While the crusades we're not the West's best hour, it is important to remember they were a response to repeated invasions of predominantly Christian areas by Muslims and the killing and displacement of Jews and Christians throughout these regions. Most of the West has forgotten that what is now Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. were Christian areas and had been for 500-800 years by the time the Crusades started. The Roman and Byzantine empires were Christian, afterall. So it is revisionist history to see the Crusades as nothing more than the barbaric West invading the peaceful, wouldn't harm a fly, Muslims. Read some history.
I can't say I feel sorry for him at all.
I work for a big four accounting firm and some of our clients are casinos. During our audits, we verify that things like the player points systems and progressive jackpot slots are working properly. We never have access to code or internals.
But here's the important part - WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GAMBLE AT OUR CLIENT'S! EVER! Just gambling at our clients is seen as a potential conflict of interest for us and our clients.
I don't care if this guy stole $1 or $100,000,000. The point is he was in a position of trust and he violated that trust. Maybe he should have thought about his children, ex-wife, and freinds before he committed the crime.
I think your answer is informative and the dvdrhelp site provides lots of information, but a simple Google search may not have provided the information Cliff desired. I know you're not trying to troll, but here's my take on why he asked Slashdot.
It may smack of insanity to many, but Slashdot is a community (okay, a vocal, opinionated group that will share their opinions wether you want them to or not). Cliff is asking for an opinion from his community - something more than the fact sheets from manufacturers or "unknown entity" opinions found in a random search.
Does that mean that the information he'll get from asking Slashdot will be better than the results of a Google search? Maybe not. Slashdot is just as good of a choice for disinformation as any other site on the web - but at least he'll have context - and he'll have chosen the source of his information, for better or worse.
You're missing the point. M$ is going out of their way to break competitor's products.
If M$ just said "We don't care about users of other browsers. If they can't properly display our pages that's their problem. So we're not going to waste time checking for browser information - we're just going to serve our pages our way optimized for our browser.", this would be Opera, Mozilla, Netscape's problem.
But instead, they're going out of their way, for no technical reason, to make competitor's products appear inferior. Most importantly, this is exactly the type of behavior that M$ has done for years to eliminate competition.
So frankly, I don't care how many people out there use what browser. That isn't the point. M$'s disgusting business practices are. And anyone who continues to use and pay for their products are supporting this type of activity.
If you have a direct TiVo, the subscription cost is only $4.95 a month. And I think it's worth every penny. It gives you the ability to see show listings and descriptions up to two weeks in advance and see what's happening at the top of the hour or next/any hour across all channels when you're actually watching live TV. The directory is the second most important feature I miss when I travel (the first being all the standard TiVo pause, fast forward, etc. features). TiVo really isn't TiVo without the directory information and it's a small price to pay for great convenience.
One thing that always goes undiscussed is just hos MS took over the server market. Better marketing? To some extent since Novell couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag. Better technology? Please. NetWare today is still better as an OS than Win XXX.
No, the real reason MS won the server battle is free software. When you purchased NetWare back in the early days you had to by a license for XX clients (10 -250, typically) with the cost going up per client. The options were 10, 25, 50, 100, of 250 seats. If you needed 40 you still bought and paid for 50.
Then MS came along. You bought one copy with one license then just entered the number of licenses you wanted. 1,000??? No problem. No license check. No large PO to get approval for. You could always catch up with the license police later. Every Windows NT server I know of was initially installed this way.
So MS won the server war by giving away the software - and charging for it later. Please don't look shocked. It's the best game a monopolist can play.
Let me know where you're purchasing Windows for $100. I'd like to be able to buy it at that price!
Windows v3.1 was $100. The upgrade to 95 was $95. This was the first time MS gouged the retailers. For those of you too young to know, PCs and software used to carry a hefty margin - 40-75%. For Win 95, vendors got $10 of the $95. This was the first step, IMHO, in turning the industry into a commodity market.
So kudos to MS for creating the day-and-age of the sub $500 PC. At the same time, thank MS for creating the day-and-age of the $300 OS for that PC. And also thank them for creating a world where you don't need to buy a new PC every other year since there are no new apps (less games) that make you need a new PC with more speed/power.
I'm often reminded that behind every sleezebag lawyer there is a sleezebag client. While that's true in many court cases, it is not the case with class action suits. From what I've read you're given the choice of participating or waiving your rights to sue. It doesn's seem like much of a choice to me.
I'm convinced they're a conduit for passing money to lawyers while eliminating the public's ability to recover actual damages. Here are some examples:
I was involved in a suit against B of A in California. They were overcharging on something for home loans. While I have no idea how much the total settlement was for, I still have my check for $0.23. (yes, 23 cents)
I just got my check for NFL Sunday ticket's suit resolution. It seems two bar owners sued because they coulen't get single games - just the season package. I think the settlement was just under $3.5 million. The lawyers got a third, the two bar owners got $1,000 each (this is not a typo), and I received $32 and change although I have yet to realize that I was injured.
In some cases you don't get anything. I think Sears settled with a service lawsuit (again in CA) years ago where the lawyers got serious cash and everyone else got discount coupons on future Sears work. Let's see, they screwed me that last time they worked on my car. I'll feel better when they screw me this time at a discount!
