AFAIK the iPhone has no user-exposed filesystem or any way to save downloaded MP3s from the web, so using the normal eMusic interface isn't exactly a viable option.
Fair enough; it's true that there aren't a lot of cheap cars out there with gobs of torque (although I don't know that there ever were; were old high-end muscle cars really all that cheap in their day?). Personally I think it's a lack of demand more than government regulation; I'd actually much rather have even a base model stock MX-5 than a GT500 because I prefer cars that handle, and I think that's a common sentiment these days. Smoking your tires is only fun for so long; eventually you have to actually drive.
If all you're after is cheap power, though, have you considered a GTO? It's 400hp/400lb-ft for just a little over $30k, and you can probably get them used a lot cheaper than that.
Trans Am for weekend fun...started reading the history of them here on the links at the left of the page and feeling sad how between gov. mandates of fuel economy, exhaust restrictions, and in LARGE part, the freakin' insurance industry just sucked the life out of fun cars.
Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc. beg to differ. Cars are still fun.
Unless you can build your own car these days...it is very difficult to get a big, powerful fun toy to drive around....especially for a decent price.
Mustang GT? Solstice GXP? WRX STi? The new Camaro? If you want to step up a little, the Corvette? Powerful, fast cars are just as available and just as cheap now as they ever have been (if you're set on a do-it-yourself fun weekend toy project, drop a V8 into a Miata). And now they're actually safe, comfortable, and get decent mileage, in addition to being much better to drive than old muscle cars ever were. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about.
Yeah, Rowling's far too rich to care about money now, unless it's for charity. If she goes back to the Potterverse, it'll be because she's lived with these characters for 15 years and can't help thinking more about them.
Rowling pays lip service to various places in Europe throughout her books. But she makes it seem like taking over the ministry in Britain is equivalent to taking over the entire world (of "muggles"). It is both a major plothole throughout the whole series (albeit a subtle one), excusable for the first book, but inexcusable as her overarching plot developed.
Just as Dumbledore is undeniably more powerful than his foreign counterparts Karkaroff or Madame Maxine, isn't it possible that Britain is the "superpower" of the wizarding world? It's implied several times that Hogwarts is the best wizarding school in the world, and that Dumbledore is the greatest wizard. It's not inconceivable that full might of a strong Britain under the command of a cunning, powerful leader like Voldemort might conquer the rest of the magical world, especially if he could find other alliances (trolls, giants, dementors, werewolves, etc). Hell, Germany came scarily close to taking over the world during WWII, and it was never considered a true superpower.
Admittedly the Malfoys aren't completely redeemed. But caring about your family is a form of love, and it's Narcissa's love for her son that causes her to betray Voldemort at the end. Draco, meanwhile, is forced to continue as a Death Eater but clearly has misgivings, as we saw in book six (he can't kill Dumbledore, and comes close to taking his offer of protection) and now here; he can't stomach the murder of the teacher in chapter 1 and never actually manages to do anything effective for Voldemort. However much petty hate he might feel for Harry, he doesn't have the heart of a Death Eater; there's more to him than pure remorseless evil. He too is acting out of concern for the people he loves (his family), which is why Rowling allows him to survive.
Even if you don't accept the Malfoys as redemptive, though, you can't deny that Slughorn and Snape are pretty decent. How can you read Snape's story and conclude "the only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin"?
Of course Vista's market share is rising; it just came out and people are forced to upgrade when they buy new machines. Since current Windows marketshare is at least 90%, it would be shocking if Vista didn't eventually account for at least 70%.
I thought Nielsen ratings were done by installing boxes in selected homes, monitoring viewing times and then extrapolating an overall rating from programmes watched in those homes to apply to all views. Unless these Tivo enabled sci-fi nerds are in the programme, what damned difference does it make to the ratings whether people use Tivo or not?
