Gollum suffers from a severe case of being a book/movie character with behavior patterns that may have some similarities to real-world ailments, but which are ultimately artificial constructs of Tolkein's/Jackson's minds and therefore fruitless to "research.":D
You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?
That doesn't happen.
So kick back and relax in the knowledge that, even if a global catastrophe is imminent, there's fuck-all you can do about it, except make yourself a quick drink.
So when it turns out that most consumers couldn't care less about either of the new formats, having everything they need with regular DVD, that new player won't suddenly become useless.
...but the difference in engagement factor between interactive versus passive entertainment is very real. From the article:
The latest Entertainment Software Association survey shows that the average gamer is 29 and spends more time playing games than engaging in traditional forms of entertainment such as watching TV or going to the movies.
"If I had some time in the afternoon, and it was a choice between watching a movie or playing a game, I'd rather play a game," said Marlon Castro, 35, of Foster City.
The rich, detailed, immersive settings for what used to be entirely passive entertainment can now, with the current technology, be used for interactive entertainment.
All those wonderful spy-drama, fantasy, and sci-fi worlds that used to be the exclusive domain of movies? Now their realism is being delivered to you in a way that you can actually be in - if you're open to the experience.
According to the trial scenario, a fictitious company created a powerful computer, BINA48, to serve as a stand-alone customer relations department, replacing scores of human 1-800 telephone operators.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest.
Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.
One makes a choice based on the information one has available.
It may be a little information, or a lot of information. Who is to blame for a user not having sufficient information, or not assigning enough importance to the matter?
What's with all the cats and fruit and stuff? In one picture, you've got a hand in a surgical glove, placing a whole pineapple on top of the Nanode. In another, you've got a cat in what appears to be orgasmic throes.
I'm sure it's clever marketing that's just over my head, but...
They're saying it's not the case that 90% of users choose to use IE, as Mr. Schare implies. Many, if not most, people use IE because it's preinstalled on their computer, and they don't know about the alternatives.
Then the way the article is phrased is misleading. So people don't know about alternatives - whose fault is that? The users' for not bothering to find out even after some of them get fed up with the IE browsing experience? The Mozilla Organization's for not marketing aggressively enough?
It's easy to place the blame for user ignorance on Microsoft, but to do so does not reflect the huge roles that others have played. The act of making something built-in does not guarantee that the user won't discover and use something else, as millions of Slashdot readers have demonstrated. Yes, most average users aren't aware, but again, whose fault is that? Who is to be blamed for their general laziness and cluelessness? Microsoft? Shall we eradicate any sense of user responsibility? Most people, amazingly, still don't want to give two shits about properly caring for their computer or learning about the hazards of the Internet, despite the fact that the Internet has become a fact of modern life - it's fast, it's cheap, and it's everywhere. The root problem is a culture of user complacency that goes far deeper than any one company or browser.
I'll never understand this reasoning. No one forced you to use Internet Explorer. Certainly no one forced me. I used Netscape Navigator up through version 4.0, then got fed up with it and decided I'd give Internet Explorer a whirl. Liked it better, have used it since. I could have just as easily stayed with Netscape, or gone to Opera or Mozilla.
Just because something is bundled/integrated does not mean that your ability to choose an alternative is suddenly removed. That logic simply does not work.
"There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows,"
Oh really? Right... faces no greater risk than Windows? An open enter-as-you-will environment faces no more patent violation risk than does Windows? Are you kidding me?
Okay, let's give Boeing's superliner plans to Airbus and vice versa. Please, let's open up the entire market. Let's share intellectual property all over the place and just "hope" no one never gets pissed and decides to go apeshit on the rest of the community. And while we're at it, we'll do it under a license that has never been tested or sanctioned by a court of law. And, while we're at that, let us also continue to use technologies developed by independent research labs funded by the United States government!
Right, that doesn't increase risk of patent violation at all.
"But Ravicher said Ballmer misinterpreted his study's findings. "He misconstrues the point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent."
Ballmer's original quote:
"Linux may infringe upon almost 300 patents according to a study that was done not some time ago. While I find it hard to believe the number is even that high, it does show clearly though that the risks of patent violation and the lack of IP indemnifaction is a risk on the Linux side of the equation."
Think he'd put that in his article? Of course not. It would take his FUD argument and throw it right in the toilet.
One more I love...
"It makes no difference whether and how software is distributed,"
Really? Tell that to the people who own patents on software and expect royalties for such distribution. Your argument works one way but not the other. What if Microsoft decided to distribute Windows for free tomorrow? You don't think NCSA, Fraunhofer, Adaptec, ANSI, Tim Berners Lee, Executive Software, SAP, and other organizations and individuals wouldn't sue the shit out of them for their royalty money?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox is their second most popular browser behind Internet Explorer 6's whopping 98.76% share.
:)
The second most popular behind 98.76%. Spin that any faster and you'd warp space-time.
I just call the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation and order one.
Last one I got was really damn depressed, though.
Will I be able to recompile my kernel with a stylus? ;)
"Yes sir, I know it doesn't look like there's an Athlon in there, but there is, trust me. It's the new transparent model."
"Really?"
"Sure."
EGM: Do you feel bad about shooting the humans?
Parker: No, that's my only amusement in this game.
Gollum suffers from a severe case of being a book/movie character with behavior patterns that may have some similarities to real-world ailments, but which are ultimately artificial constructs of Tolkein's/Jackson's minds and therefore fruitless to "research." :D
Scientists can see dark and bright regions on the surface, but quite what they represent no one is really sure.
