Yeah, that was a well thought out response pulling on all available knowledge, bravo sir.
Did I say all tats? No Did I even state any kind of age at which getting one of these tats is foolhardy? No Do you know how old I am? Well, maybe, it's not hard to find out, but I would say, no.
I'm not going to say that everyone who gets a tat in their 20s will regret it, but I am going to say a lot will, especially with the numbers who get ridiculously fleeting things like company logos inked into their flesh.
Band names are another great one for this. "Oh, yeah, well, I did like Metallica X years ago, not so much now, but erm, yeah, I have their name across my back"
People don't seem to think about how they're going to feel about what they get inked on themselves later in life. People get the most ridiculous little in jokes and the like inked on themselves and then regret it only months later because the novelty of that joke has gone.
Get something you will never tire of, something to do with your heritage, your deep life philosophy, your kids... something that isn't fleeting.
Not Tux, not a Zune logo, not Super Mario, really... try and imagine having some hindsight.
Because if no-one points out the folly in doing this when others do it, but just heap praise on them, well, others are likely to do the same thing.
Then you have even more people who wish they maybe should have thought a bit longer about getting something so topical inked onto their body for life.
If comments like this make just a few people think 'oh... hmmm, yeah, maybe I won't still think Linux is the centre of the universe in 10 years', and perhaps just get themselves a nice t-shirt or something, then my work here is done.
Indeed, I feel sorry for these people who get tattoos like this.
Oooh, look what geek cred I have, I have open source logos on me. Except that the penguin has never been anything but, well, pretty lame really.
And then add to the the speed of progress in the tech world, and you've got yourself a permanent reminder of how narrow focused you happened to be at one point in your life.
Fast forward 10 years or so and you have so many other things that you are interested in, and you can see how foolish it may have been to be SO consumed by an operating system for pete's sake.
It would seem the choice of attacks against Mr Gore would be strawman arguments. Does that suggest that people are finding it hard to tackle his views directly or fairly and so have to resort to such ridiculous attacks?
(I actually know very little about Gore, this is really just a question based on him being the target of such things so often)
First up: "Laptop loss frequencies were collected from a confidential field survey as either a direct weekly estimate or as a range variable as reported by airport officials. Exact loss frequencies were typically not calculated or available for review."
It's all just averages using methods that are vague.
Then... 22% of these lost in the major airports are recovered before the flight... (15% in the minor) but they include all of these laptops that were lost for a number of minutes.
Then there are 9% (Major) and 20% (Minor) that are recovered after the flight.
Come on, we're talking most likely badly taken figures in the first place, and then including laptops that aren't really lost at all.
But seeing as though it is specifically targeted at user reviews, and currently just Amazon Electronic ones, it would seem to be a great way to summarize the lot.
I mean, what do you do when you're looking at user reviews of products? Look for what the common threads are, or focus on a few outliers?
Really, let's look at who sponsored this study... Dell, and what do they have to gain from having businesses think that their laptops are all going to be lost?
Why, insurance from them obviously. They do have very good lost/accidental insurance cover (which I got on my current laptop because work paid for it)... but it costs money, and obviously makes them money overall.
So, take these results with a monstrous rock of salt.
Download the latest version of AVG, when you install that it now has the option to not even install the horrendous link checking thing. So it doesn't have it, and it doesn't whinge about not having it.
It was a horrendous idea by the AVG guys, because in general I do like their products, use the free client on all my home pcs and have the paid one running on all work ones.
I'm using Firefox 3, have been doing so since betas, and I use Hotmail.
Why? Because it's an address I've had for.. 10 years or so and I don't want to go to the hassle of updating my address with everyone.
Do I use it for my 'main' correspondence? No, that's my personal email hosted on my own server. Do I use it to sign up for anything I want to and not worry about spam? Yup, and I would guess about 99% of spam is filtered these days as I get bugger all in my inbox.
