Even if you assume they just added the HDD's to Google's extensive server farm (which as of yet is using RAM as a primary storage medium) There are quite a few costs you are missing. Such as...
Additional Bandwidth, Additional electricity, Additional server technicians, An army of customer support personnel, Additional Lawyers, Additional Salespeople, Additional physical storage for spare HDD's,
I would guess that these costs will far outstrip the $1 per GB cost of a Hard Drive.
Furthermore, data exapands to fill all available space... not through some trick of programming but because of how people use applications when limits are removed. Expect to see people's habits change when they realize their friends also have a 10 MB per-message transfer limit. Want that MP3? Sure, why not.
Finally, there will be the applications / abuses that hook into Gmail's storage space, which they will have to swat down. I could easily see groups of friendly music lovers automatically synchronizing their collections through Gmail, for example.
In other words, give Google some credit here. They are trying something original that could potentially blow up in their face, however jaded we may have become.
Anyone know what the email attachment size limit is?
Your limit is 10 MB, but if you're communicating with people off of the GMail system chances are your messages will be still limited to 2 MB. The weakest link determines the maximum file size.
Opera's instantaneous forward and back is great, and the thing I miss most when switching back and forth between that and FireFox. It also caches typed-in fields, like Slashdot posts, so that you can drift off, come back, and pick up where you left off. Dropped posts can also be retrieved.
I also really like opera's command-line style address bar. Want to google something? Try "g something." Amazon? "z something" Ebay? "e something." Fatwallet, whois, and wayback searches are easy to setup, as is anything which uses post or address-based searching. This was borrowed from iCab, but what a borrow.
Opera also has undo enabled for closed tabs, a surprisingly small and useful touch, which I really miss in Firefox. Automatic page saving (since 3.x, which btw REALLY needed it) makes crashes relatively painless, as you can pick up where you left off.
I find Opera these days crashes about as often as FireFox, though that always changes with every big release. Content rendering is not really an issue these days, except for the occasional I.E. only page. But you can add an "Open in I.E." button to your toolbar which will do exactly what it sounds like.
The history page is really annoying, as if you re-visit a page it will jump to the top of the history, rather than showing up where it was first discovered. Why is it such a problem to have a page in a history twice? My phone does the same thing, and it makes it impossible to call back the xth person who called you, as they could be any of the numbers in front of it.
The wand seems to become more buggy with every release, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll eventually fix it. They always do.
My main gripe would have to be that the interface gets more and more cluttered as features keep getting added. Fast forward and rewind? Who uses these? It's totally customizable, but even that process of customization can be overwhelming if you are new to the browser.
Anyway, I find it to be a worthy tool in the toolbox, and I prefer it over the other available browsers... on Windows, at least.
For the analogy to work, your club must sell clothes through outlets. The club would then only allow in people with their clothes on, all emblazoned with their big fat logo, in attempt to make other people use their clothes. Their clothes would also automatically repulse anyone not wearing their clothes, and would refuse to walk into houses that weren't bought through the club's real estate agents.
Ok, my analogy is even more stretched than yours, but you get the idea.
Yes, but it would be great to use a percentage of your units to shuffle around some nosy reporters, keeping them away from any real carnage (except for returning boxes) and thereby getting your enlistment numbers up. Use all of your military to fight, and you aren't harvesting that resource.
You could have an amorphous fog of war, where you could see that something is there, but you can't be sure it's a bomb factory or a house. Your roving reporters, vulnerable to crossfire (and shuffling) by either side but attackable by neither, could report back questionable locations and information, but can also turn the tide of public opinion when gathered by your enemy.
Negotiating with "private" corporations could also be fun, as a resource which either side could utilize. "asshole allies" are already in the game, but nurturing that competition could provide a lot of fun. As for friendly enemies, there might be trade relationships with an ally of the enemy, or "side deals" for percentages of land. Without absolute victories or defeats, such negotiation could become very interesting.
Friendly fire is an interesting concept that could help counter the "Mass a million man army" problem that all modern RTS games have.
In short, there are a lot of interesting things in real life that could go into a more real RTS.
I'd like to point out to whoever modded parent "insightful," that he's actually a troll.
Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.
Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo by the end of the 80's, let alone by 2003.
The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true
Your so-called Czech connection consists of one of the hijackers maybe metting ONCE with an Iraqi Miliary Intelligence officer in April 2001 according to an unverified Czech report by a resturant entrepreneur.
The Ansar al-Islam - Al Qaida connection may or may not be real, but it doesn't matter as links between the ultra religious sect and the militantly athiest Saddam Hussein remain circumstancial and second hand.
As for the documentary evidence... What documentary evidence? Do you mean this?
Google it. We ain't your momma.
You know, I've got a ton of information which is all true and totally proves my point. Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency and get Saddam out of the country before the rebellion. The fact that you can't find any of my sources just proves that you're ugly.
It happens quite frequently, actually. I know several people in my area that make livings happily writing for videogames. You wouldn't believe the amount of creativity and sheer volume of text that goes into an RTS or an RPG... and the writers get to choose the direction the game will take, mapping out plotlines and character motivations like one would on a standard novel. They write an outline, get approval, write the lines, the lines get recorded, they re-write the lines, the lines get finalized, a section of the game gets cut, they re-write the game to compensate, etc...
Ironlore was looking for writers not too long ago, though they're moved far beyond what is written on their job page. Nival in russia is looking for writers, and Nintendo is looking for a copy editor. Then there is localization, a field that I have very little experience in (Sadly? Thankfully?).
In order to answer your question, yes, there are jobs in game development, and people make a living doing it. It may seem like a long shot, but it's probably a significantly better chance than doing anything else with that english degree. Game-specific writers with the experience and skill to tailor their writing to the needs of gameplay is a rare and valued commodity.
It's not trademark law. The family never trademarked the term "Googol." It's not copyright law, or else a whole lot of mathematics textbooks are in trouble. For once it's not Patent law.
Is there even a realm of law that would cover such a thing?
Not that I would trust the Inqirer to report the facts without mangling them horribly...
When I worked at Starbucks we had Tall, Grande, and Venti drinks. There used to be a Short, but after the Venti was added the Short had to be removed. People kept ordering "Medium," most of whom couldn't understand that they cannot order a medium in a 4 size index. Of course, with our smallest drink labeled a Tall the customers had constant questions when we would relay their order to other people, and we had to double-check with everyone who ordered a Tall that they wanted the smallest drink we served. Which in a way was a lie, as you can still order a short, if you want, it's just not on the menu anymore.
Thank you for making me rant; are you satisfied now?
Not yet, I want you to dance too.
PayPal might not seem like a big fry if you don't do a lot online, but when it comes to online transactions between entities too small to directly process credit cards, Paypal is in a monopoly position. Furthermore, as they have gone out of their way to not be a bank, they can pretty much do whatever pleases them irrespective of potential damage to their customers. Everyone that relies upon small internet transactions for either a portion of their income or a portion of their entertainment realizes that this is a ticking time bomb that's just waiting to blow up in all of our faces. It's not worse than Bush/Ashcroft or Microsoft, but to the people derive sizable percentages of their income using a service with exactly zero accountability it is a big story.
And finally, why would you comment on a story only to say that it isn't worth comment?
Courts around the country have already setup reasons when a business has or does not have the right to determine which whom they do business. As far as I know, and IANAL, a business cannot refuse service based upon race, religion, etc. They may have terminated their relationship with Freenet because of political ideology, something that may be protected under law.
Why do people keep saying that the legal ability to do something is the same as moral justification? Do so many people have no higher structure than the law?
The thieves were chased for hours by a one-handed police officer named Magnum, the half-brother of the thief's cousin's ex-roommate. Little did they know they were actually trapped in a twisted game masterminded by a group only known as KCET... And KCET was happy...
In Napster's defence, they're probably counting on giving steep discounts to drive adaptation, then raising the price to a less-steep discount when they have (lol) legitimacy. If the discounted price they gave to the initial colleges is known, everyone will want that price, and they will all be bargaining from a position of power. This kind of information is normal for companies to try and hide from the public.
Not that I'd shed a tear for the New Napster, but this doesn't sound nefarious to me.
