I've noticed that too, and I don't live anywhere near the bay area.
About once a year I get up to San Francisco, and make Ameoba one of the stops on my itinerary. Lots of great used stuff, a nifty selection on vinyl, and overall a very pleasent shopping experience (you can easily waste a half day in that place).
As I read your post it occured to me. On average, I spend more money at a good record store 800 miles away then I do at the tower just a few blocks from my house.
Re:An insider's theory on falling CD sales
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Something to ask your lawyer friend; why don't they bring back the single?
When I was younger (back in the days before CDs up until the point where albums still outnumbered CDs in the record stores), you could buy '45s of your favorate song.
Later, while in high school, the 45s dissapeared, but you could still buy cassette singles in record stores.
Today, I don't see anyone using this. Occasionally I'll find an extended singles 'remix' CD with 4-5 different mixes of the same song, but typically at a price point I'm not willing to spend at.
So why don't the record companies, in earnest, try to revive the singles? (I do vaguely recall a few attempts at CD singles, but nothing that ever took off).
There are very few big name modern music songs I'd like to buy, but even when I do hear a catchy tune on the radio that I'd like to listen to more, I'm not going to run out and buy the record. I've been burned too many times with those seven tracks of 'filler'.
I duspute the theory your friend has too, but I can't help to think that the record companies could squeeze a few bucks more out of their artists if they sold the popular singles for $1.99 a CD.
You're treating spam as a negative message instead of random noise.
I'm more inclined to treat it as a negative medium. When 95% of all messages through a particular medium are bad, it's hard to support anyone or anything that decides to jump on that bandwagon. Yes, that means that 5% of the messages could be good, but as a consumer or a voter, am I supposed to sift through 95% of crap to find some messages that I may find mildly useful?
You're treating it as something that, while hostile, actually contains useful information.
I view it as something that could contain useful information. But because, again, of the hostile nature of the medium, I will go out of my way to take steps to not solicit those who use it.
I think Netflix offers a great product. I think X-10 has some really cool technology. I initially learned about both from freinds. Then, all of a sudden, both start using technology to get their message accross that is both intrusive and annoying. Sure, I could complain about it, but what good would that do? So I simply don't, or won't use them. It may not make them change their ways, but how else can I send a message that I really, really don't like people who do this.
That means it can still be used as a form of communication and influence.
Again, if spam wasn't abused so much, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I got one e-mail a week from a legitimate business that I could throw away if I wasn't interested, I'd probably welcome the occasional new product or idea. But the spamming industry (and it has become an industry) doesn't work like that. So, I get 30-40 e-mails a day telling me about how to increase my penis size or get a university diploma.
I don't like that. I just don't. But really, in the end, what can I do? I can hope, ask, plead, that my government starts both putting legisation in the works to turn that industry around, but it hasn't and there seems to be nothing in the works that suggests it will.
For not placing or enforcing policies when people started complaining about Spam.
The reality is, using e-mail to get the word out about canidates, policies, civic issues would be a great use of the Internet.
But so many spammers have left such a bad taste in consumers mouths that if and when a politician does it, it could only spell disaster for their campaign.
It reminds me last election. I hadn't really looked at the local canidates, but it's a pretty small city, and your vote does count. I received a phone call one evening, during dinner, with a chatty person on the other end asking me if I would vote for canidate X.
I said 'hold on, let me get a pen', and asked him to repeat her name. Then I informed him that I don't, or ever will solicit or support any telemarketer, and would make sure that I did not vote for that canidate. I then politly said goodbye.
She lost.
The truth is, I really don't know if she was a good person, or would have done a good job. All I know is, I'm steadfast to equate telemarketers with scum, and have the same feelings for spam.
Any unsolicited email--email that I didn't ask for--from a politician will ensure they will not get my vote.
I enjoyed that show a lot.... but sometimes it was hit and miss.
I stopped watching it when it went off Comedy central to network. I never knew when it was on and never cared enough about it (or any television show) to seek it out.
