Take the hate for bluetooth earpieces, multiply it by 1000 because now nobody even wants you to look in their direction.
Bluetooth earpieces are so annoying because for a lot of people that wear them phone conversations seem to outweigh face to face conversations in importance.
well, W is transposed to the same numerical value as 6 in Hebrew. So when you type in your www guess what your doing..
Actually, V is 6 and there is no W in hebrew so 6 is used. Also the numbers are added together when they are places together similar to roman numerals so www would be 18 (6+6+6) and not 666.
This WWW=666 was a popular thing on the internet back in the mid 90s.
The number of the beast is only 666 in later christian scripture. According to 3rd century christian texts unearthed by Archeologists the number of the beast is actually 616 and methinks that constitutes prior art.
You're trying to claim that the original StarTrek wasn't a chauvinistic, womanising series in which Uhura was portrayed as an independant woman?
Seriously... What?
You can many points about how this differs from the original StarTrek, but that sure as hell isn't one of them.
Personally, I think this StarTrek is probably the most StarTrek that StarTrek has been in a long time.
Star Trek had degenerated into some candy ass soap that was one step up from a cross between Guiding Light and the Teletubbies. These new movies are a definite improvement... less hippie love and more nasty. But our heroes are still stepping out of space shuttles onto planetoids and alien planets that for some strange reason always have a breathable atmosphere, earth gravity and no hostile micro organisms their immune systems are unfamiliar with... And why do they need space ships if Khan can beam himself accross hundreds of light years to the Klingon home world? Ahhhhh... The joy of science fiction (mostly fiction but with a pinch of science sprinkled on top for total realism).
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.
What makes you think that socialized/national health insurance system is any different from any other health insurance mechanism? If you have private health insurance, and this insurance company does not explicitly state in it's insurance agreements that alcoholism, smoking, drug use and the afflictions these things cause are not covered by the insurance policy then you are already paying for the treatment of people who wilfully ruined their body. Sometimes it can also be difficult to prove that a disease was caused by some habit rather than by something else and totally unrelated. Many health insurance policies cover at least some form of treatment for things like this, for example, for addicts to help them quit the habit. Of course this varies between companies and countries. The question of whether alcoholics with cirrhosis of the liver, drug addicts or smokers with terminal lung cancer should get medical care in a socialized system is a difficult topic. Are we really comfortable with people like this being thrown into the street to die? There is a question here about compassion and basic human decency, you might want to consult your bible on that subject. I'm an atheist myself but as I recall Jesus Christ had some very thought provoking and insightful things to say about compassion.
The problem with break-action is that they aren't as durable as other mechanisms, as once the latch has some wear and tear it won't seal properly. I'd recommend a falling-block action rifle. Very old-fashioned, but essentially indestructible. A good modern one is the Ruger No. 1.
Don't tempt me, my other favorites would be those rolling block Remingtons or a falling block Sharps single shot rifles. This thing was on offer, I like oddballs and nobody wanted it because: "ya'know ya might run into a deer one day and need to pump five shots into it with yer bolt action repeater"... anyway the price was right and I bought it.
Such hunting isn't much easier. When you hunt birds it should take one 1 shot, maybe 2, to take it out of the sky..
Yup, true dat. I bought a single shot German break-action rifle and every once in a while when I take it to the range somebody comes over for a look (sometimes they even mistake my KB for a shotgun) and then criticises me for not buying a bolt action repeater. I usually reply by asking them how many shots they feel are optimally optimally needed to take down one deer. I only do target shooting but even I know that the answer is one shot, two at the most if something goes very wrong and for a rapid second shot I'm better off with a double rifle than a 5 shot bolt action repeater since semi automatic rifles are forbidden here except for shooting at paper targets and getting caught hunting with a semi auto rifle can get your firearms license revoked for a loooooong time.
