While I suspect that was a joke, in theory Kinect would actually be a better platform upon which to build an ASL-to-English translator, if not for the fact that the skeletal data it provides does not include fingers.
It wasn't last time I checked, which was admittedly about a year ago. It may have changed between now and then, but I have a J2ME-based phone now, so I'm honestly not too concerned about BREW at this point.
The last time I looked into BREW development (which was when I was first looking into getting a cellphone -- which was about a year ago now) there were really high barriers to entry -- you would've ended up having to cough up about $3400, if memory serves me: about $1500 each for the SDK and testing services, and $400 for an official certificate to sign your software, the latter two of which are, from my understanding, absolutely required to get any carrier to even consider carrying your software.
Granted, this may have changed since then, but since now I have a phone with a J2ME JRE (and the whole BREW issue was a significant factor in my phone selection), I'm honestly not really terribly concerned about it now. Although I have a friend who has a CDMA BREW phone from VZW, and he seems to be running into similar roadblocks.
Qualcomm and Verizon may not want to make it difficult to develop BREW apps, but they sure don't seem to want to make it easier for the casual developer, either.
He wants to put on programs. You can't (legally) do that with Brew. If you had access to the BREW toolchain, you could, theoretically, self-sign your app and put it on your phone. The self-signature would expire every three months, though, so you'd have to keep resigning and reuploading it. The problem is really getting a copy of the BREW SDK; that would be the illegal part, unless you have really deep pockets.
Install J J: Home on a Pocket PC, go through the J programming language tutorials, and you get a programmable calculator- sized device that calculates, computes, and can graph fluctuating hyperparabaloids in technocolor, and while being a phone, a camera, an mp3 player, and...
...and you can't use it on the SATs like you can a TI-89.
The cable company here charges $30/month for channels 2-13. I think if you want all the channels (including digital ones) it comes out to $80-90. And of course there's the receiver rental fee. So it could be worse.
Also, the owner of your building cannot prevent you from installing a satellite dish under one meter in diameter. See here for details.
It's not the cable companies preventing you from ordering these channels a la carte, it's the channel owners. The packages are sold to cable companies as packages, and they're required to be sold to consumers as a package.
Yes, because obviously the theater would never ever notice thousands of people using the same ticket, nor would they do anything to prevent people that from happening like, say, invalidating a ticket after its first use.
(Incidentally, I think iPod Linux is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. "We can play MP3s at 99% realtime and Oggs at 80% realtime! Whee! This is so much better than using it as just a music player like it was originally intended!")
I've noticed that it's not uncommon for personal-journal-type blogs like these to have cams and slick-looking design -- in fact, it's basically the rule rather than the exception. Hit up any cam portal site (like camrecord.com), pick a random cam, hit the "personal website" link, they all look like this. Whether they are all blessed with this design talent or spent a lot of time cultivating it, got a friend to do it for them, or got a shiny new blog makeover in return for plugging Raging Cow, I don't know, but they're all equally likely scenarios and none of them would surprise me.
For what it's worth, I've stumbled across some other articles about this, via MetaFilter. As far as I can tell, it's not quite as sinister as it's made out to be. True, Dr. Pepper is giving these kids free crap, but they're not telling them what to say, at least according to an interview with one of the masterminds of the project. Specifically, he says:
I think if people will take the time, like you did, to really look at what we're doing, they'll realize we're not telling anyone what to say about our product. We're giving it to them and hoping they pass the word. No one is getting a ton of money so they have no reason to lie on their site about the drink. As Andrew Springate said, it's the magic of word of mouth. That's the oldest form of marketing there is, just coupled with a new technology.
So again, make of this what you will. While I realize those in the marketing business can't be trusted, I think they're fully aware of the amount of bad PR shit that would hit the fan if it came to light that they actually were bribing these people to plug the product, so I figure either they're keeping it tightly under wraps (which is probably easier said than done) or he's telling the truth. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, but I'm probably not cynical enough.
Nope. As best I can tell, most of them are real. This is judging by the registration dates... suchadork.net was registered at the end of July 2002; aboutagirl.org/com was registered in October '01. Sparkley.net was registered in October 2000. Kelleyrogers.com was registered in June '02, but using Godaddy's "private registration" thing which is somewhat fishy but plausible nonetheless. As a side note, she has a Raging Cow button on her webpage. ("The revolution will be homogenized" indeed.) Boymeetslife.com was registered in May 2002. Italianize.com was registered in September 2001.
