff before it's available to the general public.
For the cost prohibitiion, though, it should be a simple matter for a manufacturer to supply a "reviewer coupon" to a reviewer, which can be exchanged at any retail establishment that carries the item, effectively allowing the reviewer to pick up the real deal item off the shelf at a real store, yet have the full cost picked up by the manufacturer.
Anything I post that's work-related is set to be accessible to people on my friends list only. Got to compartmentalize... work isn't life, and life isn't work. Keep the two separate.
Anyone have a stat for how many tons of corn it takes to yield a gallon of ethanol? It'd be really interesting to see a direct comparison of the next closest competitor to oil.
Just disable anonymous comments in your blog, and you're pretty much OK.
If you have access to the source, you could probably find a way to remove the watermarks, unless they are somehow tightly worked into the executable code itself. And, if they're tightly worked into the executable code itself, then this has to mean that the code will not be as efficient, and that there'd be some kind of performance cost to watermarking that does not benefit the end user at runtime.
Someone find a 1st level Cleric so they can cast Protection from Evil on these Lawful Good CD-ROMs. That should keep the evil Mandrakes from destroying them.
At least they should get a freakin' saving throw. What a harsh DM.
www.dpreview.com has very good reviews. Lots of in-depth information, and glossaries to explain the terminologies for newbies who want to learn photogeekery.
I'll reprhase my above comment...
That's what my non-windows-based HARDWARE firewall is for. No one's getting into my box, dammit!
And my not having AOL in the first place.
That's what my firewall is for.
I don't know about you, but I like it when my GF makes my, uh, "popups" launch.
No, it's per processor. But, a corporate lawyer is probably a few hundred per hour. And, yes, that's per lawyer, and per hour.
And they'd probably cost around $699/hr. or more. For a small department on retainer. That's actually a pretty small estimate for a Fortune 1000 company.
$699 is probably less than you pay your legal department for an hour of sitting around on retainer. Thus, it starts making more sense to just pay SCO this one time to get them to shut up and go away.
The question: "Which is less: the number of processors in your enterprise, or the number of legal man-hours it'd take to fight of a SCO lawsuit?" becomes relevant.
Of course, once SCO starts getting companies to pay up, then it sets an established precedent which they can use to bully the small fry and extract the money from them.
640 ought to be enough for anybody, 640 ought to be enough for you.
"the right to record" or "the right to time shift"?
But how does iTunes restrict you from obtaining music from other sources? I can go to a concert. I can listen to the radio. I can play my own music. I can go to the record store. I can even use Kazaa. How is iTunes restricting me?
I was confused briefly until I read the body text... I thought the P4 replaced the PiII a while ago.
So much for the era of multitasking!
That's great until you need to go out and buy a zillion-port USB hub just so you can run apps.
was pre-empted by the Windows Security Development Task Force. Now that they've handled things, everyone has access to everyone else's data.
Then your PDA would become be a PDL, wouldn't it?