I understand that some people fish for the heck of it, but when I'm bothered enough to do it, it's because I want some fresh fish to eat. I'd use dynamite a heartbeat if it were legal and I had a big group to feed.
Dynamite is indiscriminate, it kills a whole lot of other animals that you don't eat, explosives can harm species like whales that are important apex predators and who rely upon hearing for hunting, if the explosive sinks low enough it can ruin the features on the lake/ocean bottom that are important fish habitat which has already happened through the over-use of ocean bottom trolling nets in many places and it has ruined fisheries to the point where people have begun to sink artificial reefs to try and restore stocks, basically the list over why this is a bad idea goes on... and on... and on. Fishing with dynamite is about as intelligent as slaughtering your cows with an RPG.
There are only 2 essential things human body needs: 1) protein 2) fat.
You don't need carbs, you don't need vegs. These 2 are what you absolutely need to survive. Eat only vegs without any protein, and all your muscles are gone within a year. Don't eat any fat for a year and you die.
Humans aren't vegetarian race, and that's why we don't eat that way. Some choose to do so on ethical basis, but these people need to get essential stuff for us that's only got from meat, from other sources, usually pills. Like B12 vitamin. Drop that and you drop dead pretty quickly.
Humans are not carnivores either they are omnivores. It is one of the secrets of our evolutionary success. If it looked like it could possibly be edible humans would try to eat it. Humans have even developed methods for making otherwise toxic fruit, vegetables and meat edible that are so complex it make you wonder how they figured them out in the first place. If you try to subsist only on a diet of meat you will start feeling some effects just like if you go vegan without supplements. The first one is probably going to be scurvy unless you start eating your meat raw or rather rarely cooked and start eating parts of the animal that are normally not eaten by modern westerners but that contain vitamins such as certain internal organs, eyeballs, spinal fluid (you suck it out of the spine like a straw) and the skin. Of course these would have to be eaten raw or cooked very rare since too much cooking will break down the vitamins. Are those fruits and vegetables starting to look good yet? And before you answer keep in mind that raw or rarely cooked meat can contain some nasty parasites.
Is it a user's password or is it Apple's? Is there a back door in the algorithm? Is it an inherently weak algorihm, but the police don't know what it is so they can't launch an attack?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Apparently you encrypt an iOS device when you enable the pass code option. The default pass code is numerical and is only 4 digits, which is very weak. You can activate a 'pass phrase' option that gives more security but the pass phrase should be at least 12 characters long. An 8 char password can, for example apparently be cracked (brute forced presumably) in under 2 hours. Since the iPhone defaults to a 4 digit numerical code I don't suppose cracking 98% of these devices will be terribly hard. However, as always, it appeals far more to the Apple haters here to jump to the conclusion that iOS devices phone home to Apple and send them your encryption keys and pass phrases in clear-text. I am not so sure about that myself, I know of a criminal case where a FileVault image was sent to Apple for decryption but they returned after a while saying that their people had failed to crack it.
What exactly is being stolen from Google? Much of the content on YouTube isn't owned by Google or even licensed to Google, yet Google runs ads before content that often gets uploaders flagged for copyright infringement (old music videos for example). Google makes money off the properties of others.
Google makes money by facilitating access to property that youtube users want the public access. Youtube is a facilitator, Google earns money off the leechers that youtube user's content attracts and in return youtube users get to publish stuff for free to a much larger audience than they could otherwise easily attract without without paying up significant amounts of money. That's what scientists call a mutualistic relationship since both participants benefit, not a parasitic one as you are rather snidely implying. Google is not a charitable organization, Youtube has massive overheads, Google is under no obligation to operate Youtube at a loss as a public service for your benefit. If they are pissed off at Microsoft showing Youtube content without ads and providing a download button they can block all Windows Mobile OS users. This raises some interesting questions though because Firefox, for example, has several Youtube download plugins and a whole slew of adblocker plugins available. Will Google also block Firefox users? I installed Ghostery on my Safari browser and I could install an adblocker if I wanted to. Will Google block all Mac and iOS users as well?