What you forget is that most people don't see the bible as a reliable reference, or as a legitmate text in any way.
The irony is, the people who refuse to see it that way are often just as quick to quote or reference other historical documents that are presented as theory or opinion.
Sad, really. People who don't belive can easily close their minds.
To risk being on the wrong side of popular opinion, I don't see what the problem with content ratings on video games is.
It's not as if these games are being censored, it's just that people--parents and childern--can know what to expect before they open the shrink rapped package and install the game (before they agree to the EULA, have broken the seal and cannot take it back).
Probably the number one argument I've read in these threads is that it's the parents responsibility to look after their kids and give them direction on how to deal with certian things. All content ratings do is give parents a tool to help them do their job.
GTA 3 does, very much, fucking rule. And as a parent I'd have no problem letting my kids play it (so as long as they didn't develop an unhealthy addition like me). But if I didn't play video games (who knows, someday I may grow up), I'd personally like to know how intense the thing is before I turn it over to little Johnny to install on his computer.
When my child demands I go out and buy Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation because the cartoon Pink Panther is their spokesmen alongside slick, hip jazz music, I'll agree that the media is controlling him.
I can't say I've seen this episode either, but I did happen to catch an episode of Donahue today for the first time.
It was by far the most one sided, trashy screw fest I've seen on anything this side of AM radio. The issue was religion. Neet I thought, an insightful look into faith.
It turned into Donahue and one of his guests compleatly missing the point of the other guest and instead calling him a bigot and a racist in not so subtle ways. The fact that I agreed with Donahue is irrelevent. The point of intellegent discourse is to try to understand the views or at least the perspective of all sides; not to make personal attacks on the person you disagree with.
It's hard to forgive this kind of behavior when you're part of the chior, but even worse when you're not. I have yet to see any real link between video game/media violence and real world violence, nor do I see any logical reasoning that would make somebody think there is. However, there ARE people who do, but their message never gets accross when they are put on shows like Donahue with the goal of only telling me that I'm wrong, not why they are right.
From the article, it points out they were 'unaware' of any pre-existing wi-fi networks in the area.
But from reading the comments and the article, people did use the free service even while in Starbucks. Somebody had to notice.
My best guess is this is all being directed from the top buy people who don't quite understand the technology.
The lower reports came out that stated that Starbucks is interfering with a local 'free' network. (More likely, the reports stated a local 'free' network was interfering with Starbucks.
It's been my experience that high level executives don't have a clue what makes technology tick. How hard would it be to switch their service onto a different SSID channel? It takes me about 5 seconds on my wi-fi network.
But more likely then not, in their eyes it means a dramatic change in equipment, 'reprogramming' costs, etc. So they won't budge, which is almost silly.
Either that, or they are just a money grubbing corperation hell bent on destroying compitition in any arena they choose to compete in.
If they write into the blackjack rules that card counting isn't allowed, then within the confines of their casino, that makes it so for the game.
True, but that would be very difficult to impliment as a rule. 'The player is not allowed to make decisions based on a long term stragity that could help him win?' 'The player may not increase their bet when there are more face cards in the deck?'
It's nearly impossible to 'proove' somebody is card counting, as it's hard to distinguish from any other non-winning 'systems' people use.
I doubt any such rule is officially written down. As has been said before, for the most part casinos welcome card counters, because the majority of them do not have the ability to do it properly and gain an advantage over the house.
The difference here is choice. It's not a matter of it being Micosoft that's doing this, it's a matter of a company being able to have the influence over academia to mandate students learn to use their products.
There is nothing wrong with a University offering classes that deal with MS, but when they are forced, the message is sent that MS is insuring that when people graduate, they will have a healthy number of people in the workforce who are famiular with their prodcuts.
Weather or not MS's products are better or worse then their competitors is a moot point. I certiantly woudn't want to go to a school that mandates I am knowledgable of a particular comapnies products at the expense of learning about another companies products that I am more interested in (or am seeking a job working on after graduation)
Microsoft gets a good deal more of blame then if this was proposed by another company because it fits into a larger scheme of gorillia marketing tactics. Why spend more money/resources making our product better if A: we can make sure that everyone uses ours, and B: we can make sure that there will always be people around to fix it if it breaks.