I use it out of convenience, I program for a living, I am not dumb, but you are an arrogant dick who jumps to conclusions about others if they don't agree with what _you_ think.
And I love how you've gone off the handle without checking out the facts.
As many here have said, the sites in question say they got the games completely legally.
Why would you believe the company who stands to lose sales by bad reviews over the website which stands to lose a lot of money over using a pirate version (and not gain much by using one)?
Way to look into the issue before becoming indignant.
* Advertising, which is the same as free to air tv. Except that people such as me who record shows on their digital PVRs and skip the ad breaks kill the effectiveness of that as a revenue stream, and they are rightfully worried, as how else is free to air supposed to work?
* The artists paying to be on the site, or paying a percentage of any sales of songs they get through the site...
In any case it all comes down to someone having to buy something at some stage, else there's no money to fund it all.
Trying to suggest that entertainment content produced for free is as good as professional content is almost always completely laughable... that's why we pay them for it.
The actors are better The design is better The scripts are better
I mean, really, I've tried watching quite a lot of fan made/community made stuff, and while there are occasional gems, by and large all they serve to do is show why we pay those who make this content professionally... because they do it well.
Again, the way for them to get people to pay for their products isn't for them to create these draconian tech stops that do nothing but make everything more complicated, but content makers do deserve to be paid.
Yeah, which is what I say in a following comment above... the methods they take, with all the copy protection just makes life harder for everyone, including those who are watching perfectly legal content. When you end up bypassing copy protection just so you can watch your paid for content because their ridiculous protection systems don't work, well that's a major cockup.
I just take issue with people pulling out the old 'information wants to be free'.
It's a load of shit, where not talking 'information' here, we're talking entertainment that if you enjoy it, you should be compensating them for the creation of it, be it watching ads or paying for the dvds etc. of it.
How so? Sure, some content will always be created for free just because people want to. But how could something like Battlestar Galactica (just an example) be created, have all that money spent on it, without being pretty darn sure they're going to be paid for their efforts.
The suggestion that artistic and entertainment creations would continue to be made in the same volume or quality with the creators being given nothing in return is utterly ridiculous.
The current spate of HDCP and other copy prevention mechanisms are not the way at all, they just make life more painful for everyone, including those who have every right to watch what they are trying to, but to go to the other extreme and suggest that everything should be free is just wrong.
The general population doesn't have a 'right' to watch a movie, read a book or listen to music that someone spent a lot of time and money making for free unless they want them to.
To suggest that everyone should make content for you to consume for no money (or at least no exposure to advertising to pay for said content) is a laughable excuse people try to use to excuse their copying of material.
Except that it's not the same Twinkle twinkle little star: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JlbjpmBFljo Baa Baa black sheep: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jn2KINx8Gaw
Try singing twinkle twinkle over the top of baa baa black sheep.
I have to agree, it is very nice looking video indeed, and as long as a video player buffers I'm all for it. (Any player that won't buffer while I pause is just not visited again).
The term has changed a lot and can mean someone who has a great interest and knowledge in tech type things but may not say anything about their social skills.
It so happens that most geeks are socially inept, but I don't think it has to be a defining characteristic.
But they use the term dork to mean they are just kinda of a happy tragic in some area 'Ok, I love the backstreet boys, I can't help it, I'm such a dork'
Or, 'I suck at that game, I'm such a dork'
They use it as an endearing 'I'm admitting a perceived failing' way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that was a well thought out response pulling on all available knowledge, bravo sir.
Did I say all tats? No
Did I even state any kind of age at which getting one of these tats is foolhardy? No
Do you know how old I am? Well, maybe, it's not hard to find out, but I would say, no.
I'm not going to say that everyone who gets a tat in their 20s will regret it, but I am going to say a lot will, especially with the numbers who get ridiculously fleeting things like company logos inked into their flesh.