With organisations like the StaSi and GeStaPo in more recent German history, the protection of the individual's privacy is a serious issue in Germany.
Notice the "Sta" in those organizations, as in "state"? Privacy in Germany has always been a problem of state intrusion into individual lives, and that is still rampant in Germany and voters largely don't care.
All this beating up on Google and Apple is a smokescreen to deflect from the horrible state of privacy in Germany.
Now and then politicians try to create another surveillance state for example to fight "child pornography", but fortunately they haven't succeeded to enact their crazy laws so far.
The German state already intrudes deeply into people's personal lives. On the other hand, in the guise of protecting "privacy", it prevents private organizations from verifying or monitoring its data collection, and it refuses to disclose what it has, how it is using it, or how it is operating.
Ok, firstly the Stasi is history so don't try to smear it all over contemporary issues to make some sort of point that only makes sense to a neo-cnoservative mind, there are very few people here who watch FoxNews or whatever the German equivalent of that sewage pump may be for any other purpose than to amuse themselves. Secondly, if you are going to accuse the German state of gross privacy violations name concrete examples (read: more than one) and provide details.
If you have CS3 or later (which I have) I get a creative cloud subscription for $29.99, which apparently includes most if not all the junk you listed. If I upgrade my CS5.5 boxed PS version to CS6 I have to shell out around GBP 300 (USD 464.49). That's the equivalent of about 15 months of the package you listed above at USD 29.99 per month. At $50 per month it's about 9 months worth of subscribing. If the Singe app subscription costs $19.99 it works out to 23 months. All of this assumes that Adobe won't be charging overseas customers significantly more than US customers as they normally do, or that customers in certain regions are just shit out of luck because Adobe rejects any credit cards issued by banks outside of Adobe's "approved market regions" as they have done for years in their web store. You are right in that there is a lot of value in the subscription pack but here comes the rub: I only need Photoshop, I don't need the rest of that junk anymore than I was willing to subscribe to a package of 25 TV channels just so I could watch Game of Thrones on the single one of those channels that had the exclusive broadcasting rights in my country.
Since they upgrade every 3 years at a cost of $375 then 375/36 = $10.41/Mnth That 29.99/Mnth is a whole ~60% more a month than they are paying now. And that is with the first year discount. I think the GP has a point. This looks like a massive money grab from Adobe. It should open up some of their customers to re-evaluate whether they really need Adobe products to function or at lest look at how many PCs in their establishment can do just fine wtihout it.
Adobe? Making a money grab? I'm SHOCKED!!!
You are obviously not an overseas customer of the Adobe corporation. Not that Adobe customers in the US aren't getting ripped off too, they just get ripped of a bit less. Presumably this is because they can more easily form a gigantic angry mob, drive down to Adobe HQ with torches and pitchforks and burn it down. Adobe needs to keep them teetering on the edge of snapping without actually tipping them over the edge.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I'm head IT manager so let's use my company as an example. I checked when our bosses wanted to get a mac for media editing (which is comical by itself). It works with exactly zero of our software suites. ZERO. No CRM, no office, no database apps, nothing. In fact, Firefox and Safari don't work with our ASP software either. Macs are toys for clueless rich people and have no place whatsoever in a professional environment. Forget compatibility, just go with cost. It's an idiotic choice.
Dude, you need to calm down. Every single one of your complaints is about cross platform issues If you designed your infrastructure with only Windows in mind and didn't factor in portability needs you have only yourself to blame. You might as well be complaining that pickup trucks are crappy pieces of equipment because they have zero parts commonality with your companies bulldozers.
I switched to OSX about a year ago, and while it has its shiny moments, it also has lots of blunders and I wouldn't really say that it's a better desktop than Windows 7. Besides, calling "standard desktop OS" something that has ~10% market share is... funny.
