Why does MS need an extra wide, tree-lined overpass instead of just a regular overpass? It seems you could cut the cost of the project substantially if you went with regular instead of super deluxe. But I suppose enough palms were greased to get the extra fancy treatment.
Because trees absorb the pollutants that cars produce, making life less miserable for everyone. If all new overpasses were lined with trees, there would be less smog.
good by then they will switch to ie7 while other browsers are on CSS4 and Microsoft will probably be on ie15...
No, I don't think so. Nobody's going to switch from IE6 to IE7 after IE8 is released; they'll jump straight to IE8, and add anything that doesn't work to the incompatibility list.
Dont get me wrong, but I am somewhat bitter, due to the fact that sometimes I even get the complaint that IE5.5 support is a must and IE6 support and even 7 seems like dragging a dead cow along...
Precisely why the release and wide adoption of IE8 is a good thing.
And nowadays it is not even the private users anymore who wont upgrade most of them have, it is mostly banks and corporations!
Also true. They don't upgrade, mostly because they can't, because something they rely on will break. For most home users, all the sites they ever visit were fixed years ago (or were never broken).
How the hell can they expect people to take them seriously on the shipping price of a unit when they say how much it is going to cost _before_ they have even chosen the CPU.
They've chosen the price based on what they think their customers will be able to afford to pay. Then they'll use that as a target when designing the machine - if some combination of parts would make the end product too expensive, they'll cut corners and find cheaper components to get the price down. If another combination of parts would make the end product cost less than their target, then they'll improve the quality of the product (and therefore its usefulness and desirability) by upgrading the components until the target price is reached.
Designing any computer system is always a matter of compromise. The trick is figuring out which things to compromise on, and how much. Aiming for a target price point is one way to help do that.
So, if they're selling support, presumably there's a way to contact them, and if there's a way to contact them, shouldn't it be possible to identify them?
Corporate IT departments will switch from IE6 when:
1) All their vendors'/clients'/etc. web sites are updated to work with better browsers 2) All their intranet web sites are updated to work with better browsers 3) Web sites start dropping support for IE6, and eventually for IE7 4) Windows XP or Vista stop being available with new computer purchases, either because Microsoft has stopped licensing them or because new PCs come with hardware that doesn't have XP-compatible drivers available
Some of these things will happen long before 2020.
No IE has handled CSS1 fine since IE4. Microsoft pioneered the standard back when they were the underdog. They just never accepted the Mozilla-based correction to it (border-box vs content-box, root vs body). And by the time of CSS2 they had 90% marketshare and had no interest in standards anymore.
Thankfully, now that their marketshare has slipped dramatically, they're interested in standards again! IE8 passes ACID2, and I bet IE9 will pass ACID3.
IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?
Microsoft is thinking that fixing a lot of problems and shipping something out the door to replace the turd that is IE7 is a better plan than waiting until they've had time to implement full CSS3 support and make the ACID3 test pass. Not supporting corner-radius isn't going to break anything that anybody cares about, but in a few years it will be possible to assume that everyone visiting your web site is using a browser that can pass ACID2.
Microsoft wouldn't need to artificially limit an ARM port of Windows to only allow three applications to run at a time, since there would only be about three applications available for the platform.
Actually, as an early-adopter of the PVR world, my behavior in regards to ads surprised me- I found that in general, I would watch almost every ad once. It turned out that when hitting the "skip 30s" button, I'd usually end up catching just enough of the ad to know which one it was, and if it were clever or relevant, I would even back up to show the ad to visiting friends/family. So while I don't disagree with your general point, I think that the effect of PVR's on ad revenue is not quite so clear cut as PVR's -> no ads watched -> the death of tv.
When I had a PVR I watched most ads once as well, at least if they were at the beginning of the commercial break. As soon as I hit an ad I didn't want to see (either because I'd recently seen it or I just wasn't interested), then I'd skip all the rest of the ads for that commercial break. Why bother to pick up the remote until I'm annoyed?
What really bugs me is networks that crank up the volume on the ads, so they're a lot louder than the show. Sorry, even if I would have found the ad interesting, now I'm skipping it or muting the sound before it wakes someone up, you bastards. I know, they just want to make sure I can still hear the ad if I happen to walk into the kitchen to grab a snack during the commercial break, but it's really not OK and I should start complaining.
