Just more of the same old Slashdot hyprocracy
on
Digital Celebrities
·
· Score: 1
So constructing a radio program using fragments of human speech is bad. What is the difference between doing this and using software to build an artificial human army (pieced together with samples of human movements and behaviors) for a movie? When Weta does it, piecing together "entertainment" using technology is unanimously good. When ClearChannel does it, piecing together "entertainment" using technology is unanimously bad. Someone care to explain?
I don't consider liner notes "added value." It's not information you can't get from some other source, and by requiring an application to get at information you would "normally" get with your CD purchase they've actually put a squeeze on how many people can view the information they purchased. What if you don't have a computer capable of running the liner-notes app?
It's not true. There was a fix for excessive fan noise in OS9, where evidentally the so-called "leaf blower" CPU fan mode came on more than needed. The fix didn't change the noise level of my MDD G4, which doesn't have OS9. Mine is fairly loud even without the leaf-blower sound (which I have personally never heard.) I've tried temporarily unplugging the CPU fan to make sure it was not the culprit... because I was thinking it is possible my machine is *always* in leaf-blower mode, which it very well could be since I've never heard it at any other sound level... and it's not that. It's the set of fans as a whole that are the problem.
I have heard PCs that are twice as loud though. So take all this with a grain of salt.
I second this. I've never found the GBA's screen to be a problem in any of the places I've taken it. It would be nice to have a backlight so it would be possible to play in the dark, but I can list alot of other more important things I can't do in the dark either (reading for one) that make the need to play handheld video games in it pretty shallow. Get a lamp already!
I think more important than range in your case is carrying capacity. Even if you can get to the grocery store with it... what's the point? Plan on riding it 7 miles daily to pick up groceries?:) You won't even get any exercise for your wasted time and trouble.
I second that. I had a hotmail account for 2 years that I used quite frequently as a secondary email account and never had a spam problem.
However, I gave my email account to one site and went from 0->2MB quota filled in less than a day in much less than 2 months. It's all about who or what you're in contact with... not about the service itself.
For every person who gets megabytes and megabytes of virus spam and has a mother who gets the same, there are many more Windows users don't have that problem. Both I, my mother, and Michelle Delio live on that planet.
If I'm browsing through a set of pages, and I go back three pages then click on another link, those three pages disappear. The problem is slightly alleviated with browser tabs, but those tend to clutter up my screen during serious surfing time.
I would argue that anyone who uses the back button *wants* those 3 pages to disappear due to errant navigation. Perhaps a toggleable setting could enable a linear history, but I bet after a while you'd end up using your tab method anyway.
(Note you can keep tab/window use down to 2 by dragging links from a desireable navigation page onto a second, but preexisting, destination page tab/window. I feel this is way more usable than any other back button functionality or options could be... and it is doable in pretty much any browser, even old ones.)
Exactly. There are 3 cases with no obvious alternative behaviors besides mind reading... would someone like to explain what else it could do at these points?
A) You click the back button. A back operation is performed. The forward button enables, allowing you to undo the back operation.
B) You click the forward button. A back operation is undone. The forward button is enabled only if there are more back operations to undo.
C) You click a link on a page, which navigates you to a new page. The forward button disables itself, because it doesn't know what you might click next. The browser could possibly preload a predicted page, however that would be different functionality than in A and probably should be a different button altogether... the same functionality could be done (and is already being done in some browsers) w/o a button at all.
Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.
The key word is "claim." The actual value is probably much lower, and getting increasingly lower.
The Ipsos-Reid results summary is very vague anyway... it doesn't say that poll respondants paid for a download service, just that they "paid for any music they have downloaded". They very well could have bought a CD of music that they downloaded online... I would think many people would consider that paying for the music.
It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa.
No. The number would be significantly smaller were people to know free services existed. Some friends who were left in the dark by Napster started to sign up for these pay services until I told them about the existance of free ones, at which point they quickly about-faced.
The American Way: don't tell me there's no such thing as a free ride.
The point that Windows 2000 hasn't been out for 5 years doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the study. The same "version" of Linux hasn't been out 5 years ago either. What was the kernel at back then... 2.0? Or even older than that? What were the distros like? Were they are easy to use as they are now? Were they as bloated? Etc.