I don't think he meant it like that, i.e. in terms of market share. You are too stuck in the MS fanboy idea of Windows, Excel, Word etc. and their market share making them 'Industry Standards'. He probably meant more like that OS X is becoming more of a benchmark/reference point to measure your own Desktop OSes usability against than Windows is, i.e. that people are more likely to steal ideas from OS X than Windows 8. Of course you may disagree on whether OS X is the best UI ever made. Having used both I'd say it's better than Windows if only because OS X has a lower UI friction factor, although Windows 7 made major strides in that department so it's less of a factor than it was in the time of XP and Vista. I don't think anybody will be using Windows 8 as a usability reference UI any time soon. If OS X was discontinued tomorrow my next choice would probably be Gnome 3, bugs and all rather than either Windows 7 or 8.
Damn, I entered specifically to say that. Picasa is awesomely good at matching grainy images.
When the images are from low res surveillance cameras that are worn out, have crappy lenses that are into the bargain grimy and the faces you are trying to match are not full frontal or profile shots you Picasa sucks just as much as anything else.
The current generation MBP has user replaceable RAM and storage. You're confusing the current generation MBP with Macbook Airs and Retina Macbook Pro. Apple even has a support document on the site "MacBook Pro: How to remove or install memory" that covers the current generation MBP introduced in June 2012 (http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270).
I just replaced the SSD of my 2 month old Retina MBP with a 480GB Aurora unit. To do that I had to disconnect the (very removable) battery so both are upgradable on the Retina MBP. You are kind of stuck with the 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3 RAM. The later model MBAs also have upgradable SSDs.
The eternal rift among users. Glossy, or matte; that is the question. I don't care for matt screens as they dull the contrast and bleed colors together. I can tune out the glare as it doesn't bother me much.
I used to think I cared, then I got a MacBook with a glass screen and joined the 90% of PC users who just don't care either way as long as the display has no stuck pixels.
I can see it now, in the CNN comments section: "wtf, what's up with all of these non-tech stories on slashdot"
And the conversation might evolve something like this: CNN Commenter A: "Wtf, what's up with all of these non-tech stories on slashdot" CNN Commenter B: "Wtf, is Slashdot?" CNN Commenter A: "It's a gossip forum where cellar-dwelling nerds go to whine about things when they get tired of adding to the summit of 'Tissue Mountain'."
AIUI, the NAO is a parliamentary body, not a government one, and reports to a commons select committee, not the government. In any case, the opposition have been keen to use anything they can get (including this) to convince people that the government's budget strategy doesn't work that it'd be far more likely to be pushed and publicized by them than by the coalition.
Well whoever controls NAO (I kind of assumed that would be the ruling political parties), isn't doing anybody any favors unless the prices were ridiculously low. If you try to extort the maximal amount of money out of anybody who wants to buy spectrum all you do is ensure that the entire spectrum ends up in the hands of a few big players whose CEOs then get together 'at the club' and fix prices in the best traditions of the 'old boy network'.
The Tory party sold off publicly owned infrastructure for a fraction of what it is really worth. Is anyone surprised?
Well at least this time Ofcom created an environment condusive to competition by not gouging out as much money as possible. The irony is that the Tories are now investigating Ofcom for not extorting as much money as possible and thus creating a reasonably level playing field for competition. This is very funny because Thatcherist/Tories tend to never shut up about how competition is good for the citizenry since it lowers costs. That being said I'm generally against selling off publically owned infrastructure since I have rarely seen it work out well and it tends to end with some form of cartel that effectively has a license to tax the public. In this case selling the spectrum was the thing to do, unless you want the govt. to' do what? Rent it out?
Slashdot Mirror
Take the hate for bluetooth earpieces, multiply it by 1000 because now nobody even wants you to look in their direction.
Bluetooth earpieces are so annoying because for a lot of people that wear them phone conversations seem to outweigh face to face conversations in importance.
well, W is transposed to the same numerical value as 6 in Hebrew. So when you type in your www guess what your doing..
