Most traditional photo developers offer the option of printing to CD. There are services that will scan all your photos or negatives for you, but they are quite expensive. About 30-50 cents per photo.
Google does have the coolness market cornered right now, though. They have continued to do a great job on their search engine, and their email, mapping, and other web services are really well done.
True - but do remember that none of these are the product. Their main product is advertising space. Search/maps/email are just advertising.
But people have been
predicting a switch for years. And Would anyone accept a bet on what a company will do in 5 years time? If you bet them that Apple will switch to Intel in the next year every year since rumours first started, you would be very very poor by now.
Change the DNS name. Granted, he gives reasons for not wanting to do this, but the only practical alternative is to shut down the server entirely. This will still require 2000 or so system administrators to reconfigure their servers, so he might as well provide a logical alternative.
I'm not sure whether such a thing would be legal in the UK. It's (presumably) a public right of way, so it would be illegal to block traffic, and EU laws are very restrictive about toll roads. I don't think it would be legal to charge a toll on this sort of road, and even if it would be, the owner would be limited to how much he could charge.
I never even heard about this game until this article...
It's rather a shame that they felt the need to tack a game onto it. There is a fairly substantial market for lifestyle products. Sony has Sony DJ that simulates mixing decks. No game. Just the music. There were a lot of art and animation packages on the Amiga that were a lot of fun to play with, if a little time consuming to get anything worthwhile from. But making movies is a lot of fun.
In other words, they want to double-dip and charge twice for providing the same service.
Of course they do! They want to charge as many people as much as possible. It's a capitalist system!
Competition is what stops them. If they charge too much, then someone else will offer the same service for less, or a better service for the same amount.
I PAY for a certian speed Internet service (Pay too much by the way - Eirope and Asia pay MUCH LESS for BETTER service!).
Find a better ISP.
NOW, my ISP (who AGAIN I remind you, already GETS A CHECK from me every month for 3000/768 Internet service), wants to be PAID EXTRA for my being able to use VOIP or Google at the speed for which I'm ALREADY PAYING FOR?
They haven't said what their pricing model is. If they wish to increase their prices then they can do so. You're not obliged to stick with your ISP.
If that be the case, then WHY should I be charged at all?
Because they're providing a service to you that you are willing to pay money for.
How is this any different then Verizon changing my friends for calls I make to THEM from my UNLIMITED PHONE SERVICE?
It isn't. Practicality and the fear of losing customers prevents them from doing so.
I already HAVE and PAY FOR a high speed Internet connection! What right does my ISP have to throttle it DOWN for those companies who won't pay their "double dip" protection money?
They own the network. They can charge who they like what they like, and you can choose a different provider. I could set up a delivery company that charges to send goods and charges the recipient to receive them. Nobody would use it though because that's a really crappy system.
Answer: Because if you DON'T pay them, they burn your store down!
Are theISPs threatening to burn down Google? Of course they're not. They're threatening to charge them for delivering data on certain lines.
Therefore, this it NO DIFFERENT then that, simply because Google and I both already PAY our ISP's for Internet service!! Now my ISP literally wants wants: "Protection money" to 'protect' the packets I've already paid for.
You haven't paid for packets. You've paid for the service of transmitting packets. The company you're transmitting the packets to has the option of paying extra to make the packets they send travel faster. They have the choice not to.
I'd hate the government to force businesses to offer the same product at the same price to everyone. If this was let through, surely it would mean that the ISPs wouldn't be allowed to offer a premium rate video streaming service, unless they also provided Google t the same data rate.
The existing companies are safe. People use their ISP to access them, and if Google and iTunes are too slow, people will start to use a faster ISP.
What caused the big bang? or What external force was there that caused the big bang?
Who knows. It may or may not have been some supreme being that may or may not be the Christian God. WMaybe the same being zapped the first proto-life into existence as well. Why do ID enthusiasts keep bringing this one up. We're talking about the origin of species here. Not the origin of the universe. Not all scientists are athiests. They just tend not to believe in a God that micromanages and goes for some generally rather badly designed ready made species when evolution is so much better a mechanism for creating adaptable life.