I'm not saying that the overall results of the study are right. But maybe the article is wrong, and the study really covered "Windows environments" over a 5 year period, rather than specifically Windows 2000. I think it's a given that Windows, in general, has changed alot less over the last 5 years than has Linux... which says alot in Linux's defense! Maybe the first 3 years of the study when Linux was in what I consider its commercial infancy skewed the results!
I don't know if this is what you're getting at or not, but wouldn't it be cool if rather than UI, all 50,000 characters "filmed" in the movie were controled in some kind of realtime online battle game made specifically for the "filming" of the scene? And then you'd get to try to find yourself in the battle when the movie hit theatres?
Unfortunately half of the creatures would be spinning in place or jumping up and down and making gestures. But hey, it *could* be cool.
Wi-Fi covers more than just 802.11b. I think that's just a buzzword in this story... this is a proprietary technology so there's no reason MS couldn't have tweaked something about normal 802.11 technology to get the kind of bandwidth they needed (at the expense of other things like interferrence, I'm sure.)
PDA's commonly get scratched screens, but that's because they're made of plastic. I doubt something larger (and allowably more hefty) like a monitor would be anything but glass, and therefore less prone to scratching... unless there's some reason touch screens can't be made of glass.
It will only be crap if you're playing UT on it. With normal desktop use very few pixels from one cycle to the next, and there is pretty good image desktop image compression technology already in existance with Remote Desktop. I assume the system also is able to handle the desktop image separately from the rest of the screen. The bandwidth you calculated is an absolute maximum, and really isn't very meaningful.
Slashdot Mirror
So constructing a radio program using fragments of human speech is bad. What is the difference between doing this and using software to build an artificial human army (pieced together with samples of human movements and behaviors) for a movie? When Weta does it, piecing together "entertainment" using technology is unanimously good. When ClearChannel does it, piecing together "entertainment" using technology is unanimously bad. Someone care to explain?
who thinks the Janis Ian quote sounds like the body of a spam?
Yeah, pretty much.
I have 60 GB or so of MP3s [dhs.org] that you need.
Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.
I don't consider liner notes "added value." It's not information you can't get from some other source, and by requiring an application to get at information you would "normally" get with your CD purchase they've actually put a squeeze on how many people can view the information they purchased. What if you don't have a computer capable of running the liner-notes app?
It's not true. There was a fix for excessive fan noise in OS9, where evidentally the so-called "leaf blower" CPU fan mode came on more than needed. The fix didn't change the noise level of my MDD G4, which doesn't have OS9. Mine is fairly loud even without the leaf-blower sound (which I have personally never heard.) I've tried temporarily unplugging the CPU fan to make sure it was not the culprit... because I was thinking it is possible my machine is *always* in leaf-blower mode, which it very well could be since I've never heard it at any other sound level... and it's not that. It's the set of fans as a whole that are the problem.
I have heard PCs that are twice as loud though. So take all this with a grain of salt.
Last time I checked hydrogen was the most abundant resourced on earth.
Last time you checked did you find out that just because it's abundant doesn't mean it's a simple matter to acquire it?
I second this. I've never found the GBA's screen to be a problem in any of the places I've taken it. It would be nice to have a backlight so it would be possible to play in the dark, but I can list alot of other more important things I can't do in the dark either (reading for one) that make the need to play handheld video games in it pretty shallow. Get a lamp already!
Yeah, that link port is one and the same. But why would one use headphones while the GBA is plugged into the cube?
I think more important than range in your case is carrying capacity. Even if you can get to the grocery store with it... what's the point? Plan on riding it 7 miles daily to pick up groceries? :) You won't even get any exercise for your wasted time and trouble.
I second that. I had a hotmail account for 2 years that I used quite frequently as a secondary email account and never had a spam problem.
However, I gave my email account to one site and went from 0->2MB quota filled in less than a day in much less than 2 months. It's all about who or what you're in contact with... not about the service itself.
For every person who gets megabytes and megabytes of virus spam and has a mother who gets the same, there are many more Windows users don't have that problem. Both I, my mother, and Michelle Delio live on that planet.
If I'm browsing through a set of pages, and I go back three pages then click on another link, those three pages disappear. The problem is slightly alleviated with browser tabs, but those tend to clutter up my screen during serious surfing time.