There are numerous examples of class action suits putting good companies with good products out of business (think Silicon breast implants). No proof that there's any abnormal danger but the lawsuits have killed and industry and prevented good products from coming to market.
While there is limited good from these types of lawsuits (asbestos comes to mind) one questions if there isn't a better way. Most of these lawsuits border on the frivolous and the injured parties, if they are in fact even injured as in my two examples, get next to nothing. But with lawyers as the prime beneficiaries and lawyers as the primary law makers, I don't see this changing during my life time.
The high price of the projecters is in part due to low volume. SW:AOC is only being shown in digital in 19 or 21 theaters in the US. If there were more digital ready theaters, I'm sure this number would be larger.
As for quality, the two movies I've seen in digital were stunning. But my wife used to work at the UCLA Film & Television Archive and they are sticking to film for preservation - not digital. The primary reason is the introduction of artifacts when moving to digital from film.
To an outsider (like me) it's hard to say if this is resistance to change or reality. (For all you young 'uns out there, many of the first CDs were very tinny and audiophiles wouldn't touch 'em.) However, I feel with greater adoption in the creation and presentation of digital media, the quality will improve and the price will come down. Combine that with reduced distribution charges (to the studios) and digital in most theaters will be a reality. The only question is the adtoption rate at the local cineplex.
I live in Phoenix, AZ. Technically backward but theoretically I should have choices for high speed Internet. But I don't. Here are my options:
(1) Cable modem from Cox - Reasonable pricing and improved performance since the divorce from @Home. (2) DSL from Qwest/Covad - I'm 10,000 ft. from the CO (I checked before I bought the house) but the actual run is just under 18,000 ft. so this isn't an option (3) ISDN from Covad - Available, but installation may be costly, bandwidth goes down, and the price doubles - but I get a static IP address. (4) Sprint Wireless - There's a big tree down the street sitting between my house and their tower at South Mountain. They think I might get partial connectivity if we put the little diamond on a 20 ft. long pole on the top of my house held down by seven wires, something the neighbors will love. (5) Dial-up
So if I want high-speed access, cable modem is the only game for me. If Cox decides to limit access, force me through MSN/AOL/whatever, I effectively have no choice. And I'm better off than most people who only have one service option in their area.
But what really strikes me as ironic is that Cox offers digital phone access over the same cable the FCC sees as a data only device. Someone needs to be slapped upside the head with a clue stick.
Slashdot Mirror
While the crusades we're not the West's best hour, it is important to remember they were a response to repeated invasions of predominantly Christian areas by Muslims and the killing and displacement of Jews and Christians throughout these regions. Most of the West has forgotten that what is now Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. were Christian areas and had been for 500-800 years by the time the Crusades started. The Roman and Byzantine empires were Christian, afterall. So it is revisionist history to see the Crusades as nothing more than the barbaric West invading the peaceful, wouldn't harm a fly, Muslims. Read some history.
I can't say I feel sorry for him at all. I work for a big four accounting firm and some of our clients are casinos. During our audits, we verify that things like the player points systems and progressive jackpot slots are working properly. We never have access to code or internals. But here's the important part - WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GAMBLE AT OUR CLIENT'S! EVER! Just gambling at our clients is seen as a potential conflict of interest for us and our clients. I don't care if this guy stole $1 or $100,000,000. The point is he was in a position of trust and he violated that trust. Maybe he should have thought about his children, ex-wife, and freinds before he committed the crime.
It may smack of insanity to many, but Slashdot is a community (okay, a vocal, opinionated group that will share their opinions wether you want them to or not). Cliff is asking for an opinion from his community - something more than the fact sheets from manufacturers or "unknown entity" opinions found in a random search.
Does that mean that the information he'll get from asking Slashdot will be better than the results of a Google search? Maybe not. Slashdot is just as good of a choice for disinformation as any other site on the web - but at least he'll have context - and he'll have chosen the source of his information, for better or worse.
You're missing the point. M$ is going out of their way to break competitor's products.
If M$ just said "We don't care about users of other browsers. If they can't properly display our pages that's their problem. So we're not going to waste time checking for browser information - we're just going to serve our pages our way optimized for our browser.", this would be Opera, Mozilla, Netscape's problem.
But instead, they're going out of their way, for no technical reason, to make competitor's products appear inferior. Most importantly, this is exactly the type of behavior that M$ has done for years to eliminate competition.
So frankly, I don't care how many people out there use what browser. That isn't the point. M$'s disgusting business practices are. And anyone who continues to use and pay for their products are supporting this type of activity.
If you have a direct TiVo, the subscription cost is only $4.95 a month. And I think it's worth every penny. It gives you the ability to see show listings and descriptions up to two weeks in advance and see what's happening at the top of the hour or next/any hour across all channels when you're actually watching live TV. The directory is the second most important feature I miss when I travel (the first being all the standard TiVo pause, fast forward, etc. features). TiVo really isn't TiVo without the directory information and it's a small price to pay for great convenience.