Actually, V is 6 and there is no W in hebrew so 6 is used. Also the numbers are added together when they are places together similar to roman numerals so www would be 18 (6+6+6) and not 666.
This WWW=666 was a popular thing on the internet back in the mid 90s.
The number of the beast is only 666 in later christian scripture. According to 3rd century christian texts unearthed by Archeologists the number of the beast is actually 616 and methinks that constitutes prior art.
You're trying to claim that the original StarTrek wasn't a chauvinistic, womanising series in which Uhura was portrayed as an independant woman?
Seriously... What?
You can many points about how this differs from the original StarTrek, but that sure as hell isn't one of them.
Personally, I think this StarTrek is probably the most StarTrek that StarTrek has been in a long time.
Star Trek had degenerated into some candy ass soap that was one step up from a cross between Guiding Light and the Teletubbies. These new movies are a definite improvement... less hippie love and more nasty. But our heroes are still stepping out of space shuttles onto planetoids and alien planets that for some strange reason always have a breathable atmosphere, earth gravity and no hostile micro organisms their immune systems are unfamiliar with... And why do they need space ships if Khan can beam himself accross hundreds of light years to the Klingon home world? Ahhhhh... The joy of science fiction (mostly fiction but with a pinch of science sprinkled on top for total realism).
So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system
Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.
You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.
What makes you think that socialized/national health insurance system is any different from any other health insurance mechanism? If you have private health insurance, and this insurance company does not explicitly state in it's insurance agreements that alcoholism, smoking, drug use and the afflictions these things cause are not covered by the insurance policy then you are already paying for the treatment of people who wilfully ruined their body. Sometimes it can also be difficult to prove that a disease was caused by some habit rather than by something else and totally unrelated. Many health insurance policies cover at least some form of treatment for things like this, for example, for addicts to help them quit the habit. Of course this varies between companies and countries. The question of whether alcoholics with cirrhosis of the liver, drug addicts or smokers with terminal lung cancer should get medical care in a socialized system is a difficult topic. Are we really comfortable with people like this being thrown into the street to die? There is a question here about compassion and basic human decency, you might want to consult your bible on that subject. I'm an atheist myself but as I recall Jesus Christ had some very thought provoking and insightful things to say about compassion.
The problem with break-action is that they aren't as durable as other mechanisms, as once the latch has some wear and tear it won't seal properly. I'd recommend a falling-block action rifle. Very old-fashioned, but essentially indestructible. A good modern one is the Ruger No. 1.
Don't tempt me, my other favorites would be those rolling block Remingtons or a falling block Sharps single shot rifles. This thing was on offer, I like oddballs and nobody wanted it because: "ya'know ya might run into a deer one day and need to pump five shots into it with yer bolt action repeater" ... anyway the price was right and I bought it.
Such hunting isn't much easier. When you hunt birds it should take one 1 shot, maybe 2, to take it out of the sky. .
Yup, true dat. I bought a single shot German break-action rifle and every once in a while when I take it to the range somebody comes over for a look (sometimes they even mistake my KB for a shotgun) and then criticises me for not buying a bolt action repeater. I usually reply by asking them how many shots they feel are optimally optimally needed to take down one deer. I only do target shooting but even I know that the answer is one shot, two at the most if something goes very wrong and for a rapid second shot I'm better off with a double rifle than a 5 shot bolt action repeater since semi automatic rifles are forbidden here except for shooting at paper targets and getting caught hunting with a semi auto rifle can get your firearms license revoked for a loooooong time.
God damn hippie.
And proud of it...
I understand that some people fish for the heck of it, but when I'm bothered enough to do it, it's because I want some fresh fish to eat. I'd use dynamite a heartbeat if it were legal and I had a big group to feed.