Make of this what you will. If any of them are fake, it's probably the ones registered last year. The rest of them I'd give the benefit of the doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
While I suspect that was a joke, in theory Kinect would actually be a better platform upon which to build an ASL-to-English translator, if not for the fact that the skeletal data it provides does not include fingers.
Indeed it is.
Wonder if someone with a lower digit will post....
Yes.
Yawn indeed.
You can also use a PayPal account to sign up, but depending on how you feel about PayPal I guess that could be worse.
Only some Dreamcast games used WinCE, and those that did included it on the disc; it wasn't preinstalled on the console.
What's considered a low number?
;)
Not 120168.
Hey, cool, it's an English to Klingon translator!
That only lists towers that are actually owned by T-Mobile, not towers on which they may have equipment colocated.
not likely, you dont get to choose your call.
Actually, you can get vanity callsigns.
It wasn't last time I checked, which was admittedly about a year ago. It may have changed between now and then, but I have a J2ME-based phone now, so I'm honestly not too concerned about BREW at this point.
The last time I looked into BREW development (which was when I was first looking into getting a cellphone -- which was about a year ago now) there were really high barriers to entry -- you would've ended up having to cough up about $3400, if memory serves me: about $1500 each for the SDK and testing services, and $400 for an official certificate to sign your software, the latter two of which are, from my understanding, absolutely required to get any carrier to even consider carrying your software.
Granted, this may have changed since then, but since now I have a phone with a J2ME JRE (and the whole BREW issue was a significant factor in my phone selection), I'm honestly not really terribly concerned about it now. Although I have a friend who has a CDMA BREW phone from VZW, and he seems to be running into similar roadblocks.
Qualcomm and Verizon may not want to make it difficult to develop BREW apps, but they sure don't seem to want to make it easier for the casual developer, either.
He wants to put on programs. You can't (legally) do that with Brew.
If you had access to the BREW toolchain, you could, theoretically, self-sign your app and put it on your phone. The self-signature would expire every three months, though, so you'd have to keep resigning and reuploading it. The problem is really getting a copy of the BREW SDK; that would be the illegal part, unless you have really deep pockets.
There actually is a roguelike for the TI-89/92+/V200: CalcRogue.
I don't think it's really 'closed' if they give a link to the original page.
The cable company here charges $30/month for channels 2-13. I think if you want all the channels (including digital ones) it comes out to $80-90. And of course there's the receiver rental fee. So it could be worse.
Also, the owner of your building cannot prevent you from installing a satellite dish under one meter in diameter. See here for details.
It's not the cable companies preventing you from ordering these channels a la carte, it's the channel owners. The packages are sold to cable companies as packages, and they're required to be sold to consumers as a package.
"do anything to prevent that from happening", rather.
Really should proofread/edit my comments better before I post them...
Yes, because obviously the theater would never ever notice thousands of people using the same ticket, nor would they do anything to prevent people that from happening like, say, invalidating a ticket after its first use.
Everyone here on slashdot either has an iPod or wants one. Yeah, even if it doesn't run Linux.
Oh, but it does.
(Incidentally, I think iPod Linux is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. "We can play MP3s at 99% realtime and Oggs at 80% realtime! Whee! This is so much better than using it as just a music player like it was originally intended!")
One-way cable modem is analogous to one-way satellite -- they both use dialup modems as the upstream channel.
For what it's worth, I've stumbled across some other articles about this, via MetaFilter. As far as I can tell, it's not quite as sinister as it's made out to be. True, Dr. Pepper is giving these kids free crap, but they're not telling them what to say, at least according to an interview with one of the masterminds of the project. Specifically, he says:So again, make of this what you will. While I realize those in the marketing business can't be trusted, I think they're fully aware of the amount of bad PR shit that would hit the fan if it came to light that they actually were bribing these people to plug the product, so I figure either they're keeping it tightly under wraps (which is probably easier said than done) or he's telling the truth. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, but I'm probably not cynical enough.
Nope. As best I can tell, most of them are real. This is judging by the registration dates... suchadork.net was registered at the end of July 2002; aboutagirl.org/com was registered in October '01. Sparkley.net was registered in October 2000. Kelleyrogers.com was registered in June '02, but using Godaddy's "private registration" thing which is somewhat fishy but plausible nonetheless. As a side note, she has a Raging Cow button on her webpage. ("The revolution will be homogenized" indeed.) Boymeetslife.com was registered in May 2002. Italianize.com was registered in September 2001.
Make of this what you will. If any of them are fake, it's probably the ones registered last year. The rest of them I'd give the benefit of the doubt.