Well, if the sample is at all representative, then Tivo-enabled sci-fi nerds will end up in the program and thus their habits do make a difference. It's certainly possible to gather data from Tivos, but I don't know if Nielson does anything like that right now, and if they don't then their statistics are definitely skewed.
Why does Lily's Patronus have to be related to James'? Perhaps the same similarities that made Lily and James a good match for each other also lead them to have similar Patronuses, which they would still have had even if they'd never met each other.
A person can't choose their Patronus' form, but they're based on the person's character and can change according to major events in the person's life (for example, Tonks during her emotional turmoil at the beginning of book 6). If Snape's unrequited love for Lily was as powerful as it's made out to be, it seems plausible that that would influence his Patronus.
I wouldn't say that Griphook "rightfully gained possession" of the sword. Sure, Harry had agreed to give it to him, but Griphook took it by treachery before that could happen. We know that goblins have different ideas of ownership, but that doesn't mean the goblin concept is more correct or binding than the wizard concept. Also, it's pretty well established in Rowling's magic system that nobility, bravery, and courage have a way of coming out on top, and Gryffindor (along with Neville) exemplifies all three, and the goblins none.
The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.
Slughorn stayed. Between him, Snape, and the Malfoys, I think Slytherin gets at least partially redeemed. But you're right, it would have been nice to see a few more. Then again, it is the house of the self-serving, and no matter how close Harry came to being a Slytherin it's still pretty significant that he chose not to.
Molly Weasley killing Bellatrix symbolized the power of love (a mother's love for her daughter) to triumph over hate. If Neville had killed Bellatrix, it would have been just a revenge killing; not really in keeping with Rowling's moral code.
WTF are you talking about? A movie at my local theater is $8; $6 if you go to a matinee. No one's forcing you to buy popcorn, nor does the MPAA have anything to do with popcorn prices. Total cost for two people to go out to the movies: $16. Even if you live in a rich area that charges ripoff prices, $12 each isn't unreasonable for two to three hours of solid entertainment.
No evidence has been produced that Apple stole anything or has violated any license terms. Do that first before lobbing accusations. Yes, it'd be nice if the iPhone was freely moddable, but nothing in the LGPL requires that.
IANAL, but can anyone offer an opinion on whether Apple would actually be able to remove the "or later" clause from WebKit? If the license for the KHTML code they started with used that clause, aren't they obligated to keep the same license for all derivative works?
Linux is not an FSF project and Linux's authors are well known to view the FSF with hostility. And Apple does not use Linux in any of its products. Your comment is totally off-topic.
No one outside the geek community knows or cares about these distinctions. People see the FSF doing something stupid and they associate it with open source as a whole.
What kind of statement? How did the FSF threaten legal action by describing the iPhone as what it is?
"Describing the iPhone as what it is?" They made an accusation without no evidence. What about "It will be interesting to see the extent to which you've been beating your wife" - is that a fair statement?
No offense, but you're an idiot if you can't see that health care is a special case. All of the markets you mention involve a normal exchange of money for goods/services. Companies have incentives to provide me with good food, housing, phone service, and entertainment, because if they don't, I won't buy their product. (energy and other utilities are another special case due to the required infrastructure, which is why they're generally provided by a heavily regulated government-granted monopoly, no free market). Health care doesn't work that way. In health care, there are two entities trying to profit - the hospitals and the insurers. When you get sick, the insurer already has your money; why would they pay if they can get out of it? If you have a heart attack, you'll go to the nearest hospital, and they'll bill you the same whether the care was great or terrible. Since neither insurers nor hospitals can be comparison shopped in most circumstances, why would they have an incentive to provide good care?
Also, most people understand food pretty well. We buy it all the time; it's fairly obvious what we need and what we're buying. Almost no one understands health care, and health care decisions are far more crucial than what food to buy. Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? With the exception of elective stuff like plastic surgery, health care just doesn't operate in a free market, and allowing a profit motive is just asking to be exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK the iPhone has no user-exposed filesystem or any way to save downloaded MP3s from the web, so using the normal eMusic interface isn't exactly a viable option.