Dynamite is indiscriminate, it kills a whole lot of other animals that you don't eat, explosives can harm species like whales that are important apex predators and who rely upon hearing for hunting, if the explosive sinks low enough it can ruin the features on the lake/ocean bottom that are important fish habitat which has already happened through the over-use of ocean bottom trolling nets in many places and it has ruined fisheries to the point where people have begun to sink artificial reefs to try and restore stocks, basically the list over why this is a bad idea goes on ... and on ... and on. Fishing with dynamite is about as intelligent as slaughtering your cows with an RPG.
The carnivorous humped bladderwort...
Sounds like something from an episose of red Red Dwarf.
Humans cannot survive on full veg diet for long.
There are only 2 essential things human body needs: 1) protein 2) fat.
You don't need carbs, you don't need vegs. These 2 are what you absolutely need to survive. Eat only vegs without any protein, and all your muscles are gone within a year. Don't eat any fat for a year and you die.
Humans aren't vegetarian race, and that's why we don't eat that way. Some choose to do so on ethical basis, but these people need to get essential stuff for us that's only got from meat, from other sources, usually pills. Like B12 vitamin. Drop that and you drop dead pretty quickly.
Humans are not carnivores either they are omnivores. It is one of the secrets of our evolutionary success. If it looked like it could possibly be edible humans would try to eat it. Humans have even developed methods for making otherwise toxic fruit, vegetables and meat edible that are so complex it make you wonder how they figured them out in the first place. If you try to subsist only on a diet of meat you will start feeling some effects just like if you go vegan without supplements. The first one is probably going to be scurvy unless you start eating your meat raw or rather rarely cooked and start eating parts of the animal that are normally not eaten by modern westerners but that contain vitamins such as certain internal organs, eyeballs, spinal fluid (you suck it out of the spine like a straw) and the skin. Of course these would have to be eaten raw or cooked very rare since too much cooking will break down the vitamins. Are those fruits and vegetables starting to look good yet? And before you answer keep in mind that raw or rarely cooked meat can contain some nasty parasites.
feudalism 3.11 for workgroups
Guillotine 1.0 for disposal of feudalistic workgroups.
Is it a user's password or is it Apple's? Is there a back door in the algorithm? Is it an inherently weak algorihm, but the police don't know what it is so they can't launch an attack?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Apparently you encrypt an iOS device when you enable the pass code option. The default pass code is numerical and is only 4 digits, which is very weak. You can activate a 'pass phrase' option that gives more security but the pass phrase should be at least 12 characters long. An 8 char password can, for example apparently be cracked (brute forced presumably) in under 2 hours. Since the iPhone defaults to a 4 digit numerical code I don't suppose cracking 98% of these devices will be terribly hard. However, as always, it appeals far more to the Apple haters here to jump to the conclusion that iOS devices phone home to Apple and send them your encryption keys and pass phrases in clear-text. I am not so sure about that myself, I know of a criminal case where a FileVault image was sent to Apple for decryption but they returned after a while saying that their people had failed to crack it.
What exactly is being stolen from Google? Much of the content on YouTube isn't owned by Google or even licensed to Google, yet Google runs ads before content that often gets uploaders flagged for copyright infringement (old music videos for example). Google makes money off the properties of others.
Google makes money by facilitating access to property that youtube users want the public access. Youtube is a facilitator, Google earns money off the leechers that youtube user's content attracts and in return youtube users get to publish stuff for free to a much larger audience than they could otherwise easily attract without without paying up significant amounts of money. That's what scientists call a mutualistic relationship since both participants benefit, not a parasitic one as you are rather snidely implying. Google is not a charitable organization, Youtube has massive overheads, Google is under no obligation to operate Youtube at a loss as a public service for your benefit. If they are pissed off at Microsoft showing Youtube content without ads and providing a download button they can block all Windows Mobile OS users. This raises some interesting questions though because Firefox, for example, has several Youtube download plugins and a whole slew of adblocker plugins available. Will Google also block Firefox users? I installed Ghostery on my Safari browser and I could install an adblocker if I wanted to. Will Google block all Mac and iOS users as well?
