Although my point still stands. Drive just below the speed limit. The fact that you happen to be in the right isn't going to stop you getting a ticket.
Yes, but those are guidelines. Clearly law enforcement don't pay attention to them. Whether they should or not they are perfectly legally entitled to ticket you for going at that speed. Seems to me that after not learning the first 5 times, you only have yourself to blame the 6th.
Who cares what they should or shouldn't do? It's what they do that matters. Relying on expected behaviour that based on experimental results doesn't happen suggests a disregard for reality.
I'm guessing that's one of those marginally cheaper design things. You can connect those pins together with single vertical strips of metal that can be mounted on the back of the socket rather than having to cross over and build the socket in two parts.
1) The European socket has a plastic outside cone for insulation. If the cable is partially unplugged, you cannot touch it with your fingers. The British version has nothing.
I don't see the advantage to fusing the plug versus a device with a replaceable fuse.
Accessibility. Actually it was a design that allowed all devices to be run of a single ring main rather than a separate cable to each socket. Less wire was an important consideration in the post war years.
You're assuming competently designed software. What if it's accessed by a pointer in several hundred places, or you make a copy of it somewhere? That's another variable to keep track of.
Except it's never that simple. Other components rely on the data being in seconds. There's all sorts of hardcoded values in seconds. The specification states 0.1 seconds so it's impossible to change it to something more convenient without restarting at the specification stage. You'll end up looking a the code and asking "who the hell wrote this!?"
95/98/Me were all Windows 4.x There was a separate series of NT based Windows that started on v3.x for various reasons including parallels with the home version of Windows, and source compatibility. Windows 2000 was NT 5. XP was just another NT 5 variant. Vista was windows 6, and Windows 7 is Windows 6 as well (actually 6.1).
MS made some justification as to why they're using a version number of 6.1, but really it doesn't make a lot of sense.
A $100 mobile phone on a 3 year contract only costs $100 if the contract costs less than $3 per month.
If you break the phone you'll not get a replacement for $100. The contract is still a commitment. Resale value doesn't factor into it because at that point it's no longer practically disposable since you need to hang onto it.
Depends on how much you value your time. My time is worth more to me than trying to fiddle with an underpowered secondhand PC.
Any computer you can get for less than $100 is going to need some amount of work to get Linux working, plus the time taken to actually source the thing. Once you're spending more than that most people are able to justify a few hours getting things working.
And you really can't get an iPhone for $100. Not even a used 1st generation one.
Still, certain phones have advantages that make them poor substitutes for satnav. Small screens can be useful because they result in small phones with lots of space for the buttons. A lot of us prefer buttons to touchscreen. The "candybar" design is probably going to stay with us for a while. A good design for a phone, but a bad design for a satnav. The other thing is, some of us like to have two separate devices (I have a camera and an mp3 player as well as a cameraphone with built in mp3 player).
In my case there's a simpler reason I'm not going to get a satnav. I already have one.
It didn't monopolise the market though, and may not have done so well had it not had other advantages (i.e. it was cheap). Camcorders had phono composite connectors so it wasn't that hard to convert other formats to VHS.
Similarly, all people really want is to be able to transfer documents seamlessly. They don't care so much if different applications run on different machines. You can already get Windows CE on ARM, and MS would have no objection to producing a Word compatible word processor for CE if demand was sufficient.
I'd be okay with it. During a long journey I'd want to take a break from driving every couple of hours anyway so it's only a minor inconvenience. Having to recharge that often would be a problem though. Range has only been a minor issue for a while now.
There's still the problem of the image being too close. You can tell that the image is less than a foot from your face. You could actually fix this with optics, of course.
As far as fixing lag goes, you can predict reasonably accurately where the head is going to be, but yes, fast accurate measuring is better.
Seagate lived a long and prosperous career engineering and manufacturing mechanical hard disks. They are a huge company whose entire operation is based around the concept of shipping hunks of metal with rotating platters inside.
But can they get into the SSD market? surely the rapid progress of hard drives requires a complete replacement of most of the technology over 10 years anyway.
There are plenty of people who haven't purchased music online either. However the majority of sales are online. What does that mean? It means you and I are dinosaurs.
Online game sales only account for 25% of the market. It's not bad but you are potentially throwing away 75% of your market with your strategy.
Isn't that what gaming's suppose to be? A hobby? I'm sorry if you're so caught up in it being a serious money making industry that you've completely forgotten that, to the point that you'd use it as an insult.
Rockstar, id, Valve, and Blizzard would all disagree with you. If you can name any hobbyist development that is anywhere near as good as their games then you'll have a point. Games being a serious money making industry is what results in publishers investing in developers. If you want to develop games as a hobby, then that's great! If you can make money from your hobby, then that's absolutely fantastic, but that's not what the article was about. It's about balancing the profit with the freedom to take creative risks, possibly maximising the former with the latter. Hobby development is about sacrificing the profit for the freedom to take creative risks. Great! But these companies need to show a profit.
i hate things which are priced x.99, its more hassle than its worth and is anyone really stupid enough to think 3.99 is really much different from 4.00?