The rules of blackjack are designed as such that you make a decision as to how much money you want to bet. You receive your cards, and make a decision as to what will be done.
All of these decisions are based on what information you have. There is a basic logic in blackjack that says if you have a 20, and the dealer has a 6 showing up, your best bet would stand. It's simply making the right decision based on the information you have.
Card counting just extends this decision making process. You are able to track more information and make better informed decsisions. All this does is give you a edge over the house in the long run. How is that any different then standing on a 20, which will give you better odds over the dealer in the short run?
A few tips for would be card counters
on
MIT vs. Las Vegas
·
· Score: 2
I love to play blackjack. I used to play it a lot, but have since waned in my activities (most notably after 4 consecutive unlucky trips to Las Vegas).
It's really hard to look at an article like this and not run down to your local bookstore and pickup some of the many texts that show you the basics of card counting, but before any one does, there are a few things to consider:
You won't win a lot of money unless you have a lot of money to loose. Never, ever gamble with money you can't afford to loose; it's that simple. If you are planning a gambling trip, you have to set yourself a limit, and figure if you loose it all, you're still going to make rent, pay your bills, be able to get back home etc.
That having been said, lets assume you have $500 to gamble with. In fair conditions, playing in perfect form, (this is very, very hard to do) over the long run in a weekend, on averages, you may end up making ~$12 an hour. Yes, you could win much more, but on the other hand you could loose too. It's kind of hard to justify putting that kind of money on the line when your best expectation in the long run is to end up with the same amount of money you would get if you were working (albeit tax free as long as you don't win too much)
Then consider that if you learn the fundamentals of basic strategy (which is easy), the casinos edge over you really isn't that great, and you can take a smaller sum (say $100) last a long time, perhaps even get a few extra bucks, and just have a good time with your friends. I always take Vegas newbies to the Stardust, where you can get a $1 table 24/hr a day. Sure, they have a six deck shoe, but the play is slow and it's easy to learn. I find I have a good deal of fun sitting down with a $20 bill, making it last a long time, meanwhile getting juiced on free drinks (ok, $1 drinks, because it's hard to get a waitress and they won't come back often unless you tip them). The rule of thumb is, sit down with 20, leave with 10 and be completely sloshed. (never, ever, ever, get drunk trying to count cards or gambling with real money. It makes you play sloppy, and the booze silences that little voice inside your head that says if you go back to the ATM again you can't make rent).
To the casual observer, it's difficult to tell the difference between gross incompetence and internal sabotage.
I'm not sure which one it is. The decisions made by Fox's programming efforts seem to point to the fact that they were making a conscious effort to kill the show. As I'm sure you well know, those Hollywood types are often more concerned with their egos then anything else. Groening (sp?) may have just pissed off the wrong executive.
Or, you're right; they could have made the programming decisions because they are morons. I'm not a big time network executive, but I know that if a show is good you probably want to get people to watch it. After all, it worked for the Simpsons.
In Tokyo for instance if you buy a car you need to have a note from a police officer that says you have a place to park it overnight (I wish they'd do that here too).
There are pleanty of big cities you can still do that in in America. Here in Phoenix, it's pretty dang easy.
We've had great traffic planning for the most part, and even when it's crowded it's still pretty nice (having lived in a number of other metro areas, I'm impressed). It really shocked me when I was in Nothern AZ listining to a Las Vegas radio talk show with a bunch of callers saying they wish they had Phoenix traffic planners take over the LV roads.
That having been said, I wish we would stop using their cars. In live in a subrurb called Tempe, and I recently discovered that I can walk two blocks, catch a bus that shows up every 15 minutes and get to the airport in about 8 minutes and be down town Phoenix in about 18 minutes. Needless to say, I use this now every time I fly or want to go to a baseball game (It's safe, clean, well air conditionined, and I can drink like a madman at the game and not worry about getting home).