Notice the "Sta" in those organizations, as in "state"? Privacy in Germany has always been a problem of state intrusion into individual lives, and that is still rampant in Germany and voters largely don't care.
All this beating up on Google and Apple is a smokescreen to deflect from the horrible state of privacy in Germany.
The German state already intrudes deeply into people's personal lives. On the other hand, in the guise of protecting "privacy", it prevents private organizations from verifying or monitoring its data collection, and it refuses to disclose what it has, how it is using it, or how it is operating.
Ok, firstly the Stasi is history so don't try to smear it all over contemporary issues to make some sort of point that only makes sense to a neo-cnoservative mind, there are very few people here who watch FoxNews or whatever the German equivalent of that sewage pump may be for any other purpose than to amuse themselves. Secondly, if you are going to accuse the German state of gross privacy violations name concrete examples (read: more than one) and provide details.
Adobe Photoshop CS6 retails for $599 all by itself.
Creative Cloud @ $50/mo includes:
I begin to suspect that Nerval's Lobster and the slashdot editor Soulskill lack appropriate knowledge to be commenting on this subject.
According to this:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
If you have CS3 or later (which I have) I get a creative cloud subscription for $29.99, which apparently includes most if not all the junk you listed. If I upgrade my CS5.5 boxed PS version to CS6 I have to shell out around GBP 300 (USD 464.49). That's the equivalent of about 15 months of the package you listed above at USD 29.99 per month. At $50 per month it's about 9 months worth of subscribing. If the Singe app subscription costs $19.99 it works out to 23 months. All of this assumes that Adobe won't be charging overseas customers significantly more than US customers as they normally do, or that customers in certain regions are just shit out of luck because Adobe rejects any credit cards issued by banks outside of Adobe's "approved market regions" as they have done for years in their web store. You are right in that there is a lot of value in the subscription pack but here comes the rub: I only need Photoshop, I don't need the rest of that junk anymore than I was willing to subscribe to a package of 25 TV channels just so I could watch Game of Thrones on the single one of those channels that had the exclusive broadcasting rights in my country.
Since they upgrade every 3 years at a cost of $375 then 375/36 = $10.41/Mnth That 29.99/Mnth is a whole ~60% more a month than they are paying now. And that is with the first year discount. I think the GP has a point. This looks like a massive money grab from Adobe. It should open up some of their customers to re-evaluate whether they really need Adobe products to function or at lest look at how many PCs in their establishment can do just fine wtihout it.
Adobe? Making a money grab? I'm SHOCKED!!!
You are obviously not an overseas customer of the Adobe corporation. Not that Adobe customers in the US aren't getting ripped off too, they just get ripped of a bit less. Presumably this is because they can more easily form a gigantic angry mob, drive down to Adobe HQ with torches and pitchforks and burn it down. Adobe needs to keep them teetering on the edge of snapping without actually tipping them over the edge.
Its obtuse only if you have paid for it. For the pirates, the activation is included in the ISO
...along with a root kit.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I'm head IT manager so let's use my company as an example. I checked when our bosses wanted to get a mac for media editing (which is comical by itself). It works with exactly zero of our software suites. ZERO. No CRM, no office, no database apps, nothing. In fact, Firefox and Safari don't work with our ASP software either. Macs are toys for clueless rich people and have no place whatsoever in a professional environment. Forget compatibility, just go with cost. It's an idiotic choice.
Dude, you need to calm down. Every single one of your complaints is about cross platform issues If you designed your infrastructure with only Windows in mind and didn't factor in portability needs you have only yourself to blame. You might as well be complaining that pickup trucks are crappy pieces of equipment because they have zero parts commonality with your companies bulldozers.