Fair enough; it's true that there aren't a lot of cheap cars out there with gobs of torque (although I don't know that there ever were; were old high-end muscle cars really all that cheap in their day?). Personally I think it's a lack of demand more than government regulation; I'd actually much rather have even a base model stock MX-5 than a GT500 because I prefer cars that handle, and I think that's a common sentiment these days. Smoking your tires is only fun for so long; eventually you have to actually drive.
If all you're after is cheap power, though, have you considered a GTO? It's 400hp/400lb-ft for just a little over $30k, and you can probably get them used a lot cheaper than that.
Trans Am for weekend fun...started reading the history of them here on the links at the left of the page and feeling sad how between gov. mandates of fuel economy, exhaust restrictions, and in LARGE part, the freakin' insurance industry just sucked the life out of fun cars.
Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc. beg to differ. Cars are still fun.
Unless you can build your own car these days...it is very difficult to get a big, powerful fun toy to drive around....especially for a decent price.
Mustang GT? Solstice GXP? WRX STi? The new Camaro? If you want to step up a little, the Corvette? Powerful, fast cars are just as available and just as cheap now as they ever have been (if you're set on a do-it-yourself fun weekend toy project, drop a V8 into a Miata). And now they're actually safe, comfortable, and get decent mileage, in addition to being much better to drive than old muscle cars ever were. I'm really not sure what you're complaining about.
Yeah, Rowling's far too rich to care about money now, unless it's for charity. If she goes back to the Potterverse, it'll be because she's lived with these characters for 15 years and can't help thinking more about them.
Just as Dumbledore is undeniably more powerful than his foreign counterparts Karkaroff or Madame Maxine, isn't it possible that Britain is the "superpower" of the wizarding world? It's implied several times that Hogwarts is the best wizarding school in the world, and that Dumbledore is the greatest wizard. It's not inconceivable that full might of a strong Britain under the command of a cunning, powerful leader like Voldemort might conquer the rest of the magical world, especially if he could find other alliances (trolls, giants, dementors, werewolves, etc). Hell, Germany came scarily close to taking over the world during WWII, and it was never considered a true superpower.
Admittedly the Malfoys aren't completely redeemed. But caring about your family is a form of love, and it's Narcissa's love for her son that causes her to betray Voldemort at the end. Draco, meanwhile, is forced to continue as a Death Eater but clearly has misgivings, as we saw in book six (he can't kill Dumbledore, and comes close to taking his offer of protection) and now here; he can't stomach the murder of the teacher in chapter 1 and never actually manages to do anything effective for Voldemort. However much petty hate he might feel for Harry, he doesn't have the heart of a Death Eater; there's more to him than pure remorseless evil. He too is acting out of concern for the people he loves (his family), which is why Rowling allows him to survive.
Even if you don't accept the Malfoys as redemptive, though, you can't deny that Slughorn and Snape are pretty decent. How can you read Snape's story and conclude "the only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin"?
Of course Vista's market share is rising; it just came out and people are forced to upgrade when they buy new machines. Since current Windows marketshare is at least 90%, it would be shocking if Vista didn't eventually account for at least 70%.
Well, if the sample is at all representative, then Tivo-enabled sci-fi nerds will end up in the program and thus their habits do make a difference. It's certainly possible to gather data from Tivos, but I don't know if Nielson does anything like that right now, and if they don't then their statistics are definitely skewed.
No, an explanation for why people who watch Fox News tend to believe these things disproportionately.
Why does Lily's Patronus have to be related to James'? Perhaps the same similarities that made Lily and James a good match for each other also lead them to have similar Patronuses, which they would still have had even if they'd never met each other.
A person can't choose their Patronus' form, but they're based on the person's character and can change according to major events in the person's life (for example, Tonks during her emotional turmoil at the beginning of book 6). If Snape's unrequited love for Lily was as powerful as it's made out to be, it seems plausible that that would influence his Patronus.