My understanding is that thus far the shuffling has been largely done by Whedon, despite a lot of claims to the contrary. Whedon rejected the pilot, for example, as it just didn't fit together. The major issues with Dollhouse are that Fox has been, apparently, very heavy handed with the first few episodes (and given thus far we've had one good one, one OK one, and two dreadful ones [2, 4, 1 and 2, respectively], it's safe to say they've not done so to the show's credit. Supposedly Ep6 or 7 is where it starts getting "good".
Whedon has learned from his experience with Firefly how to work with Fox executives. He's trying to be very flexible in catering to their whims this time around, and trying to sneak in some actual creativity with hopes that they won't notice, instead of trying to first be creative and then screw it up because the network is unhappy. If he's successful in this new strategy, Fox won't cancel his show and he'll gain the bargaining power he needs for his next project.
Shows with a story arc must be shown in the same slot religiously. Imagine you missed a few episodes of Bleach. Would you even try to continue watching it?
People with money who are interesting to advertisers who are the actual customers of television (you are the product) tend to have PVRs so they can watch a show if they miss it. People like you who miss a show and then don't follow it are clearly not the advertisers' bitch, thus not worth wasting advertising dollars on, thus not worth pleasing. The mass media industry does not give one fuck about you and will not miss you if you go away.
Uhhh, except that people with PVRs are more likely to just fast-forward through those precious commercials, which is something advertisers are not so fond of. If you want me to see the commercials, it has to be on live TV so I can't fast-forward, and it has to be in a consistent timeslot so I can put it on my calendar and arrange my schedule around it.
A better explanation is that they're catering to people who will just turn on the TV and watch whatever happens to be in front of them, who don't really care what show they're watching. I can see how this wouldn't be a problem for sitcoms, but FOX doesn't understand how to cater to people who are willing to go out of their way to watch a particular show on purpose. I'm committed to watching the show, and am willing to arrange my schedule around it. Even if the show isn't that great, once I've decided to commit to it, I'll go ahead and watch it anyway.
However, if the show I want to watch isn't on, I'm not going to just watch whatever else happens to be there, I'm going to turn it off and do something else. I'm a fan of the show, not the timeslot. If I miss an episode, I'll go watch it online to catch up, but if I miss a lot of episodes, I'll just stop watching altogether - I might enjoy the show, but if it takes effort to watch it, I'm not going to bother.
I still watch Heroes, even though the writers no longer know what they're doing and the show has started wandering aimlessly. Why? Because NBC keeps it at a consistent timeslot that works for me, so I might as well.
Hell yes, tethering is awesome. Just last night, I was somewhere without wifi access when I got a phone call about a broken CGI script (I'd just migrated it to a new server, and hadn't noticed that this one script requires a couple of CPAN modules I'd failed to install on the new box). I was able to fix it quickly, because I had my 12" iBook with me and Internet access through my cell phone.
Heh, yeah, Season 1 was especially bad. Somehow the show managed to kick ass though, even with the bad acting - I think it's because it was such a refreshing change from Star Trek.
Human nature remains unchanged, capitalism still thrives, politicians are still corrupt, poverty is still an issue but we still ignore it, the military doesn't try to pretend that they're not a military, the laws of physics still work (even gravity and inertia), the uniforms are practical, and most importantly, several of the main characters hate each other. Star Trek has none of these things.
B5 did compromise on having sound in space, though. It was a conscious choice they made for dramatic effect, but kudos to Firefly for making the better choice.
Oh please. DS9 was decent-to-poor in the early goings, much like TNG, but once the Dominion War plot arch started up, it went from good to truly great. No other Trek has been as dark and gritty as DS9 was, actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness, while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted. Pity it seems to get such a raw deal from a certain subset of the Trek fanbase.
Also, the limitation the original series, TNG and Voyager is that every member of the cast is all part of the same crew, with the same background (Starfleet Academy). They're all on the same team, playing by the same rules, which means any conflict (which is what makes things interesting) must be external - it's us vs. them, or us vs. some inexplicable spatial phenomenon, or some alien influence is affecting our people. You can't have any conflict between members of the cast, and there's no opportunity for character development.