I switched to OSX about a year ago, and while it has its shiny moments, it also has lots of blunders and I wouldn't really say that it's a better desktop than Windows 7. Besides, calling "standard desktop OS" something that has ~10% market share is ... funny.
I don't think he meant it like that, i.e. in terms of market share. You are too stuck in the MS fanboy idea of Windows, Excel, Word etc. and their market share making them 'Industry Standards'. He probably meant more like that OS X is becoming more of a benchmark/reference point to measure your own Desktop OSes usability against than Windows is, i.e. that people are more likely to steal ideas from OS X than Windows 8. Of course you may disagree on whether OS X is the best UI ever made. Having used both I'd say it's better than Windows if only because OS X has a lower UI friction factor, although Windows 7 made major strides in that department so it's less of a factor than it was in the time of XP and Vista. I don't think anybody will be using Windows 8 as a usability reference UI any time soon. If OS X was discontinued tomorrow my next choice would probably be Gnome 3, bugs and all rather than either Windows 7 or 8.
Damn, I entered specifically to say that.
Picasa is awesomely good at matching grainy images.
When the images are from low res surveillance cameras that are worn out, have crappy lenses that are into the bargain grimy and the faces you are trying to match are not full frontal or profile shots you Picasa sucks just as much as anything else.
The current generation MBP has user replaceable RAM and storage. You're confusing the current generation MBP with Macbook Airs and Retina Macbook Pro. Apple even has a support document on the site "MacBook Pro: How to remove or install memory" that covers the current generation MBP introduced in June 2012 (http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270).
I just replaced the SSD of my 2 month old Retina MBP with a 480GB Aurora unit. To do that I had to disconnect the (very removable) battery so both are upgradable on the Retina MBP. You are kind of stuck with the 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3 RAM. The later model MBAs also have upgradable SSDs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7mzTB5KoAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_hZdE0AKVY
The eternal rift among users. Glossy, or matte; that is the question. I don't care for matt screens as they dull the contrast and bleed colors together. I can tune out the glare as it doesn't bother me much.
I used to think I cared, then I got a MacBook with a glass screen and joined the 90% of PC users who just don't care either way as long as the display has no stuck pixels.
(except yours)
I can see it now, in the CNN comments section: "wtf, what's up with all of these non-tech stories on slashdot"
And the conversation might evolve something like this:
CNN Commenter A: "Wtf, what's up with all of these non-tech stories on slashdot"
CNN Commenter B: "Wtf, is Slashdot?"
CNN Commenter A: "It's a gossip forum where cellar-dwelling nerds go to whine about things when they get tired of adding to the summit of 'Tissue Mountain'."
AIUI, the NAO is a parliamentary body, not a government one, and reports to a commons select committee, not the government. In any case, the opposition have been keen to use anything they can get (including this) to convince people that the government's budget strategy doesn't work that it'd be far more likely to be pushed and publicized by them than by the coalition.
Well whoever controls NAO (I kind of assumed that would be the ruling political parties), isn't doing anybody any favors unless the prices were ridiculously low. If you try to extort the maximal amount of money out of anybody who wants to buy spectrum all you do is ensure that the entire spectrum ends up in the hands of a few big players whose CEOs then get together 'at the club' and fix prices in the best traditions of the 'old boy network'.
The Tory party sold off publicly owned infrastructure for a fraction of what it is really worth. Is anyone surprised?
Well at least this time Ofcom created an environment condusive to competition by not gouging out as much money as possible. The irony is that the Tories are now investigating Ofcom for not extorting as much money as possible and thus creating a reasonably level playing field for competition. This is very funny because Thatcherist/Tories tend to never shut up about how competition is good for the citizenry since it lowers costs. That being said I'm generally against selling off publically owned infrastructure since I have rarely seen it work out well and it tends to end with some form of cartel that effectively has a license to tax the public. In this case selling the spectrum was the thing to do, unless you want the govt. to' do what? Rent it out?