No, it makes sense based on a totally objective purchasing strategy. People will buy things if they think it has a value to them greater than the cost. Working out the value of something intangible such as a game is not going to be easy, so you'll stab at a figure. You're only going to stab at whole numbers. So some people consider this game to be worth $4. Some of them based on that will buy it at $4 based on the fact that it's less than or equal to the value they place on it, others will not based on it being greater than or equal to the price they're willing to pay.
Contains mention of car, sufficiently similar a situation that it's completely useless for illustrating a point, and sufficiently different that it's pointless to draw further parallels!
Well, yes. If you want to write a game as a hobby, with net costs of zero, then you can make a profit the way you suggest. If you want to make a decent amount of money though, you need to at least pay your developers. Any "sponsor" who funded development would want something in return if you're planning on making a commercial game. Nobody is going to fund your development out of a desire to make you rich selling games.
Yeah. The only other things a publisher can do is get shelf space in high street stores, advertising space in computer magazines, mentions in the mainstream press, show at E3 and fund development for a year, as well as hire professional web designers who know about promotion and page layout to sort out the website.
1. Exact subpixel positioning of each frame as derived from higher resolution master
You can detect subpixel differences in lower resolution images. You only need to apply minor changes to break the watermarking.
2. Exact time of each frame derived from a higher frame rate master
This would require applying the copy protection at shooting time, having high frame rate cameras, increasing special effects costs, and generally interfering with the film itself.
3. Choice of key frame positions and algorithm used to compute differences between frames.
Recompressing will totally change this.
4. Very slight affine transforms applied to some portions of some images.
You can detect the transforms with two copies. Minor changes will break the watermark.
It was a good decision. There's no YYYY-DD-MM notation so it's not going to get confused with that. It also means a simple alphanumeric sort will sort the date correctly, a decent number of people in the world (Mostly in China and Japan) are already familiar with the notation, and it maintains logical consistency if you put 24 hour time after it (YYYY-MM-DD-hh:mm:ss)
Slashdot Mirror
No. It was a joke. It's pretty unlikely that a car has linear acceleration all the way up to 90.
Well, that's irritating.
Although my point still stands. Drive just below the speed limit. The fact that you happen to be in the right isn't going to stop you getting a ticket.
Yes, but those are guidelines. Clearly law enforcement don't pay attention to them. Whether they should or not they are perfectly legally entitled to ticket you for going at that speed. Seems to me that after not learning the first 5 times, you only have yourself to blame the 6th.
Who cares what they should or shouldn't do? It's what they do that matters. Relying on expected behaviour that based on experimental results doesn't happen suggests a disregard for reality.
The average speed was 45mph. This means he went to 90mph in those 30 seconds.
Have you considered driving 3mph slower? It seems that they really mean it when they post the speed limits in your area.
I'm guessing that's one of those marginally cheaper design things. You can connect those pins together with single vertical strips of metal that can be mounted on the back of the socket rather than having to cross over and build the socket in two parts.
1) The European socket has a plastic outside cone for insulation. If the cable is partially unplugged, you cannot touch it with your fingers. The British version has nothing.
Except Insulated pins
2) The European socket allows you to plug the cables upside down (which is extremely helpful in certain situations).
I've never need to do this. I don't think I've ever seen a European plug inverted either. Can't be that useful.
Honestly, the european plug is fine. So's the UK style. The article was stupid, but it's equally stupid getting upset over it.
I don't see the advantage to fusing the plug versus a device with a replaceable fuse.
Accessibility. Actually it was a design that allowed all devices to be run of a single ring main rather than a separate cable to each socket. Less wire was an important consideration in the post war years.
You're assuming competently designed software. What if it's accessed by a pointer in several hundred places, or you make a copy of it somewhere? That's another variable to keep track of.
Except it's never that simple. Other components rely on the data being in seconds. There's all sorts of hardcoded values in seconds. The specification states 0.1 seconds so it's impossible to change it to something more convenient without restarting at the specification stage. You'll end up looking a the code and asking "who the hell wrote this!?"
95/98/Me were all Windows 4.x There was a separate series of NT based Windows that started on v3.x for various reasons including parallels with the home version of Windows, and source compatibility. Windows 2000 was NT 5. XP was just another NT 5 variant. Vista was windows 6, and Windows 7 is Windows 6 as well (actually 6.1).
MS made some justification as to why they're using a version number of 6.1, but really it doesn't make a lot of sense.
A $100 mobile phone on a 3 year contract only costs $100 if the contract costs less than $3 per month.
If you break the phone you'll not get a replacement for $100. The contract is still a commitment. Resale value doesn't factor into it because at that point it's no longer practically disposable since you need to hang onto it.
Depends on how much you value your time. My time is worth more to me than trying to fiddle with an underpowered secondhand PC.
