Chances are you can re-map that logitech g600's buttons to do whatever you want. You can probably do it driverless as well, which means the changes survive across plugging the mouse into a different PC. Pick one up on Amazon and if it doesn't work the way you want, they let you return it.
So personally, I'm expecting 4K and other very high resolution formats to flop outside of niche markets, like say luxury home cinema systems with a projector and a screen several metres across.
I don't think so. I think it'll keep going until 72" TVs are cheap enough for the masses to own or something like that HoloLens Microsoft was talking about matures. IMO one or the other will happen by 2030, at which point it will stop at 8k (however studio masters will be at 16k so that they can downres for a sharper 8k image, similar to how present 4k is downresed from 8k for the same reason.)
I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app. Unless they didn't file a trademark, which would be an incredibly stupid thing to not do.
IMO they should just have Quentin Tarantino do Star Wars. We could finally have the glorious final showdown involving JarJar that everybody has been waiting for since he first showed his annoying face in episode 1.
Though this is Disney now...hmm...I wonder how a Quentin Tarantino Disney film would look.
By the time they smoked that much nicotine, they'd have long since died from an acute but sudden onset of emphysema like symptoms.
The immune system is going to be rendering the nicotine inert, so the first step would be having so much of it that you somehow managed to overcome the immune system entirely.
The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling.
What I find even more strange is how many people I've known who knew full well that it was bad prior to even starting, and then started anyways. I've asked them why they did that, and the answers range from "it's so that you have something to do when you're with your friends" to "well I figured it would be good for me so long as I used a natural brand." (By natural, they mean those packs you can buy on the Indian reservations that are supposedly grown and made locally by the natives.)
I wonder, if Microsoft will produce anymore a desktop optimized version of Office and or Windows?
Probably not. I think Microsoft is trolling their Office customers. I mean look at this:
These new Office apps will be pre-installed (they will be free) on smartphones and small tablets running Windows 10.
So they start a parade telling you its free and awesome, but then totally JK you by sticking it on a product that nobody actually buys. The tablet war is already over (tablet sales are dropping FAST) and nobody wants a Windows Phone except for Microsoft employees or die-hard fans.
Reminds me of that pamphlet named something like "100 scientists against Einstein", and Einstein commented that it only takes one of them prove him wrong, not 100.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate.
No that isn't policy, that's just what people do, and they could change their mind if they REALLY wanted to, without government intervention.
It's not a very good one. In addition to what was already said, I myself don't see any good reason to push the masses towards programming in particular because it would be like saying we should push the masses towards cardiology. There are a lot of ways to be employed in the tech sector, programming being just one of them. Still I don't think its wise to push everybody towards the tech sector either.
You're talking about the age where education/science was a hobby for the highly privileged (aristocracy). These people had servants, fortunes and real estate as support. And knowing latin isn't any different as knowing any other language. Frankly, you have a very romantic view of the Victorian era.
Typically when I talk about the Victorian era, I talk about how many dumb traditions we've carried over from it, such as what I did just now. How then, can my view of it be romantic?
The problem is sometimes you do have to use these "difficult" words since they describe more exactly what you want to mean.
So use them when you have to use them (or in those cases where you want to add flavor with a joke) but they shouldn't be every day words. Which is basically what I said.
That's what I thought, but apparently Title II reclassifies them as telecom providers, which means that the internet tax freedom act doesn't apply to them:
The price will go up by about 16% unless the internet tax law is changed to also apply to telecoms, which it may as well because the line between telecom and broadband is very much muddled these days, and will be even more so when practically all voice traffic is done over IP.
Or, alternatively, if a new form of Title II is created that applies all of the same effects, without the New Deal era provisions. (The FCC does not have the authority to do this, only congress does. The FCC does however have the authority to reclassify internet providers to existing Title II rules though.)
IMO the best thing to do is to simply remove the New Deal provisions from Title II and just use that, which would probably also lower your cell phone bill (which, depending on your state, you add anywhere from 10% to 25% to your bill, which IMO is due to them still being perceived as a rich man's luxury.)