DS9 fixed this. You have a Cardassian-built space station, owned by Bajor (which is not a member of the Federation), operated jointly by the Bajoran military and Starfleet. In the pilot, we learn that Commander Sisko, who has his own personal demons (he's a widower raising a son on his own), really doesn't want to be there and strongly dislikes and deeply mistrusts our hero, Captain Picard. Station security is operated by the Bajorans, headed by a guy who isn't really sure who he is or where he came from. There are independent businesses who lease space and pay rent, including a bar owned by a Ferengi and a tailor's shop operated by a witty Cardassian who speaks in lies and double entendres and who might or might not be a spy.
Voyager tried to set up the same kind of conflicts: in the pilot, the crew of Voyager is chasing an enemy ship, aboard which is a Federation spy. Both ships get sucked across the galaxy and lose half their crews, so it becomes necessary to join forces; they also pick up a couple of locals (one of whom even has his own ship). However... now they're all on the same team, forced to work together (and the two locals become friends with everybody). Most of the Maquis have had at least a little Starfleet training, so even though they're not Starfleet officers, they at least have some sort of common ground. There were a couple of times when they tried to stir up some sort of conflict between the Federation crew members and the Maquis crew, but it didn't really work. The first few seasons of Voyager were pretty lame, but when they traded Tess for 7 of 9, the writing improved dramatically - I'm not sure why. 7 was an interesting character, but everything else seemed to get suddenly better at that point too.
Enterprise had a Vulcan science officer before the Federation existed, so there was some very interesting conflict there. Dr. Phlox also wasn't from Starfleet, but like Neelix and Tess he's friendly with everybody. Like the Original Series, the crew doesn't have that bland Federation perspective; there's more of a wild frontier feel, and an opportunity for the crew to have disagreements between themselves. I thought the infamous pointy-nipple rubdown scene in the pilot was completely inappropriate, but T'Pol's later relationship with Trip was great (and her nudity there WAS appropriate). I was also annoyed that when T'Pol decided to join Starfleet, she wasn't given a Starfleet uniform, because her Vulcan catsuit looked sexier (same issue with Counselor Troi's asymmetrical cleavage in early seasons of TNG).
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with sex on Star Trek, but it needs to be well-written plot-driven sex, instead of gratuitous "let's put a hot chick in something revealing so people who don't care about the show will still like to look at it". 7 of 9's catsuit was just fine, because it was plot-driven (she was never a member of Starfleet, and the Doctor expla
Let's say someone want's to go there (ie: vacation or move there) and would like a 1st hand account of what its like. ("How hot is it in the summer?" or questions like that).
Presumably, this site is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of questions. The local Chamber of Commerce should have a site targeted at visitors.
Something that requires social engineering (lure of porn in this case) to get the user to run it is something else altogether. And like I said there is no way to protect any platform from the user who chooses to download malware and run it.
Apart from, say, performing on-access scanning for known threats and alerting the user that the file they've just downloaded is in fact malware. Which is precisely what Norton AntiVirus is supposed to do.
How many people are going to want to go through that in order to play when they can just use a normal controller?
Anyone who's interested in actually learning to play guitar, as opposed to those who merely want to play a game. And, if you develop the calluses and finger strength while playing a game for fun, when you progress to actually learning to play a real guitar, you'll have a head start.
If you use Firefox, you can probably use the IETab extension to load specific web sites using Internet Explorer's rendering engine (which will NOT be removed when you disable IE), integrated with Firefox's tab management. You can maintain a list of sites that should be loaded with IE's engine, so it's automatic and you don't have to switch browsers.
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not > actually deleted from the hard drive.
That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.
Well, in the case of IE8, they can't remove the Trident rendering engine (MSHTML.DLL) without breaking gazillions of apps that rely on that library (much like several Mac OS X apps rely on WebKit), but security updates for Trident should be kept separate from security updates for the Internet Explorer application (just like security updates for WebKit are separate from security updates for Safari - at least most of the time). If you disable Internet Explorer, you will still need security updates for Trident/MSHTML, but you will NOT need security updates for the Internet Explorer application, because it will be inaccessible until it is re-enabled.
Unfortunately they probably won't require a check for security updates before reinstalling these apps; the check will come after the apps have been reinstalled, which will leave users vulnerable. Still, this is obviously a step in the right direction.
The biggest problem I see is that Guitar Hero is not designed to be played with a real guitar, and the colored buttons do NOT correspond to real string/fret positions, or to real chords. There's nothing in the game that says "the first three notes are a D chord, the next note is an A chord", only "the first three notes are the red button, the next note is the green". How is this product going to map real chords into something the game can understand?