I would argue that anyone who uses the back button *wants* those 3 pages to disappear due to errant navigation. Perhaps a toggleable setting could enable a linear history, but I bet after a while you'd end up using your tab method anyway.
(Note you can keep tab/window use down to 2 by dragging links from a desireable navigation page onto a second, but preexisting, destination page tab/window. I feel this is way more usable than any other back button functionality or options could be... and it is doable in pretty much any browser, even old ones.)
Exactly. There are 3 cases with no obvious alternative behaviors besides mind reading... would someone like to explain what else it could do at these points?
A) You click the back button. A back operation is performed. The forward button enables, allowing you to undo the back operation.
B) You click the forward button. A back operation is undone. The forward button is enabled only if there are more back operations to undo.
C) You click a link on a page, which navigates you to a new page. The forward button disables itself, because it doesn't know what you might click next. The browser could possibly preload a predicted page, however that would be different functionality than in A and probably should be a different button altogether... the same functionality could be done (and is already being done in some browsers) w/o a button at all.
Don't you mean "There go My Network Places"?
Furthermore, almost a third (31%) of those who do download claim they have paid for at least some of the music they got online.
The key word is "claim." The actual value is probably much lower, and getting increasingly lower.
The Ipsos-Reid results summary is very vague anyway... it doesn't say that poll respondants paid for a download service, just that they "paid for any music they have downloaded". They very well could have bought a CD of music that they downloaded online... I would think many people would consider that paying for the music.
It does mean though that a sizeable audience are willing to give these record industry endorsed services a shot even though they can get it all free on KaZaa.
No. The number would be significantly smaller were people to know free services existed. Some friends who were left in the dark by Napster started to sign up for these pay services until I told them about the existance of free ones, at which point they quickly about-faced.
The American Way: don't tell me there's no such thing as a free ride.
... a beowulf cluster of these "why didn't anyone post an imagine-a-beowulf-cluster-of-these post" posts!
Comes from upbringing. Their parents are probably idiots too.
Screw the AirGen. I got that last Jan. I'm getting a Mr. Fusion.
The point that Windows 2000 hasn't been out for 5 years doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the study. The same "version" of Linux hasn't been out 5 years ago either. What was the kernel at back then... 2.0? Or even older than that? What were the distros like? Were they are easy to use as they are now? Were they as bloated? Etc.
I'm not saying that the overall results of the study are right. But maybe the article is wrong, and the study really covered "Windows environments" over a 5 year period, rather than specifically Windows 2000. I think it's a given that Windows, in general, has changed alot less over the last 5 years than has Linux... which says alot in Linux's defense! Maybe the first 3 years of the study when Linux was in what I consider its commercial infancy skewed the results!
Had I also been available for those 60 years I might have read them.
You do realize you don't read every book in the library through telepathy just becuase you're within telepathic range of the library, don't you?
I don't know if this is what you're getting at or not, but wouldn't it be cool if rather than UI, all 50,000 characters "filmed" in the movie were controled in some kind of realtime online battle game made specifically for the "filming" of the scene? And then you'd get to try to find yourself in the battle when the movie hit theatres?
Unfortunately half of the creatures would be spinning in place or jumping up and down and making gestures. But hey, it *could* be cool.
Other old people act? I didn't know; I haven't watched a movie other than Star Wars and Fellowship of the Ring for the past 5 years.
Wi-Fi covers more than just 802.11b. I think that's just a buzzword in this story... this is a proprietary technology so there's no reason MS couldn't have tweaked something about normal 802.11 technology to get the kind of bandwidth they needed (at the expense of other things like interferrence, I'm sure.)
PDA's commonly get scratched screens, but that's because they're made of plastic. I doubt something larger (and allowably more hefty) like a monitor would be anything but glass, and therefore less prone to scratching... unless there's some reason touch screens can't be made of glass.
It will only be crap if you're playing UT on it. With normal desktop use very few pixels from one cycle to the next, and there is pretty good image desktop image compression technology already in existance with Remote Desktop. I assume the system also is able to handle the desktop image separately from the rest of the screen. The bandwidth you calculated is an absolute maximum, and really isn't very meaningful.