I work from home, and most of our clients are out of the city, so I'm stuck with driving on the hiways for a good portion of work (small town clients), but in the metro area, despite having good traffic I'd still rather take the bus... not because I'm some high nosed snooty envrionmentalist, but because it's just that much easier. I wish more people shared that.
for once, I'd like to see a clean, well kept light rail system
Try going to D.C. The subway system (goes above ground outside the city) is very nice, and the stations are particulary well designed. When I'd go sight seeing in the city, I'd park in College Park and take the train in, and was always impressed.
I wish more cities would follow suit. I was very disapointed with L.A. light rail, which seems cheap and clunky, even when riding on brand new lines.
Defeting macrovision is nothing new, but the more the relitive ease of doing so is brought out into the open, perhaps the less these 'anti-copying' schemes will appear.
I had my worst experience with macrovision with an old TV with a VCR built in. The VCR broke, and I bought a new stand alone unit thinking I'd play it through the TV. But, it went through the TVs circuits and of course, the picture was screwed up.
I ended up buying a new TV. Now why should I be punished by this system for watching tapes that I OWN, that I'm not copying, and that I'm doing nothing illegal with?
I hope these people stop treating consumers like criminals.
several robots designed to actually register themselves will be participating in the conference
Wonderful. First we have them registering themselves at conferences, the next thing you know they will register their own software installed on themselves.
Does this mean in a few years I'll have to get my robot her own e-mail address for all the spam she gets?
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that too, and I don't live anywhere near the bay area.
About once a year I get up to San Francisco, and make Ameoba one of the stops on my itinerary. Lots of great used stuff, a nifty selection on vinyl, and overall a very pleasent shopping experience (you can easily waste a half day in that place).
As I read your post it occured to me. On average, I spend more money at a good record store 800 miles away then I do at the tower just a few blocks from my house.
Something to ask your lawyer friend; why don't they bring back the single?
When I was younger (back in the days before CDs up until the point where albums still outnumbered CDs in the record stores), you could buy '45s of your favorate song.
Later, while in high school, the 45s dissapeared, but you could still buy cassette singles in record stores.
Today, I don't see anyone using this. Occasionally I'll find an extended singles 'remix' CD with 4-5 different mixes of the same song, but typically at a price point I'm not willing to spend at.
So why don't the record companies, in earnest, try to revive the singles? (I do vaguely recall a few attempts at CD singles, but nothing that ever took off).
There are very few big name modern music songs I'd like to buy, but even when I do hear a catchy tune on the radio that I'd like to listen to more, I'm not going to run out and buy the record. I've been burned too many times with those seven tracks of 'filler'.
I duspute the theory your friend has too, but I can't help to think that the record companies could squeeze a few bucks more out of their artists if they sold the popular singles for $1.99 a CD.
You're treating spam as a negative message instead of random noise.
I'm more inclined to treat it as a negative medium. When 95% of all messages through a particular medium are bad, it's hard to support anyone or anything that decides to jump on that bandwagon. Yes, that means that 5% of the messages could be good, but as a consumer or a voter, am I supposed to sift through 95% of crap to find some messages that I may find mildly useful?
You're treating it as something that, while hostile, actually contains useful information.
I view it as something that could contain useful information. But because, again, of the hostile nature of the medium, I will go out of my way to take steps to not solicit those who use it.
I think Netflix offers a great product. I think X-10 has some really cool technology. I initially learned about both from freinds. Then, all of a sudden, both start using technology to get their message accross that is both intrusive and annoying. Sure, I could complain about it, but what good would that do? So I simply don't, or won't use them. It may not make them change their ways, but how else can I send a message that I really, really don't like people who do this.
That means it can still be used as a form of communication and influence.