Why did the sea creatures decide to go on land?
They didn't have a choice. They ended up there and one of them was lucky enough to have the mutation that allowed it to survive. This mutation was passsed onto its decendants. This gave them a small advantage since they were actually able to go to land to feed, and there was a lot of food for them.
Get them to explain the evolutionary path that lead to creatures having sight.
Well, even Darwin managed to pose this question, and came up with the basis for the answer. If you google for "how did the eye evolve" you'll see a lot of answers
Companies tend not to branch into totally unrealated unexplored businesses. Google is not in the subscription/sales business. It's in the advertising sponsored search business. Granted, neither was Apple, but they did already have at least some form of a paid software download business. Google has no experience at all in online sales.
Seriously, if they're so busy adding to its cost, they could have given it a bit more memory, surely. And it can't be a space issue. 4GB will fit in the volume provided by an SD card these days.
The supplier has to make a major capital investment in infrastructure to actually provide high bandwidth in the first place. If they're going to spend that much money, they're going to have to know whether it's worth it. That means thay have to guess what the consumer wants. They are not obliged to their customers to supply everything the customer wants. Only what they can make a profit on.
Is there any media for this at all? If not any actual films, I hope at least there's a demo disc or something to show off the 1080 lines of resolution.
Unless they have some normalising mechanism, that is.
Many years ago there was a report into the violent films kids have seen. They seemed to have seen a lot. Then they added some fake movie titles as well. Kids had seen a lot of them too.
Well, yes... Which takes longer, is not avaialable to everyone, and doesn't automatically filter based on the movie I've most recently decided to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Most traditional photo developers offer the option of printing to CD. There are services that will scan all your photos or negatives for you, but they are quite expensive. About 30-50 cents per photo.
It would be consistent with their business model... Not sure if they would actually do this.
Google does have the coolness market cornered right now, though. They have continued to do a great job on their search engine, and their email, mapping, and other web services are really well done.
True - but do remember that none of these are the product. Their main product is advertising space. Search/maps/email are just advertising.
I can spell, moron. I just can't type, moron.
I'm against software patents. Copyright provides more than adequate protection for software.
I'm in favour of hardware patents. Hardware does not get copyrighted.
Why is this moreon telling us what our views are without even understanding them in the first place?
But people have been predicting a switch for years. And Would anyone accept a bet on what a company will do in 5 years time? If you bet them that Apple will switch to Intel in the next year every year since rumours first started, you would be very very poor by now.
Well... It could still kill them. For all you know, they might not be selling at all.
Some of these are glitchy, and the code can be obtained from hidden form values or the image URL.
Indeed. I fear that this may well be used to intimidate people who have legitimate but similar company names.
Change the DNS name. Granted, he gives reasons for not wanting to do this, but the only practical alternative is to shut down the server entirely. This will still require 2000 or so system administrators to reconfigure their servers, so he might as well provide a logical alternative.
I'm not sure whether such a thing would be legal in the UK. It's (presumably) a public right of way, so it would be illegal to block traffic, and EU laws are very restrictive about toll roads. I don't think it would be legal to charge a toll on this sort of road, and even if it would be, the owner would be limited to how much he could charge.
I never even heard about this game until this article...
It's rather a shame that they felt the need to tack a game onto it. There is a fairly substantial market for lifestyle products. Sony has Sony DJ that simulates mixing decks. No game. Just the music. There were a lot of art and animation packages on the Amiga that were a lot of fun to play with, if a little time consuming to get anything worthwhile from. But making movies is a lot of fun.
In other words, they want to double-dip and charge twice for providing the same service.
Of course they do! They want to charge as many people as much as possible. It's a capitalist system!
Competition is what stops them. If they charge too much, then someone else will offer the same service for less, or a better service for the same amount.
I PAY for a certian speed Internet service (Pay too much by the way - Eirope and Asia pay MUCH LESS for BETTER service!).
Find a better ISP.