Band names are another great one for this. "Oh, yeah, well, I did like Metallica X years ago, not so much now, but erm, yeah, I have their name across my back"
People don't seem to think about how they're going to feel about what they get inked on themselves later in life. People get the most ridiculous little in jokes and the like inked on themselves and then regret it only months later because the novelty of that joke has gone.
Get something you will never tire of, something to do with your heritage, your deep life philosophy, your kids... something that isn't fleeting.
Not Tux, not a Zune logo, not Super Mario, really... try and imagine having some hindsight.
Because if no-one points out the folly in doing this when others do it, but just heap praise on them, well, others are likely to do the same thing.
Then you have even more people who wish they maybe should have thought a bit longer about getting something so topical inked onto their body for life.
If comments like this make just a few people think 'oh... hmmm, yeah, maybe I won't still think Linux is the centre of the universe in 10 years', and perhaps just get themselves a nice t-shirt or something, then my work here is done.
Indeed, I feel sorry for these people who get tattoos like this.
Oooh, look what geek cred I have, I have open source logos on me. Except that the penguin has never been anything but, well, pretty lame really.
And then add to the the speed of progress in the tech world, and you've got yourself a permanent reminder of how narrow focused you happened to be at one point in your life.
Fast forward 10 years or so and you have so many other things that you are interested in, and you can see how foolish it may have been to be SO consumed by an operating system for pete's sake.
You'll regret it... yes you will.
Because, I just fired it up after reading this, and it's better than scrabulous by far.
Better interface, ability to play words in while the others are doing their moves (just to see), better chat window.
I like it.
I don't know how much different it is to the 'beta' one, but this one is good.
It would seem the choice of attacks against Mr Gore would be strawman arguments. Does that suggest that people are finding it hard to tackle his views directly or fairly and so have to resort to such ridiculous attacks?
(I actually know very little about Gore, this is really just a question based on him being the target of such things so often)
Exactly, as another user has said, while that guy made a very cool parabolic reflector, it can only focus 5 foot away from it.
Not anything like the many meters required for the Archimedes myth.
Indeed, I was SURE with Joss's nerdy credentials he would NEVER do a region locked distribution.
But he did.
I am sad
Quite, quite sad :(
Stupid US centric view of the damn world.
It's here
First up:
"Laptop loss frequencies were collected from a confidential field survey as either a direct weekly estimate or as a range variable as reported by airport officials. Exact loss frequencies were typically not calculated or available for review."
It's all just averages using methods that are vague.
Then... 22% of these lost in the major airports are recovered before the flight... (15% in the minor) but they include all of these laptops that were lost for a number of minutes.
Then there are 9% (Major) and 20% (Minor) that are recovered after the flight.
Come on, we're talking most likely badly taken figures in the first place, and then including laptops that aren't really lost at all.
But seeing as though it is specifically targeted at user reviews, and currently just Amazon Electronic ones, it would seem to be a great way to summarize the lot.
I mean, what do you do when you're looking at user reviews of products? Look for what the common threads are, or focus on a few outliers?
Really, let's look at who sponsored this study... Dell, and what do they have to gain from having businesses think that their laptops are all going to be lost?
Why, insurance from them obviously. They do have very good lost/accidental insurance cover (which I got on my current laptop because work paid for it)... but it costs money, and obviously makes them money overall.
So, take these results with a monstrous rock of salt.
Download the latest version of AVG, when you install that it now has the option to not even install the horrendous link checking thing. So it doesn't have it, and it doesn't whinge about not having it.
It was a horrendous idea by the AVG guys, because in general I do like their products, use the free client on all my home pcs and have the paid one running on all work ones.
(none use the link checker)
Thankyou... same boat exactly.
I'm using Firefox 3, have been doing so since betas, and I use Hotmail.
Why? Because it's an address I've had for.. 10 years or so and I don't want to go to the hassle of updating my address with everyone.
Do I use it for my 'main' correspondence? No, that's my personal email hosted on my own server. Do I use it to sign up for anything I want to and not worry about spam? Yup, and I would guess about 99% of spam is filtered these days as I get bugger all in my inbox.