Again, if spam wasn't abused so much, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I got one e-mail a week from a legitimate business that I could throw away if I wasn't interested, I'd probably welcome the occasional new product or idea. But the spamming industry (and it has become an industry) doesn't work like that. So, I get 30-40 e-mails a day telling me about how to increase my penis size or get a university diploma.
I don't like that. I just don't. But really, in the end, what can I do? I can hope, ask, plead, that my government starts both putting legisation in the works to turn that industry around, but it hasn't and there seems to be nothing in the works that suggests it will.
For not placing or enforcing policies when people started complaining about Spam.
The reality is, using e-mail to get the word out about canidates, policies, civic issues would be a great use of the Internet.
But so many spammers have left such a bad taste in consumers mouths that if and when a politician does it, it could only spell disaster for their campaign.
It reminds me last election. I hadn't really looked at the local canidates, but it's a pretty small city, and your vote does count. I received a phone call one evening, during dinner, with a chatty person on the other end asking me if I would vote for canidate X.
I said 'hold on, let me get a pen', and asked him to repeat her name. Then I informed him that I don't, or ever will solicit or support any telemarketer, and would make sure that I did not vote for that canidate. I then politly said goodbye.
She lost.
The truth is, I really don't know if she was a good person, or would have done a good job. All I know is, I'm steadfast to equate telemarketers with scum, and have the same feelings for spam.
Any unsolicited email--email that I didn't ask for--from a politician will ensure they will not get my vote.
Did you know one of the first observitories was built by the Catholic church?
Not to mention our modern system of keeping time or accounting (OK, acounting is a bad example at the moment).
Makes you wonder when the only time the historical church is brought up in school is when they start a war or imprison a scientist.
I enjoyed that show a lot.... but sometimes it was hit and miss.
I stopped watching it when it went off Comedy central to network. I never knew when it was on and never cared enough about it (or any television show) to seek it out.
Shame, too.
What you forget is that most people don't see the bible as a reliable reference, or as a legitmate text in any way.
The irony is, the people who refuse to see it that way are often just as quick to quote or reference other historical documents that are presented as theory or opinion.
Sad, really. People who don't belive can easily close their minds.
(mod me down, I dare you. I have the karma)
To risk being on the wrong side of popular opinion, I don't see what the problem with content ratings on video games is.
It's not as if these games are being censored, it's just that people--parents and childern--can know what to expect before they open the shrink rapped package and install the game (before they agree to the EULA, have broken the seal and cannot take it back).
Probably the number one argument I've read in these threads is that it's the parents responsibility to look after their kids and give them direction on how to deal with certian things. All content ratings do is give parents a tool to help them do their job.
GTA 3 does, very much, fucking rule. And as a parent I'd have no problem letting my kids play it (so as long as they didn't develop an unhealthy addition like me). But if I didn't play video games (who knows, someday I may grow up), I'd personally like to know how intense the thing is before I turn it over to little Johnny to install on his computer.
When my child demands I go out and buy Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation because the cartoon Pink Panther is their spokesmen alongside slick, hip jazz music, I'll agree that the media is controlling him.
I can't say I've seen this episode either, but I did happen to catch an episode of Donahue today for the first time.
It was by far the most one sided, trashy screw fest I've seen on anything this side of AM radio. The issue was religion. Neet I thought, an insightful look into faith.
It turned into Donahue and one of his guests compleatly missing the point of the other guest and instead calling him a bigot and a racist in not so subtle ways. The fact that I agreed with Donahue is irrelevent. The point of intellegent discourse is to try to understand the views or at least the perspective of all sides; not to make personal attacks on the person you disagree with.
It's hard to forgive this kind of behavior when you're part of the chior, but even worse when you're not. I have yet to see any real link between video game/media violence and real world violence, nor do I see any logical reasoning that would make somebody think there is. However, there ARE people who do, but their message never gets accross when they are put on shows like Donahue with the goal of only telling me that I'm wrong, not why they are right.
Starbucks just doesn't know what they are doing.
From the article, it points out they were 'unaware' of any pre-existing wi-fi networks in the area.