NOW, my ISP (who AGAIN I remind you, already GETS A CHECK from me every month for 3000/768 Internet service), wants to be PAID EXTRA for my being able to use VOIP or Google at the speed for which I'm ALREADY PAYING FOR?
They haven't said what their pricing model is. If they wish to increase their prices then they can do so. You're not obliged to stick with your ISP.
If that be the case, then WHY should I be charged at all?
Because they're providing a service to you that you are willing to pay money for.
How is this any different then Verizon changing my friends for calls I make to THEM from my UNLIMITED PHONE SERVICE?
It isn't. Practicality and the fear of losing customers prevents them from doing so.
You mean like almost all of them?
An ISP that can't provide web access to most of the web at decent speeds isn't going to last long.
I already HAVE and PAY FOR a high speed Internet connection! What right does my ISP have to throttle it DOWN for those companies who won't pay their "double dip" protection money?
They own the network. They can charge who they like what they like, and you can choose a different provider. I could set up a delivery company that charges to send goods and charges the recipient to receive them. Nobody would use it though because that's a really crappy system.
Answer: Because if you DON'T pay them, they burn your store down!
Are theISPs threatening to burn down Google? Of course they're not. They're threatening to charge them for delivering data on certain lines.
Therefore, this it NO DIFFERENT then that, simply because Google and I both already PAY our ISP's for Internet service!! Now my ISP literally wants wants: "Protection money" to 'protect' the packets I've already paid for.
You haven't paid for packets. You've paid for the service of transmitting packets. The company you're transmitting the packets to has the option of paying extra to make the packets they send travel faster. They have the choice not to.
I'd hate the government to force businesses to offer the same product at the same price to everyone. If this was let through, surely it would mean that the ISPs wouldn't be allowed to offer a premium rate video streaming service, unless they also provided Google t the same data rate.
The existing companies are safe. People use their ISP to access them, and if Google and iTunes are too slow, people will start to use a faster ISP.
What caused the big bang? or What external force was there that caused the big bang?
Who knows. It may or may not have been some supreme being that may or may not be the Christian God. WMaybe the same being zapped the first proto-life into existence as well. Why do ID enthusiasts keep bringing this one up. We're talking about the origin of species here. Not the origin of the universe. Not all scientists are athiests. They just tend not to believe in a God that micromanages and goes for some generally rather badly designed ready made species when evolution is so much better a mechanism for creating adaptable life.
Why did the sea creatures decide to go on land?
They didn't have a choice. They ended up there and one of them was lucky enough to have the mutation that allowed it to survive. This mutation was passsed onto its decendants. This gave them a small advantage since they were actually able to go to land to feed, and there was a lot of food for them.
Get them to explain the evolutionary path that lead to creatures having sight.
Well, even Darwin managed to pose this question, and came up with the basis for the answer. If you google for "how did the eye evolve" you'll see a lot of answers
Companies tend not to branch into totally unrealated unexplored businesses. Google is not in the subscription/sales business. It's in the advertising sponsored search business. Granted, neither was Apple, but they did already have at least some form of a paid software download business. Google has no experience at all in online sales.
Seriously, if they're so busy adding to its cost, they could have given it a bit more memory, surely. And it can't be a space issue. 4GB will fit in the volume provided by an SD card these days.
Bet you're just saying that because you're ugly.
How about letting the consumer decide that?
The supplier has to make a major capital investment in infrastructure to actually provide high bandwidth in the first place. If they're going to spend that much money, they're going to have to know whether it's worth it. That means thay have to guess what the consumer wants. They are not obliged to their customers to supply everything the customer wants. Only what they can make a profit on.
Is there any media for this at all? If not any actual films, I hope at least there's a demo disc or something to show off the 1080 lines of resolution.
Unless they have some normalising mechanism, that is.
Many years ago there was a report into the violent films kids have seen. They seemed to have seen a lot. Then they added some fake movie titles as well. Kids had seen a lot of them too.
Well, yes... Which takes longer, is not avaialable to everyone, and doesn't automatically filter based on the movie I've most recently decided to watch.