Or will it just use one string (or allow the player to use any string), and map frets to buttons, e.g. playing F on the E string or A# on the A string maps to the green button; playing F# on the E string or B on the A string maps to the red button, etc.? If that's the case, then this isn't really any more "real" than using the $40 plastic controller, except that it'll build strength in your fingers and calluses on your fingertips, which is important, but it won't actually teach you how to play anything.
1 is more complicated than it sounds - if it's an "economic stimulus" bill, that's broad enough to cover just about anything, although I suppose it should exclude things like changes to criminal law.
2 probably doesn't have to be legislated, if you can get your 24-hour lockdown in place. Congressmen don't read the bills they vote for, because it's not reasonable for them to do so; make it reasonable, and they'll probably do it.
I could kind of understand this back when the Mini only had USB and FW400. Now that they have FW800—why bother? What does anyone use a Mini for that requires 100MB/s+ transfer rates?
And if you really needed those fast transfer rates, wouldn't you be better served by using a fast 3.5" hard drive connected via FireWire 800, instead of a slower 2.5" drive connected via SATA?
Or just plug in an external drive. I use an external firewire drive and it performs extremely well. Use a mobile drive and you won't need an extra power source, either. I don't see the need to upgrade the internal drive.
In fact, you can get something like these, so your external drive fits precisely underneath the Mac mini. I don't know if any of these support FireWire 800 yet, but obviously new versions will (the new revision of Mac mini has a FireWire 800 [IEEE1394b] port; previous models had FireWire 400 [IEEE1394a]). An external enclosure can use a faster, cheaper, and larger capacity 3.5" drive, so there's pretty much no downside, unless that extra inch and a half of vertical space is really that important to you.
Slashdot Mirror
They are however excellent when it comes to playing games at a fun volume...
Just keep in mind that that "fun" volume is causing permanent hearing loss. :-)
Why does MS need an extra wide, tree-lined overpass instead of just a regular overpass? It seems you could cut the cost of the project substantially if you went with regular instead of super deluxe. But I suppose enough palms were greased to get the extra fancy treatment.
Because trees absorb the pollutants that cars produce, making life less miserable for everyone. If all new overpasses were lined with trees, there would be less smog.
good by then they will switch to ie7 while other browsers are on CSS4 and Microsoft will probably be on ie15...
No, I don't think so. Nobody's going to switch from IE6 to IE7 after IE8 is released; they'll jump straight to IE8, and add anything that doesn't work to the incompatibility list.
Dont get me wrong, but I am somewhat bitter, due to the fact that sometimes I even get the complaint that IE5.5 support is a must and IE6 support and even 7 seems like dragging a dead cow along...
Precisely why the release and wide adoption of IE8 is a good thing.
And nowadays it is not even the private users anymore who wont upgrade most of them have, it is mostly banks and corporations!
Also true. They don't upgrade, mostly because they can't, because something they rely on will break. For most home users, all the sites they ever visit were fixed years ago (or were never broken).
How the hell can they expect people to take them seriously on the shipping price of a unit when they say how much it is going to cost _before_ they have even chosen the CPU.
They've chosen the price based on what they think their customers will be able to afford to pay. Then they'll use that as a target when designing the machine - if some combination of parts would make the end product too expensive, they'll cut corners and find cheaper components to get the price down. If another combination of parts would make the end product cost less than their target, then they'll improve the quality of the product (and therefore its usefulness and desirability) by upgrading the components until the target price is reached.
Designing any computer system is always a matter of compromise. The trick is figuring out which things to compromise on, and how much. Aiming for a target price point is one way to help do that.
So, if they're selling support, presumably there's a way to contact them, and if there's a way to contact them, shouldn't it be possible to identify them?
Are these activities not illegal?
Corporate IT departments will switch from IE6 when:
1) All their vendors'/clients'/etc. web sites are updated to work with better browsers
2) All their intranet web sites are updated to work with better browsers
3) Web sites start dropping support for IE6, and eventually for IE7
4) Windows XP or Vista stop being available with new computer purchases, either because Microsoft has stopped licensing them or because new PCs come with hardware that doesn't have XP-compatible drivers available
Some of these things will happen long before 2020.