But from reading the comments and the article, people did use the free service even while in Starbucks. Somebody had to notice.
My best guess is this is all being directed from the top buy people who don't quite understand the technology.
The lower reports came out that stated that Starbucks is interfering with a local 'free' network. (More likely, the reports stated a local 'free' network was interfering with Starbucks.
It's been my experience that high level executives don't have a clue what makes technology tick. How hard would it be to switch their service onto a different SSID channel? It takes me about 5 seconds on my wi-fi network.
But more likely then not, in their eyes it means a dramatic change in equipment, 'reprogramming' costs, etc. So they won't budge, which is almost silly.
Either that, or they are just a money grubbing corperation hell bent on destroying compitition in any arena they choose to compete in.
working on my private certificate.
I'm not sure how my instructor would respond the next time I go up if I brought my laptop and told him 'I want to fly over the city at 1,500 feet.'
Either that, or program it how to miss the ground.
If they write into the blackjack rules that card counting isn't allowed, then within the confines of their casino, that makes it so for the game.
True, but that would be very difficult to impliment as a rule. 'The player is not allowed to make decisions based on a long term stragity that could help him win?' 'The player may not increase their bet when there are more face cards in the deck?'
It's nearly impossible to 'proove' somebody is card counting, as it's hard to distinguish from any other non-winning 'systems' people use.
I doubt any such rule is officially written down. As has been said before, for the most part casinos welcome card counters, because the majority of them do not have the ability to do it properly and gain an advantage over the house.
The difference here is choice. It's not a matter of it being Micosoft that's doing this, it's a matter of a company being able to have the influence over academia to mandate students learn to use their products.
There is nothing wrong with a University offering classes that deal with MS, but when they are forced, the message is sent that MS is insuring that when people graduate, they will have a healthy number of people in the workforce who are famiular with their prodcuts.
Weather or not MS's products are better or worse then their competitors is a moot point. I certiantly woudn't want to go to a school that mandates I am knowledgable of a particular comapnies products at the expense of learning about another companies products that I am more interested in (or am seeking a job working on after graduation)
Microsoft gets a good deal more of blame then if this was proposed by another company because it fits into a larger scheme of gorillia marketing tactics. Why spend more money/resources making our product better if A: we can make sure that everyone uses ours, and B: we can make sure that there will always be people around to fix it if it breaks.
It's actually a very easy statement to defend.
The rules of blackjack are designed as such that you make a decision as to how much money you want to bet. You receive your cards, and make a decision as to what will be done.
All of these decisions are based on what information you have. There is a basic logic in blackjack that says if you have a 20, and the dealer has a 6 showing up, your best bet would stand. It's simply making the right decision based on the information you have.
Card counting just extends this decision making process. You are able to track more information and make better informed decsisions. All this does is give you a edge over the house in the long run. How is that any different then standing on a 20, which will give you better odds over the dealer in the short run?
I love to play blackjack. I used to play it a lot, but have since waned in my activities (most notably after 4 consecutive unlucky trips to Las Vegas).
It's really hard to look at an article like this and not run down to your local bookstore and pickup some of the many texts that show you the basics of card counting, but before any one does, there are a few things to consider:
You won't win a lot of money unless you have a lot of money to loose. Never, ever gamble with money you can't afford to loose; it's that simple. If you are planning a gambling trip, you have to set yourself a limit, and figure if you loose it all, you're still going to make rent, pay your bills, be able to get back home etc.