I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is. Right now incumbent ISPs have a monopoly on a lot of local rights of way and ordinances. If a competitor wants to move in, it's basically some local government that puts a stop to it (albeit at the behest of the incumbent ISP.)
I don't think Title II is necessarily the perfect answer (partly because of the New Deal era taxation that goes along with it) but it is better than the status quo.
That could see a bigger rise in open source software used to defeat such a measure. I.e. since no company would be legally allowed to produce software that provides end to end encryption, end users could attach their own ciphers to it instead.
That couldn't be killed by the government because of the first amendment. I think it was Phil Zimmerman who argued in court that he could print the code in a book and send it overseas, and that the government then couldn't legally do anything about it because printed material was already so heavily protected against censorship by case law (even though digital wasn't at the time.)
Well, some very good linguists have been able to easily decipher languages they've never heard before, even when those languages aren't very well related to other languages they've heard before. After that is done, it's just a matter of breaking the rather simple substitution cipher that was used. For example they'd substitute the English word "battleship" for the Navajo word "lo-tso" (whale.)
In order for that to have happened, they had to have some other evidence that corroborated with what the guy was saying, either that or he just happened to guess some of the details of the crime that only the killer would have known (which that's actually happened before on people who weren't admitting to anything; they were tricked into saying things about the crime scene that only the killer should have known.)
Not at all. To have that happen they have to prove that you're a physical danger to yourself or somebody else. Simply being eccentric, insane, or even being a criminal sociopath who defrauds people doesn't have a chance of landing you there.
Slashdot Mirror
Chances are you can re-map that logitech g600's buttons to do whatever you want. You can probably do it driverless as well, which means the changes survive across plugging the mouse into a different PC. Pick one up on Amazon and if it doesn't work the way you want, they let you return it.
So personally, I'm expecting 4K and other very high resolution formats to flop outside of niche markets, like say luxury home cinema systems with a projector and a screen several metres across.
I don't think so. I think it'll keep going until 72" TVs are cheap enough for the masses to own or something like that HoloLens Microsoft was talking about matures. IMO one or the other will happen by 2030, at which point it will stop at 8k (however studio masters will be at 16k so that they can downres for a sharper 8k image, similar to how present 4k is downresed from 8k for the same reason.)
I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app. Unless they didn't file a trademark, which would be an incredibly stupid thing to not do.
I don't use whatsapp though.
Drugs I can see on some level because they make you feel really good when you use them.
Cigarettes however don't really have that going for them. In fact from what I understand, the first time somebody smokes is rather painful.
My Nexus 7 fits in the front pocket of all of the pants I have (I never use my back pockets for anything.)
IMO they should just have Quentin Tarantino do Star Wars. We could finally have the glorious final showdown involving JarJar that everybody has been waiting for since he first showed his annoying face in episode 1.
Though this is Disney now...hmm...I wonder how a Quentin Tarantino Disney film would look.
By the time they smoked that much nicotine, they'd have long since died from an acute but sudden onset of emphysema like symptoms.
The immune system is going to be rendering the nicotine inert, so the first step would be having so much of it that you somehow managed to overcome the immune system entirely.
The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling.
What I find even more strange is how many people I've known who knew full well that it was bad prior to even starting, and then started anyways. I've asked them why they did that, and the answers range from "it's so that you have something to do when you're with your friends" to "well I figured it would be good for me so long as I used a natural brand." (By natural, they mean those packs you can buy on the Indian reservations that are supposedly grown and made locally by the natives.)
I wonder, if Microsoft will produce anymore a desktop optimized version of Office and or Windows?
Probably not. I think Microsoft is trolling their Office customers. I mean look at this:
These new Office apps will be pre-installed (they will be free) on smartphones and small tablets running Windows 10.
So they start a parade telling you its free and awesome, but then totally JK you by sticking it on a product that nobody actually buys. The tablet war is already over (tablet sales are dropping FAST) and nobody wants a Windows Phone except for Microsoft employees or die-hard fans.
Strange; seems to work for me.