Well, it could easily assess a penalty to any website which was ranked above that which the user clicked upon in any given search, thus ensuring that "xxX Hot Teens Slashdot Xxx" is punted down to the bottom of the Slashdot searching pile. Of course, you would need an uncrackable way of summarizing the pages...
Actually, the router in question is very intelligent. All attempts to connect to MSN are re-routed to Google, and any software downloaded is first routed to the system admin for approval. When it recieves a query for windows update, it returns a package containing FireFox, ThunderBird, AVG antivirus, and SpyBot. I can't tell you what it installs when the user attempts to get SP2, but I can tell you that it isn't called "Lindows."
I should have clarified that statement. For encryption on disk, you're thinking of SecureBat. For simple authentication, The Bat! is fine.
However, I just added a password to TheBat! and opened the Inbox->Messages.TBB in a text editor to verify that all of the messages are (like Outlook) stored in plain text. The Bat!'s password will prevent someone from accidentally stumbling into your e-mail, but if they're the slightest bit interested they can read it easily.
This raises a very interesting point. If one were to start a service that would be borderline legal, the best way to protect the profitable, questionably legal portions would be to patent every method of attack. As you are the one designing the system, you have a good chance of seeing its weaknesses first.
In this way, you use the patent system to shield illegal activity. If one could find a way to wrap a DMCA encryption layer into the process, one would have lots of ammunition against those companies that are attempting to vigilante your semi-illicit activities.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget .gov. People who mix up whitehouse.gov with whitehouse.com are in for quite a surprise.
Yeah, one prints made-up stories, the other is a... Jesus Christ! I thought you said whitehouse.org! Oh my eyes! My pure Christian Eyes!
If you followed the link, you are now.
Even if you assume they just added the HDD's to Google's extensive server farm (which as of yet is using RAM as a primary storage medium) There are quite a few costs you are missing. Such as...
Additional Bandwidth,
Additional electricity,
Additional server technicians,
An army of customer support personnel,
Additional Lawyers,
Additional Salespeople,
Additional physical storage for spare HDD's,
I would guess that these costs will far outstrip the $1 per GB cost of a Hard Drive.
Furthermore, data exapands to fill all available space... not through some trick of programming but because of how people use applications when limits are removed. Expect to see people's habits change when they realize their friends also have a 10 MB per-message transfer limit. Want that MP3? Sure, why not.
Finally, there will be the applications / abuses that hook into Gmail's storage space, which they will have to swat down. I could easily see groups of friendly music lovers automatically synchronizing their collections through Gmail, for example.
In other words, give Google some credit here. They are trying something original that could potentially blow up in their face, however jaded we may have become.
Anyone know what the email attachment size limit is?
Your limit is 10 MB, but if you're communicating with people off of the GMail system chances are your messages will be still limited to 2 MB. The weakest link determines the maximum file size.
Opera's instantaneous forward and back is great, and the thing I miss most when switching back and forth between that and FireFox. It also caches typed-in fields, like Slashdot posts, so that you can drift off, come back, and pick up where you left off. Dropped posts can also be retrieved.
I also really like opera's command-line style address bar. Want to google something? Try "g something." Amazon? "z something" Ebay? "e something." Fatwallet, whois, and wayback searches are easy to setup, as is anything which uses post or address-based searching. This was borrowed from iCab, but what a borrow.
Opera also has undo enabled for closed tabs, a surprisingly small and useful touch, which I really miss in Firefox. Automatic page saving (since 3.x, which btw REALLY needed it) makes crashes relatively painless, as you can pick up where you left off.
I find Opera these days crashes about as often as FireFox, though that always changes with every big release. Content rendering is not really an issue these days, except for the occasional I.E. only page. But you can add an "Open in I.E." button to your toolbar which will do exactly what it sounds like.
The history page is really annoying, as if you re-visit a page it will jump to the top of the history, rather than showing up where it was first discovered. Why is it such a problem to have a page in a history twice? My phone does the same thing, and it makes it impossible to call back the xth person who called you, as they could be any of the numbers in front of it.
The wand seems to become more buggy with every release, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll eventually fix it. They always do.