That having been said, lets assume you have $500 to gamble with. In fair conditions, playing in perfect form, (this is very, very hard to do) over the long run in a weekend, on averages, you may end up making ~$12 an hour. Yes, you could win much more, but on the other hand you could loose too. It's kind of hard to justify putting that kind of money on the line when your best expectation in the long run is to end up with the same amount of money you would get if you were working (albeit tax free as long as you don't win too much)
Then consider that if you learn the fundamentals of basic strategy (which is easy), the casinos edge over you really isn't that great, and you can take a smaller sum (say $100) last a long time, perhaps even get a few extra bucks, and just have a good time with your friends. I always take Vegas newbies to the Stardust, where you can get a $1 table 24/hr a day. Sure, they have a six deck shoe, but the play is slow and it's easy to learn. I find I have a good deal of fun sitting down with a $20 bill, making it last a long time, meanwhile getting juiced on free drinks (ok, $1 drinks, because it's hard to get a waitress and they won't come back often unless you tip them). The rule of thumb is, sit down with 20, leave with 10 and be completely sloshed. (never, ever, ever, get drunk trying to count cards or gambling with real money. It makes you play sloppy, and the booze silences that little voice inside your head that says if you go back to the ATM again you can't make rent).
To the casual observer, it's difficult to tell the difference between gross incompetence and internal sabotage.
I'm not sure which one it is. The decisions made by Fox's programming efforts seem to point to the fact that they were making a conscious effort to kill the show. As I'm sure you well know, those Hollywood types are often more concerned with their egos then anything else. Groening (sp?) may have just pissed off the wrong executive.
Or, you're right; they could have made the programming decisions because they are morons. I'm not a big time network executive, but I know that if a show is good you probably want to get people to watch it. After all, it worked for the Simpsons.
In Tokyo for instance if you buy a car you need to have a note from a police officer that says you have a place to park it overnight (I wish they'd do that here too).
There are pleanty of big cities you can still do that in in America. Here in Phoenix, it's pretty dang easy.
We've had great traffic planning for the most part, and even when it's crowded it's still pretty nice (having lived in a number of other metro areas, I'm impressed). It really shocked me when I was in Nothern AZ listining to a Las Vegas radio talk show with a bunch of callers saying they wish they had Phoenix traffic planners take over the LV roads.
That having been said, I wish we would stop using their cars. In live in a subrurb called Tempe, and I recently discovered that I can walk two blocks, catch a bus that shows up every 15 minutes and get to the airport in about 8 minutes and be down town Phoenix in about 18 minutes. Needless to say, I use this now every time I fly or want to go to a baseball game (It's safe, clean, well air conditionined, and I can drink like a madman at the game and not worry about getting home).
I work from home, and most of our clients are out of the city, so I'm stuck with driving on the hiways for a good portion of work (small town clients), but in the metro area, despite having good traffic I'd still rather take the bus... not because I'm some high nosed snooty envrionmentalist, but because it's just that much easier. I wish more people shared that.
for once, I'd like to see a clean, well kept light rail system
Try going to D.C. The subway system (goes above ground outside the city) is very nice, and the stations are particulary well designed. When I'd go sight seeing in the city, I'd park in College Park and take the train in, and was always impressed.
I wish more cities would follow suit. I was very disapointed with L.A. light rail, which seems cheap and clunky, even when riding on brand new lines.
Defeting macrovision is nothing new, but the more the relitive ease of doing so is brought out into the open, perhaps the less these 'anti-copying' schemes will appear.
I had my worst experience with macrovision with an old TV with a VCR built in. The VCR broke, and I bought a new stand alone unit thinking I'd play it through the TV. But, it went through the TVs circuits and of course, the picture was screwed up.
I ended up buying a new TV. Now why should I be punished by this system for watching tapes that I OWN, that I'm not copying, and that I'm doing nothing illegal with?
I hope these people stop treating consumers like criminals.
several robots designed to actually register themselves will be participating in the conference
Wonderful. First we have them registering themselves at conferences, the next thing you know they will register their own software installed on themselves.
Does this mean in a few years I'll have to get my robot her own e-mail address for all the spam she gets?
For the record, I loved the movie... but I still thought it was a 'bad' movie.
It's also amazing that everyone knows exactly what we're talking about without mentioning the movies title.
We've done it! We've captured the MS brain bug!
Doogie puts his hands on it.
"It's... It's afraid!"
Crowd cheers.
The Great Hacker War
That sounds like a great idea for a movie. I bet they could make a really cool soundtrack to go with it.