I wouldn't say that Griphook "rightfully gained possession" of the sword. Sure, Harry had agreed to give it to him, but Griphook took it by treachery before that could happen. We know that goblins have different ideas of ownership, but that doesn't mean the goblin concept is more correct or binding than the wizard concept. Also, it's pretty well established in Rowling's magic system that nobility, bravery, and courage have a way of coming out on top, and Gryffindor (along with Neville) exemplifies all three, and the goblins none.
That's the easiest question. The Sword presents itself to a true Gryffindor in time of need, as we learned in Chamber of Secrets.
Slughorn stayed. Between him, Snape, and the Malfoys, I think Slytherin gets at least partially redeemed. But you're right, it would have been nice to see a few more. Then again, it is the house of the self-serving, and no matter how close Harry came to being a Slytherin it's still pretty significant that he chose not to.
Grindelwald had to have been the wand's true master because Dumbledore became the new master by defeating him.
Molly Weasley killing Bellatrix symbolized the power of love (a mother's love for her daughter) to triumph over hate. If Neville had killed Bellatrix, it would have been just a revenge killing; not really in keeping with Rowling's moral code.
Dude, just STFU if you don't understand the nature of the research. No one's trying to find God here.
You might want to think a little bit more about what you're saying.
I fail to see how there are no client requirements.
Pretty much any computer you go to has a modern web browser. Not many have IRC clients pre-installed.
If it's presented in a form more conducive to essays than to one-liners, why did you reply to my paragraph with a one-line answer?
That's possibly the stupidest question I've heard in quite a while.
That's what email is for.
WTF are you talking about? A movie at my local theater is $8; $6 if you go to a matinee. No one's forcing you to buy popcorn, nor does the MPAA have anything to do with popcorn prices. Total cost for two people to go out to the movies: $16. Even if you live in a rich area that charges ripoff prices, $12 each isn't unreasonable for two to three hours of solid entertainment.
No evidence has been produced that Apple stole anything or has violated any license terms. Do that first before lobbing accusations. Yes, it'd be nice if the iPhone was freely moddable, but nothing in the LGPL requires that.
IANAL, but can anyone offer an opinion on whether Apple would actually be able to remove the "or later" clause from WebKit? If the license for the KHTML code they started with used that clause, aren't they obligated to keep the same license for all derivative works?
Linux is not an FSF project and Linux's authors are well known to view the FSF with hostility. And Apple does not use Linux in any of its products. Your comment is totally off-topic.
No one outside the geek community knows or cares about these distinctions. People see the FSF doing something stupid and they associate it with open source as a whole.
What kind of statement? How did the FSF threaten legal action by describing the iPhone as what it is?
"Describing the iPhone as what it is?" They made an accusation without no evidence. What about "It will be interesting to see the extent to which you've been beating your wife" - is that a fair statement?
No offense, but you're an idiot if you can't see that health care is a special case. All of the markets you mention involve a normal exchange of money for goods/services. Companies have incentives to provide me with good food, housing, phone service, and entertainment, because if they don't, I won't buy their product. (energy and other utilities are another special case due to the required infrastructure, which is why they're generally provided by a heavily regulated government-granted monopoly, no free market). Health care doesn't work that way. In health care, there are two entities trying to profit - the hospitals and the insurers. When you get sick, the insurer already has your money; why would they pay if they can get out of it? If you have a heart attack, you'll go to the nearest hospital, and they'll bill you the same whether the care was great or terrible. Since neither insurers nor hospitals can be comparison shopped in most circumstances, why would they have an incentive to provide good care?
Also, most people understand food pretty well. We buy it all the time; it's fairly obvious what we need and what we're buying. Almost no one understands health care, and health care decisions are far more crucial than what food to buy. Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? With the exception of elective stuff like plastic surgery, health care just doesn't operate in a free market, and allowing a profit motive is just asking to be exploited.
To be fair, Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas are pretty easy targets.