My money's on the dark regions being a plague of multiplying monoliths. Cover your eyes...
there is every possibility that Huygens will make a splashdown
And, if the BBC's pic is correct, it will look almost exactly like an upended Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.
You know in all those movies where some guy, sometimes just an amateur scientist, sees something in his telescope/seismograph/thermometer/disease-modeling -software that all the high-up professionals miss, and rushes in to warn the government?
That doesn't happen.
So kick back and relax in the knowledge that, even if a global catastrophe is imminent, there's fuck-all you can do about it, except make yourself a quick drink.
So we hold the majority on manhood enhancement, hot free teens, and low low mortgage rates.
*sniff* I've never been so proud of my country.
They're 21st-century movies, not 20th-century books.
So when it turns out that most consumers couldn't care less about either of the new formats, having everything they need with regular DVD, that new player won't suddenly become useless.
...but the difference in engagement factor between interactive versus passive entertainment is very real. From the article:
The latest Entertainment Software Association survey shows that the average gamer is 29 and spends more time playing games than engaging in traditional forms of entertainment such as watching TV or going to the movies.
"If I had some time in the afternoon, and it was a choice between watching a movie or playing a game, I'd rather play a game," said Marlon Castro, 35, of Foster City.
The rich, detailed, immersive settings for what used to be entirely passive entertainment can now, with the current technology, be used for interactive entertainment.
All those wonderful spy-drama, fantasy, and sci-fi worlds that used to be the exclusive domain of movies? Now their realism is being delivered to you in a way that you can actually be in - if you're open to the experience.
And just when Slackware was beginning to live up to its name... ;)
According to the trial scenario, a fictitious company created a powerful computer, BINA48, to serve as a stand-alone customer relations department, replacing scores of human 1-800 telephone operators.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Bi-Torrent.com
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest.
Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.
One makes a choice based on the information one has available.
It may be a little information, or a lot of information. Who is to blame for a user not having sufficient information, or not assigning enough importance to the matter?
There is the very nice Hoojum Nanode,
What's with all the cats and fruit and stuff? In one picture, you've got a hand in a surgical glove, placing a whole pineapple on top of the Nanode. In another, you've got a cat in what appears to be orgasmic throes.
I'm sure it's clever marketing that's just over my head, but...
They're saying it's not the case that 90% of users choose to use IE, as Mr. Schare implies. Many, if not most, people use IE because it's preinstalled on their computer, and they don't know about the alternatives.
Then the way the article is phrased is misleading. So people don't know about alternatives - whose fault is that? The users' for not bothering to find out even after some of them get fed up with the IE browsing experience? The Mozilla Organization's for not marketing aggressively enough?
It's easy to place the blame for user ignorance on Microsoft, but to do so does not reflect the huge roles that others have played. The act of making something built-in does not guarantee that the user won't discover and use something else, as millions of Slashdot readers have demonstrated. Yes, most average users aren't aware, but again, whose fault is that? Who is to be blamed for their general laziness and cluelessness? Microsoft? Shall we eradicate any sense of user responsibility? Most people, amazingly, still don't want to give two shits about properly caring for their computer or learning about the hazards of the Internet, despite the fact that the Internet has become a fact of modern life - it's fast, it's cheap, and it's everywhere. The root problem is a culture of user complacency that goes far deeper than any one company or browser.
Choose? Doesn't I.E. come bundled with Windows?
I'll never understand this reasoning. No one forced you to use Internet Explorer. Certainly no one forced me. I used Netscape Navigator up through version 4.0, then got fed up with it and decided I'd give Internet Explorer a whirl. Liked it better, have used it since. I could have just as easily stayed with Netscape, or gone to Opera or Mozilla.
Just because something is bundled/integrated does not mean that your ability to choose an alternative is suddenly removed. That logic simply does not work.
"There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows,"
Oh really? Right... faces no greater risk than Windows? An open enter-as-you-will environment faces no more patent violation risk than does Windows? Are you kidding me?
Okay, let's give Boeing's superliner plans to Airbus and vice versa. Please, let's open up the entire market. Let's share intellectual property all over the place and just "hope" no one never gets pissed and decides to go apeshit on the rest of the community. And while we're at it, we'll do it under a license that has never been tested or sanctioned by a court of law. And, while we're at that, let us also continue to use technologies developed by independent research labs funded by the United States government!
Right, that doesn't increase risk of patent violation at all.
"But Ravicher said Ballmer misinterpreted his study's findings. "He misconstrues the point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent."
Ballmer's original quote:
"Linux may infringe upon almost 300 patents according to a study that was done not some time ago. While I find it hard to believe the number is even that high, it does show clearly though that the risks of patent violation and the lack of IP indemnifaction is a risk on the Linux side of the equation."
Think he'd put that in his article? Of course not. It would take his FUD argument and throw it right in the toilet.
One more I love...
"It makes no difference whether and how software is distributed,"
Really? Tell that to the people who own patents on software and expect royalties for such distribution. Your argument works one way but not the other. What if Microsoft decided to distribute Windows for free tomorrow?
You don't think NCSA, Fraunhofer, Adaptec, ANSI, Tim Berners Lee, Executive Software, SAP, and other organizations and individuals wouldn't sue the shit out of them for their royalty money?
Ashcroft ends crime and terror, Gates ends passwords... what's next? Flying cars? A cure for cancer? Plutonian colonization?
Halo ][
Since when does Apple make Halo?