Safari 4 is also in beta, so you might as well throw that into the mix as well. And Opera 10.
No IE has handled CSS1 fine since IE4. Microsoft pioneered the standard back when they were the underdog. They just never accepted the Mozilla-based correction to it (border-box vs content-box, root vs body). And by the time of CSS2 they had 90% marketshare and had no interest in standards anymore.
Thankfully, now that their marketshare has slipped dramatically, they're interested in standards again! IE8 passes ACID2, and I bet IE9 will pass ACID3.
IE8 doesn't even have full CSS3 support. No corner-radius? What the heck is MS thinking?
Microsoft is thinking that fixing a lot of problems and shipping something out the door to replace the turd that is IE7 is a better plan than waiting until they've had time to implement full CSS3 support and make the ACID3 test pass. Not supporting corner-radius isn't going to break anything that anybody cares about, but in a few years it will be possible to assume that everyone visiting your web site is using a browser that can pass ACID2.
Microsoft wouldn't need to artificially limit an ARM port of Windows to only allow three applications to run at a time, since there would only be about three applications available for the platform.
Actually, as an early-adopter of the PVR world, my behavior in regards to ads surprised me- I found that in general, I would watch almost every ad once. It turned out that when hitting the "skip 30s" button, I'd usually end up catching just enough of the ad to know which one it was, and if it were clever or relevant, I would even back up to show the ad to visiting friends/family. So while I don't disagree with your general point, I think that the effect of PVR's on ad revenue is not quite so clear cut as PVR's -> no ads watched -> the death of tv.
When I had a PVR I watched most ads once as well, at least if they were at the beginning of the commercial break. As soon as I hit an ad I didn't want to see (either because I'd recently seen it or I just wasn't interested), then I'd skip all the rest of the ads for that commercial break. Why bother to pick up the remote until I'm annoyed?
What really bugs me is networks that crank up the volume on the ads, so they're a lot louder than the show. Sorry, even if I would have found the ad interesting, now I'm skipping it or muting the sound before it wakes someone up, you bastards. I know, they just want to make sure I can still hear the ad if I happen to walk into the kitchen to grab a snack during the commercial break, but it's really not OK and I should start complaining.
My understanding is that thus far the shuffling has been largely done by Whedon, despite a lot of claims to the contrary. Whedon rejected the pilot, for example, as it just didn't fit together. The major issues with Dollhouse are that Fox has been, apparently, very heavy handed with the first few episodes (and given thus far we've had one good one, one OK one, and two dreadful ones [2, 4, 1 and 2, respectively], it's safe to say they've not done so to the show's credit. Supposedly Ep6 or 7 is where it starts getting "good".
Whedon has learned from his experience with Firefly how to work with Fox executives. He's trying to be very flexible in catering to their whims this time around, and trying to sneak in some actual creativity with hopes that they won't notice, instead of trying to first be creative and then screw it up because the network is unhappy. If he's successful in this new strategy, Fox won't cancel his show and he'll gain the bargaining power he needs for his next project.
Shows with a story arc must be shown in the same slot religiously. Imagine you missed a few episodes of Bleach. Would you even try to continue watching it?
People with money who are interesting to advertisers who are the actual customers of television (you are the product) tend to have PVRs so they can watch a show if they miss it. People like you who miss a show and then don't follow it are clearly not the advertisers' bitch, thus not worth wasting advertising dollars on, thus not worth pleasing. The mass media industry does not give one fuck about you and will not miss you if you go away.
Uhhh, except that people with PVRs are more likely to just fast-forward through those precious commercials, which is something advertisers are not so fond of. If you want me to see the commercials, it has to be on live TV so I can't fast-forward, and it has to be in a consistent timeslot so I can put it on my calendar and arrange my schedule around it.
A better explanation is that they're catering to people who will just turn on the TV and watch whatever happens to be in front of them, who don't really care what show they're watching. I can see how this wouldn't be a problem for sitcoms, but FOX doesn't understand how to cater to people who are willing to go out of their way to watch a particular show on purpose. I'm committed to watching the show, and am willing to arrange my schedule around it. Even if the show isn't that great, once I've decided to commit to it, I'll go ahead and watch it anyway.