Any computer you can get for less than $100 is going to need some amount of work to get Linux working, plus the time taken to actually source the thing. Once you're spending more than that most people are able to justify a few hours getting things working.
And you really can't get an iPhone for $100. Not even a used 1st generation one.
Still, certain phones have advantages that make them poor substitutes for satnav. Small screens can be useful because they result in small phones with lots of space for the buttons. A lot of us prefer buttons to touchscreen. The "candybar" design is probably going to stay with us for a while. A good design for a phone, but a bad design for a satnav. The other thing is, some of us like to have two separate devices (I have a camera and an mp3 player as well as a cameraphone with built in mp3 player).
In my case there's a simpler reason I'm not going to get a satnav. I already have one.
It didn't monopolise the market though, and may not have done so well had it not had other advantages (i.e. it was cheap). Camcorders had phono composite connectors so it wasn't that hard to convert other formats to VHS.
Similarly, all people really want is to be able to transfer documents seamlessly. They don't care so much if different applications run on different machines. You can already get Windows CE on ARM, and MS would have no objection to producing a Word compatible word processor for CE if demand was sufficient.
I'd be okay with it. During a long journey I'd want to take a break from driving every couple of hours anyway so it's only a minor inconvenience. Having to recharge that often would be a problem though. Range has only been a minor issue for a while now.
There's still the problem of the image being too close. You can tell that the image is less than a foot from your face. You could actually fix this with optics, of course.
As far as fixing lag goes, you can predict reasonably accurately where the head is going to be, but yes, fast accurate measuring is better.
Seagate lived a long and prosperous career engineering and manufacturing mechanical hard disks. They are a huge company whose entire operation is based around the concept of shipping hunks of metal with rotating platters inside.
But can they get into the SSD market? surely the rapid progress of hard drives requires a complete replacement of most of the technology over 10 years anyway.
There are plenty of people who haven't purchased music online either. However the majority of sales are online. What does that mean? It means you and I are dinosaurs.
Online game sales only account for 25% of the market. It's not bad but you are potentially throwing away 75% of your market with your strategy.
Isn't that what gaming's suppose to be? A hobby? I'm sorry if you're so caught up in it being a serious money making industry that you've completely forgotten that, to the point that you'd use it as an insult.
Rockstar, id, Valve, and Blizzard would all disagree with you. If you can name any hobbyist development that is anywhere near as good as their games then you'll have a point. Games being a serious money making industry is what results in publishers investing in developers. If you want to develop games as a hobby, then that's great! If you can make money from your hobby, then that's absolutely fantastic, but that's not what the article was about. It's about balancing the profit with the freedom to take creative risks, possibly maximising the former with the latter. Hobby development is about sacrificing the profit for the freedom to take creative risks. Great! But these companies need to show a profit.
i hate things which are priced x.99, its more hassle than its worth and is anyone really stupid enough to think 3.99 is really much different from 4.00?
No, it makes sense based on a totally objective purchasing strategy. People will buy things if they think it has a value to them greater than the cost. Working out the value of something intangible such as a game is not going to be easy, so you'll stab at a figure. You're only going to stab at whole numbers. So some people consider this game to be worth $4. Some of them based on that will buy it at $4 based on the fact that it's less than or equal to the value they place on it, others will not based on it being greater than or equal to the price they're willing to pay.
Mod up! That is the perfect Slashdot analogy!
Contains mention of car, sufficiently similar a situation that it's completely useless for illustrating a point, and sufficiently different that it's pointless to draw further parallels!
Well, yes. If you want to write a game as a hobby, with net costs of zero, then you can make a profit the way you suggest. If you want to make a decent amount of money though, you need to at least pay your developers. Any "sponsor" who funded development would want something in return if you're planning on making a commercial game. Nobody is going to fund your development out of a desire to make you rich selling games.
Yeah. The only other things a publisher can do is get shelf space in high street stores, advertising space in computer magazines, mentions in the mainstream press, show at E3 and fund development for a year, as well as hire professional web designers who know about promotion and page layout to sort out the website.
1. Exact subpixel positioning of each frame as derived from higher resolution master
You can detect subpixel differences in lower resolution images. You only need to apply minor changes to break the watermarking.
2. Exact time of each frame derived from a higher frame rate master
This would require applying the copy protection at shooting time, having high frame rate cameras, increasing special effects costs, and generally interfering with the film itself.
3. Choice of key frame positions and algorithm used to compute differences between frames.
Recompressing will totally change this.
4. Very slight affine transforms applied to some portions of some images. You can detect the transforms with two copies. Minor changes will break the watermark.
It was a good decision. There's no YYYY-DD-MM notation so it's not going to get confused with that. It also means a simple alphanumeric sort will sort the date correctly, a decent number of people in the world (Mostly in China and Japan) are already familiar with the notation, and it maintains logical consistency if you put 24 hour time after it (YYYY-MM-DD-hh:mm:ss)