Reminds me of that pamphlet named something like "100 scientists against Einstein", and Einstein commented that it only takes one of them prove him wrong, not 100.
How does one determine when science has "fully resolved" a question ? Also, it's impossible to not have a policy while we wait. Right now, our policy is to keep producing CO2 at about the same rate.
No that isn't policy, that's just what people do, and they could change their mind if they REALLY wanted to, without government intervention.
You CRIMINAL!
But actually you could just copy+paste the link to your web browser, defeating the site's referrer check.
What else would you possibly store on vinyl?
A cold glass of water? You wouldn't want to warp the finish on your coffee table, would you?
It's not a very good one. In addition to what was already said, I myself don't see any good reason to push the masses towards programming in particular because it would be like saying we should push the masses towards cardiology. There are a lot of ways to be employed in the tech sector, programming being just one of them. Still I don't think its wise to push everybody towards the tech sector either.
You're talking about the age where education/science was a hobby for the highly privileged (aristocracy). These people had servants, fortunes and real estate as support. And knowing latin isn't any different as knowing any other language. Frankly, you have a very romantic view of the Victorian era.
Typically when I talk about the Victorian era, I talk about how many dumb traditions we've carried over from it, such as what I did just now. How then, can my view of it be romantic?
The problem is sometimes you do have to use these "difficult" words since they describe more exactly what you want to mean.
So use them when you have to use them (or in those cases where you want to add flavor with a joke) but they shouldn't be every day words. Which is basically what I said.
IMO they should consider a Battlestar Galactica style flak shield.
That's what I thought, but apparently Title II reclassifies them as telecom providers, which means that the internet tax freedom act doesn't apply to them:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great...
The price will go up by about 16% unless the internet tax law is changed to also apply to telecoms, which it may as well because the line between telecom and broadband is very much muddled these days, and will be even more so when practically all voice traffic is done over IP.
Or, alternatively, if a new form of Title II is created that applies all of the same effects, without the New Deal era provisions. (The FCC does not have the authority to do this, only congress does. The FCC does however have the authority to reclassify internet providers to existing Title II rules though.)
IMO the best thing to do is to simply remove the New Deal provisions from Title II and just use that, which would probably also lower your cell phone bill (which, depending on your state, you add anywhere from 10% to 25% to your bill, which IMO is due to them still being perceived as a rich man's luxury.)
What's wrong with RSA based key exchange? If we're worried about NSA breaking it, just go with 4096 bit.
I'm in favor of free markets, but that's not what the status quo currently is. Right now incumbent ISPs have a monopoly on a lot of local rights of way and ordinances. If a competitor wants to move in, it's basically some local government that puts a stop to it (albeit at the behest of the incumbent ISP.)
I don't think Title II is necessarily the perfect answer (partly because of the New Deal era taxation that goes along with it) but it is better than the status quo.
That could see a bigger rise in open source software used to defeat such a measure. I.e. since no company would be legally allowed to produce software that provides end to end encryption, end users could attach their own ciphers to it instead.
That couldn't be killed by the government because of the first amendment. I think it was Phil Zimmerman who argued in court that he could print the code in a book and send it overseas, and that the government then couldn't legally do anything about it because printed material was already so heavily protected against censorship by case law (even though digital wasn't at the time.)
Well, some very good linguists have been able to easily decipher languages they've never heard before, even when those languages aren't very well related to other languages they've heard before. After that is done, it's just a matter of breaking the rather simple substitution cipher that was used. For example they'd substitute the English word "battleship" for the Navajo word "lo-tso" (whale.)
In order for that to have happened, they had to have some other evidence that corroborated with what the guy was saying, either that or he just happened to guess some of the details of the crime that only the killer would have known (which that's actually happened before on people who weren't admitting to anything; they were tricked into saying things about the crime scene that only the killer should have known.)
To add to that: Even if they can prove it, a doctor has to agree with it, and a supervising physician can let them out at any time.
Not at all. To have that happen they have to prove that you're a physical danger to yourself or somebody else. Simply being eccentric, insane, or even being a criminal sociopath who defrauds people doesn't have a chance of landing you there.