However, if the show I want to watch isn't on, I'm not going to just watch whatever else happens to be there, I'm going to turn it off and do something else. I'm a fan of the show, not the timeslot. If I miss an episode, I'll go watch it online to catch up, but if I miss a lot of episodes, I'll just stop watching altogether - I might enjoy the show, but if it takes effort to watch it, I'm not going to bother.
I still watch Heroes, even though the writers no longer know what they're doing and the show has started wandering aimlessly. Why? Because NBC keeps it at a consistent timeslot that works for me, so I might as well.
Hell yes, tethering is awesome. Just last night, I was somewhere without wifi access when I got a phone call about a broken CGI script (I'd just migrated it to a new server, and hadn't noticed that this one script requires a couple of CPAN modules I'd failed to install on the new box). I was able to fix it quickly, because I had my 12" iBook with me and Internet access through my cell phone.
Heh, yeah, Season 1 was especially bad. Somehow the show managed to kick ass though, even with the bad acting - I think it's because it was such a refreshing change from Star Trek.
Human nature remains unchanged, capitalism still thrives, politicians are still corrupt, poverty is still an issue but we still ignore it, the military doesn't try to pretend that they're not a military, the laws of physics still work (even gravity and inertia), the uniforms are practical, and most importantly, several of the main characters hate each other. Star Trek has none of these things.
B5 did compromise on having sound in space, though. It was a conscious choice they made for dramatic effect, but kudos to Firefly for making the better choice.
Deep Suck 9 was just that...
Oh please. DS9 was decent-to-poor in the early goings, much like TNG, but once the Dominion War plot arch started up, it went from good to truly great. No other Trek has been as dark and gritty as DS9 was, actually showing a real, unsanitized war with it's attendant ugliness, while portraying a federation that was, for a change, flawed and multifaceted. Pity it seems to get such a raw deal from a certain subset of the Trek fanbase.
Also, the limitation the original series, TNG and Voyager is that every member of the cast is all part of the same crew, with the same background (Starfleet Academy). They're all on the same team, playing by the same rules, which means any conflict (which is what makes things interesting) must be external - it's us vs. them, or us vs. some inexplicable spatial phenomenon, or some alien influence is affecting our people. You can't have any conflict between members of the cast, and there's no opportunity for character development.
DS9 fixed this. You have a Cardassian-built space station, owned by Bajor (which is not a member of the Federation), operated jointly by the Bajoran military and Starfleet. In the pilot, we learn that Commander Sisko, who has his own personal demons (he's a widower raising a son on his own), really doesn't want to be there and strongly dislikes and deeply mistrusts our hero, Captain Picard. Station security is operated by the Bajorans, headed by a guy who isn't really sure who he is or where he came from. There are independent businesses who lease space and pay rent, including a bar owned by a Ferengi and a tailor's shop operated by a witty Cardassian who speaks in lies and double entendres and who might or might not be a spy.
Voyager tried to set up the same kind of conflicts: in the pilot, the crew of Voyager is chasing an enemy ship, aboard which is a Federation spy. Both ships get sucked across the galaxy and lose half their crews, so it becomes necessary to join forces; they also pick up a couple of locals (one of whom even has his own ship). However... now they're all on the same team, forced to work together (and the two locals become friends with everybody). Most of the Maquis have had at least a little Starfleet training, so even though they're not Starfleet officers, they at least have some sort of common ground. There were a couple of times when they tried to stir up some sort of conflict between the Federation crew members and the Maquis crew, but it didn't really work. The first few seasons of Voyager were pretty lame, but when they traded Tess for 7 of 9, the writing improved dramatically - I'm not sure why. 7 was an interesting character, but everything else seemed to get suddenly better at that point too.
Enterprise had a Vulcan science officer before the Federation existed, so there was some very interesting conflict there. Dr. Phlox also wasn't from Starfleet, but like Neelix and Tess he's friendly with everybody. Like the Original Series, the crew doesn't have that bland Federation perspective; there's more of a wild frontier feel, and an opportunity for the crew to have disagreements between themselves. I thought the infamous pointy-nipple rubdown scene in the pilot was completely inappropriate, but T'Pol's later relationship with Trip was great (and her nudity there WAS appropriate). I was also annoyed that when T'Pol decided to join Starfleet, she wasn't given a Starfleet uniform, because her Vulcan catsuit looked sexier (same issue with Counselor Troi's asymmetrical cleavage in early seasons of TNG).