My main gripe would have to be that the interface gets more and more cluttered as features keep getting added. Fast forward and rewind? Who uses these? It's totally customizable, but even that process of customization can be overwhelming if you are new to the browser.
Anyway, I find it to be a worthy tool in the toolbox, and I prefer it over the other available browsers... on Windows, at least.
For the analogy to work, your club must sell clothes through outlets. The club would then only allow in people with their clothes on, all emblazoned with their big fat logo, in attempt to make other people use their clothes. Their clothes would also automatically repulse anyone not wearing their clothes, and would refuse to walk into houses that weren't bought through the club's real estate agents.
Ok, my analogy is even more stretched than yours, but you get the idea.
I wonder if Berman has seen enough of the series to get the reference...
Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency
Ah. Now the tin-foil hat stuff comes out.
Glad to see you don't have to duck for the irony of the statement to go whizzing by your head.
Yes, but it would be great to use a percentage of your units to shuffle around some nosy reporters, keeping them away from any real carnage (except for returning boxes) and thereby getting your enlistment numbers up. Use all of your military to fight, and you aren't harvesting that resource.
You could have an amorphous fog of war, where you could see that something is there, but you can't be sure it's a bomb factory or a house. Your roving reporters, vulnerable to crossfire (and shuffling) by either side but attackable by neither, could report back questionable locations and information, but can also turn the tide of public opinion when gathered by your enemy.
Negotiating with "private" corporations could also be fun, as a resource which either side could utilize. "asshole allies" are already in the game, but nurturing that competition could provide a lot of fun. As for friendly enemies, there might be trade relationships with an ally of the enemy, or "side deals" for percentages of land. Without absolute victories or defeats, such negotiation could become very interesting.
Friendly fire is an interesting concept that could help counter the "Mass a million man army" problem that all modern RTS games have.
In short, there are a lot of interesting things in real life that could go into a more real RTS.
I'd like to point out to whoever modded parent "insightful," that he's actually a troll.
Well, first of all, no, that hasn't been shown, by anybody. And secondly, the leftover stockpiles from Iran-Iraq are precisely what Saddam was accused of hiding.
Which, with Iraq's shelf-life problem of the time would have been mostly harmless goo by the end of the 80's, let alone by 2003.
The truth is Pres. Bush said Saddam had tried to buy uraniam from Niger.. AFTER being told it was NOT true
Except it was true. Again with the googling.
Again, you're a troll.
Your so-called Czech connection consists of one of the hijackers maybe metting ONCE with an Iraqi Miliary Intelligence officer in April 2001 according to an unverified Czech report by a resturant entrepreneur.
The Ansar al-Islam - Al Qaida connection may or may not be real, but it doesn't matter as links between the ultra religious sect and the militantly athiest Saddam Hussein remain circumstancial and second hand.
As for the documentary evidence... What documentary evidence? Do you mean this?
Google it. We ain't your momma.
You know, I've got a ton of information which is all true and totally proves my point. Saddam was actually working with Bush to cement Bush's presidency and get Saddam out of the country before the rebellion. The fact that you can't find any of my sources just proves that you're ugly.
It happens quite frequently, actually. I know several people in my area that make livings happily writing for videogames. You wouldn't believe the amount of creativity and sheer volume of text that goes into an RTS or an RPG... and the writers get to choose the direction the game will take, mapping out plotlines and character motivations like one would on a standard novel. They write an outline, get approval, write the lines, the lines get recorded, they re-write the lines, the lines get finalized, a section of the game gets cut, they re-write the game to compensate, etc...
Ironlore was looking for writers not too long ago, though they're moved far beyond what is written on their job page. Nival in russia is looking for writers, and Nintendo is looking for a copy editor. Then there is localization, a field that I have very little experience in (Sadly? Thankfully?).
In order to answer your question, yes, there are jobs in game development, and people make a living doing it. It may seem like a long shot, but it's probably a significantly better chance than doing anything else with that english degree. Game-specific writers with the experience and skill to tailor their writing to the needs of gameplay is a rare and valued commodity.
It's not trademark law. The family never trademarked the term "Googol." It's not copyright law, or else a whole lot of mathematics textbooks are in trouble. For once it's not Patent law.