One thing that always goes undiscussed is just hos MS took over the server market. Better marketing? To some extent since Novell couldn't market themselves out of a wet paper bag. Better technology? Please. NetWare today is still better as an OS than Win XXX.
No, the real reason MS won the server battle is free software. When you purchased NetWare back in the early days you had to by a license for XX clients (10 -250, typically) with the cost going up per client. The options were 10, 25, 50, 100, of 250 seats. If you needed 40 you still bought and paid for 50.
Then MS came along. You bought one copy with one license then just entered the number of licenses you wanted. 1,000??? No problem. No license check. No large PO to get approval for. You could always catch up with the license police later. Every Windows NT server I know of was initially installed this way.
So MS won the server war by giving away the software - and charging for it later. Please don't look shocked. It's the best game a monopolist can play.
Let me know where you're purchasing Windows for $100. I'd like to be able to buy it at that price! Windows v3.1 was $100. The upgrade to 95 was $95. This was the first time MS gouged the retailers. For those of you too young to know, PCs and software used to carry a hefty margin - 40-75%. For Win 95, vendors got $10 of the $95. This was the first step, IMHO, in turning the industry into a commodity market. So kudos to MS for creating the day-and-age of the sub $500 PC. At the same time, thank MS for creating the day-and-age of the $300 OS for that PC. And also thank them for creating a world where you don't need to buy a new PC every other year since there are no new apps (less games) that make you need a new PC with more speed/power.
I'm often reminded that behind every sleezebag lawyer there is a sleezebag client. While that's true in many court cases, it is not the case with class action suits. From what I've read you're given the choice of participating or waiving your rights to sue. It doesn's seem like much of a choice to me.
I'm convinced they're a conduit for passing money to lawyers while eliminating the public's ability to recover actual damages. Here are some examples:
I was involved in a suit against B of A in California. They were overcharging on something for home loans. While I have no idea how much the total settlement was for, I still have my check for $0.23. (yes, 23 cents)
I just got my check for NFL Sunday ticket's suit resolution. It seems two bar owners sued because they coulen't get single games - just the season package. I think the settlement was just under $3.5 million. The lawyers got a third, the two bar owners got $1,000 each (this is not a typo), and I received $32 and change although I have yet to realize that I was injured.
In some cases you don't get anything. I think Sears settled with a service lawsuit (again in CA) years ago where the lawyers got serious cash and everyone else got discount coupons on future Sears work. Let's see, they screwed me that last time they worked on my car. I'll feel better when they screw me this time at a discount!
There are numerous examples of class action suits putting good companies with good products out of business (think Silicon breast implants). No proof that there's any abnormal danger but the lawsuits have killed and industry and prevented good products from coming to market.
While there is limited good from these types of lawsuits (asbestos comes to mind) one questions if there isn't a better way. Most of these lawsuits border on the frivolous and the injured parties, if they are in fact even injured as in my two examples, get next to nothing. But with lawyers as the prime beneficiaries and lawyers as the primary law makers, I don't see this changing during my life time.
The high price of the projecters is in part due to low volume. SW:AOC is only being shown in digital in 19 or 21 theaters in the US. If there were more digital ready theaters, I'm sure this number would be larger.
As for quality, the two movies I've seen in digital were stunning. But my wife used to work at the UCLA Film & Television Archive and they are sticking to film for preservation - not digital. The primary reason is the introduction of artifacts when moving to digital from film.
To an outsider (like me) it's hard to say if this is resistance to change or reality. (For all you young 'uns out there, many of the first CDs were very tinny and audiophiles wouldn't touch 'em.) However, I feel with greater adoption in the creation and presentation of digital media, the quality will improve and the price will come down. Combine that with reduced distribution charges (to the studios) and digital in most theaters will be a reality. The only question is the adtoption rate at the local cineplex.
WRONG!!!
I live in Phoenix, AZ. Technically backward but theoretically I should have choices for high speed Internet. But I don't. Here are my options:
(1) Cable modem from Cox - Reasonable pricing and improved performance since the divorce from @Home.
(2) DSL from Qwest/Covad - I'm 10,000 ft. from the CO (I checked before I bought the house) but the actual run is just under 18,000 ft. so this isn't an option
(3) ISDN from Covad - Available, but installation may be costly, bandwidth goes down, and the price doubles - but I get a static IP address.
(4) Sprint Wireless - There's a big tree down the street sitting between my house and their tower at South Mountain. They think I might get partial connectivity if we put the little diamond on a 20 ft. long pole on the top of my house held down by seven wires, something the neighbors will love.
(5) Dial-up
So if I want high-speed access, cable modem is the only game for me. If Cox decides to limit access, force me through MSN/AOL/whatever, I effectively have no choice. And I'm better off than most people who only have one service option in their area.
But what really strikes me as ironic is that Cox offers digital phone access over the same cable the FCC sees as a data only device. Someone needs to be slapped upside the head with a clue stick.
I didn't realize FOTR was released in Heaven/Hell. 'Cause that's the only place Gene could have seen it. Perhaps you mean Roger Ebert.
Try Dark side of the Moon, not The Wall. I agree it's probably coincidence, but it sure is fun to watch and listen to the two together.