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with sex on Star Trek, but it needs to be well-written plot-driven sex, instead of gratuitous "let's put a hot chick in something revealing so people who don't care about the show will still like to look at it". 7 of 9's catsuit was just fine, because it was plot-driven (she was never a member of Starfleet, and the Doctor expla
Let's say someone want's to go there (ie: vacation or move there) and would like a 1st hand account of what its like. ("How hot is it in the summer?" or questions like that).
Presumably, this site is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of questions. The local Chamber of Commerce should have a site targeted at visitors.
Something that requires social engineering (lure of porn in this case) to get the user to run it is something else altogether. And like I said there is no way to protect any platform from the user who chooses to download malware and run it.
Apart from, say, performing on-access scanning for known threats and alerting the user that the file they've just downloaded is in fact malware. Which is precisely what Norton AntiVirus is supposed to do.
How many people are going to want to go through that in order to play when they can just use a normal controller?
Anyone who's interested in actually learning to play guitar, as opposed to those who merely want to play a game. And, if you develop the calluses and finger strength while playing a game for fun, when you progress to actually learning to play a real guitar, you'll have a head start.
If you use Firefox, you can probably use the IETab extension to load specific web sites using Internet Explorer's rendering engine (which will NOT be removed when you disable IE), integrated with Firefox's tab management. You can maintain a list of sites that should be loaded with IE's engine, so it's automatic and you don't have to switch browsers.
> He explained that the files associated with those applications and features are not
> actually deleted from the hard drive.
That is stupid... The idea of removing something, is to reduce clutter on your system and reduce the support burden... If something is installed but not being used it still needs security patches. If it's removed, you no longer have to worry about it at all.
Well, in the case of IE8, they can't remove the Trident rendering engine (MSHTML.DLL) without breaking gazillions of apps that rely on that library (much like several Mac OS X apps rely on WebKit), but security updates for Trident should be kept separate from security updates for the Internet Explorer application (just like security updates for WebKit are separate from security updates for Safari - at least most of the time). If you disable Internet Explorer, you will still need security updates for Trident/MSHTML, but you will NOT need security updates for the Internet Explorer application, because it will be inaccessible until it is re-enabled.
Unfortunately they probably won't require a check for security updates before reinstalling these apps; the check will come after the apps have been reinstalled, which will leave users vulnerable. Still, this is obviously a step in the right direction.
The biggest problem I see is that Guitar Hero is not designed to be played with a real guitar, and the colored buttons do NOT correspond to real string/fret positions, or to real chords. There's nothing in the game that says "the first three notes are a D chord, the next note is an A chord", only "the first three notes are the red button, the next note is the green". How is this product going to map real chords into something the game can understand?
Or will it just use one string (or allow the player to use any string), and map frets to buttons, e.g. playing F on the E string or A# on the A string maps to the green button; playing F# on the E string or B on the A string maps to the red button, etc.? If that's the case, then this isn't really any more "real" than using the $40 plastic controller, except that it'll build strength in your fingers and calluses on your fingertips, which is important, but it won't actually teach you how to play anything.
1 is more complicated than it sounds - if it's an "economic stimulus" bill, that's broad enough to cover just about anything, although I suppose it should exclude things like changes to criminal law.
2 probably doesn't have to be legislated, if you can get your 24-hour lockdown in place. Congressmen don't read the bills they vote for, because it's not reasonable for them to do so; make it reasonable, and they'll probably do it.
I could kind of understand this back when the Mini only had USB and FW400. Now that they have FW800—why bother? What does anyone use a Mini for that requires 100MB/s+ transfer rates?
And if you really needed those fast transfer rates, wouldn't you be better served by using a fast 3.5" hard drive connected via FireWire 800, instead of a slower 2.5" drive connected via SATA?
Or just plug in an external drive. I use an external firewire drive and it performs extremely well. Use a mobile drive and you won't need an extra power source, either. I don't see the need to upgrade the internal drive.
In fact, you can get something like these, so your external drive fits precisely underneath the Mac mini. I don't know if any of these support FireWire 800 yet, but obviously new versions will (the new revision of Mac mini has a FireWire 800 [IEEE1394b] port; previous models had FireWire 400 [IEEE1394a]). An external enclosure can use a faster, cheaper, and larger capacity 3.5" drive, so there's pretty much no downside, unless that extra inch and a half of vertical space is really that important to you.