I use it out of convenience, I program for a living, I am not dumb, but you are an arrogant dick who jumps to conclusions about others if they don't agree with what _you_ think.
Bravo sir.
Yeah, that'd work wonders at nighttime.
Because you _never_ do work in a shed at nighttime.
And I love how you've gone off the handle without checking out the facts.
As many here have said, the sites in question say they got the games completely legally.
Why would you believe the company who stands to lose sales by bad reviews over the website which stands to lose a lot of money over using a pirate version (and not gain much by using one)?
Way to look into the issue before becoming indignant.
And how do they get revenue?
Care to point to the site?
It's either through:
* Advertising, which is the same as free to air tv. Except that people such as me who record shows on their digital PVRs and skip the ad breaks kill the effectiveness of that as a revenue stream, and they are rightfully worried, as how else is free to air supposed to work?
* The artists paying to be on the site, or paying a percentage of any sales of songs they get through the site...
In any case it all comes down to someone having to buy something at some stage, else there's no money to fund it all.
Trying to suggest that entertainment content produced for free is as good as professional content is almost always completely laughable... that's why we pay them for it.
The actors are better
The design is better
The scripts are better
I mean, really, I've tried watching quite a lot of fan made/community made stuff, and while there are occasional gems, by and large all they serve to do is show why we pay those who make this content professionally... because they do it well.
Again, the way for them to get people to pay for their products isn't for them to create these draconian tech stops that do nothing but make everything more complicated, but content makers do deserve to be paid.
Yeah, which is what I say in a following comment above... the methods they take, with all the copy protection just makes life harder for everyone, including those who are watching perfectly legal content. When you end up bypassing copy protection just so you can watch your paid for content because their ridiculous protection systems don't work, well that's a major cockup.
I just take issue with people pulling out the old 'information wants to be free'.
It's a load of shit, where not talking 'information' here, we're talking entertainment that if you enjoy it, you should be compensating them for the creation of it, be it watching ads or paying for the dvds etc. of it.
How so? Sure, some content will always be created for free just because people want to. But how could something like Battlestar Galactica (just an example) be created, have all that money spent on it, without being pretty darn sure they're going to be paid for their efforts.
The suggestion that artistic and entertainment creations would continue to be made in the same volume or quality with the creators being given nothing in return is utterly ridiculous.
The current spate of HDCP and other copy prevention mechanisms are not the way at all, they just make life more painful for everyone, including those who have every right to watch what they are trying to, but to go to the other extreme and suggest that everything should be free is just wrong.
The general population doesn't have a 'right' to watch a movie, read a book or listen to music that someone spent a lot of time and money making for free unless they want them to.
To suggest that everyone should make content for you to consume for no money (or at least no exposure to advertising to pay for said content) is a laughable excuse people try to use to excuse their copying of material.
Except that it's not the same
Twinkle twinkle little star: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JlbjpmBFljo
Baa Baa black sheep: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jn2KINx8Gaw
Try singing twinkle twinkle over the top of baa baa black sheep.
Different
I have to agree, it is very nice looking video indeed, and as long as a video player buffers I'm all for it. (Any player that won't buffer while I pause is just not visited again).
Um, because they HIT far, FAR more often than they miss, especially compared to all the other video formats.
And Flash has an insanely high penetration rate.
If your pc is screwed up and can't see it, don't blame them, blame you for not running a half decently configured pc.
Very arguable.
The term has changed a lot and can mean someone who has a great interest and knowledge in tech type things but may not say anything about their social skills.
It so happens that most geeks are socially inept, but I don't think it has to be a defining characteristic.
But they use the term dork to mean they are just kinda of a happy tragic in some area 'Ok, I love the backstreet boys, I can't help it, I'm such a dork'
Or, 'I suck at that game, I'm such a dork'
They use it as an endearing 'I'm admitting a perceived failing' way.