Is there even a realm of law that would cover such a thing?
Not that I would trust the Inqirer to report the facts without mangling them horribly...
When I worked at Starbucks we had Tall, Grande, and Venti drinks. There used to be a Short, but after the Venti was added the Short had to be removed. People kept ordering "Medium," most of whom couldn't understand that they cannot order a medium in a 4 size index. Of course, with our smallest drink labeled a Tall the customers had constant questions when we would relay their order to other people, and we had to double-check with everyone who ordered a Tall that they wanted the smallest drink we served. Which in a way was a lie, as you can still order a short, if you want, it's just not on the menu anymore.
Thank you for making me rant; are you satisfied now?
Not yet, I want you to dance too.
PayPal might not seem like a big fry if you don't do a lot online, but when it comes to online transactions between entities too small to directly process credit cards, Paypal is in a monopoly position. Furthermore, as they have gone out of their way to not be a bank, they can pretty much do whatever pleases them irrespective of potential damage to their customers. Everyone that relies upon small internet transactions for either a portion of their income or a portion of their entertainment realizes that this is a ticking time bomb that's just waiting to blow up in all of our faces. It's not worse than Bush/Ashcroft or Microsoft, but to the people derive sizable percentages of their income using a service with exactly zero accountability it is a big story.
And finally, why would you comment on a story only to say that it isn't worth comment?
Courts around the country have already setup reasons when a business has or does not have the right to determine which whom they do business. As far as I know, and IANAL, a business cannot refuse service based upon race, religion, etc. They may have terminated their relationship with Freenet because of political ideology, something that may be protected under law.
Why do people keep saying that the legal ability to do something is the same as moral justification? Do so many people have no higher structure than the law?
We're sorry. The scammers that were sent to scam the scammers are, themselves, scammers.
The thieves were chased for hours by a one-handed police officer named Magnum, the half-brother of the thief's cousin's ex-roommate. Little did they know they were actually trapped in a twisted game masterminded by a group only known as KCET... And KCET was happy...
Right, Mr. President?
In Napster's defence, they're probably counting on giving steep discounts to drive adaptation, then raising the price to a less-steep discount when they have (lol) legitimacy. If the discounted price they gave to the initial colleges is known, everyone will want that price, and they will all be bargaining from a position of power. This kind of information is normal for companies to try and hide from the public.
Not that I'd shed a tear for the New Napster, but this doesn't sound nefarious to me.
Well, it could easily assess a penalty to any website which was ranked above that which the user clicked upon in any given search, thus ensuring that "xxX Hot Teens Slashdot Xxx" is punted down to the bottom of the Slashdot searching pile. Of course, you would need an uncrackable way of summarizing the pages...
Actually, the router in question is very intelligent. All attempts to connect to MSN are re-routed to Google, and any software downloaded is first routed to the system admin for approval. When it recieves a query for windows update, it returns a package containing FireFox, ThunderBird, AVG antivirus, and SpyBot. I can't tell you what it installs when the user attempts to get SP2, but I can tell you that it isn't called "Lindows."
Doesn't he mean "began" and "didn't even notice?"
I should have clarified that statement. For encryption on disk, you're thinking of SecureBat. For simple authentication, The Bat! is fine.
However, I just added a password to TheBat! and opened the Inbox->Messages.TBB in a text editor to verify that all of the messages are (like Outlook) stored in plain text. The Bat!'s password will prevent someone from accidentally stumbling into your e-mail, but if they're the slightest bit interested they can read it easily.
You're thinking of Secure Bat! the somewhat more expensive cousin of The Bat!
And if he is wise,
6) He does this all remotely on a technically competent associate's computer.
7) He turns in his associate.
8) Profit.
This raises a very interesting point. If one were to start a service that would be borderline legal, the best way to protect the profitable, questionably legal portions would be to patent every method of attack. As you are the one designing the system, you have a good chance of seeing its weaknesses first.
In this way, you use the patent system to shield illegal activity. If one could find a way to wrap a DMCA encryption layer into the process, one would have lots of ammunition against those companies that are attempting to vigilante your semi-illicit activities.