Yes we do. Silence is exactly what these companies want. They want us (and everyone else) to ignore the abuse of the customer so they can provide ever less value for more money. Soon games will shift entirely to services, not products, and if you want to play, you'll pay, and pay, and pay. Many, like those who admonish us to STFU, will pay willingly and gladly, and these are the people who are truly ruining it for everyone by making this sort of crap profitable.
The problem is that people do not naturally act in concert, and are too often unwilling to sacrifice even a small amount by denying themselves the latest gaming indulgence (even if only until there's a price drop, to show they're unwilling to be fleeced), because they believe it will be ineffective. And without cooperation, it will. Corporations know this all too well. Many gamers have been jaded by the relentless march of overbearing software publishers, their allies in hardware manufacturing, and a complicit legislature willing to bend over backwards to meet the demands of the entertainment industry.
What we need is the consumer equivalent of a union, a collective to bargain on behalf of those without enough of a voice to bargain on their own, to involve itself in both purchasing and policy. With sufficient numbers, such an organization could force the inclusion of some features (freely moddable content; the ability to play on private networks), while disallowing others (DRM, required network connection). It needn't limit itself to gaming either: the cellular, ISP, and cable/satellite industries are ripe for customer pushback as well. It could lobby Congress to stop passing onerous IP laws and to repeal or modify existing law. Being vocal in online forums can only accomplish so much, especially when the audience either already knows (Slashdot), consists of fanboys (publisher forums), or doesn't care (more general forums). To really make our voices heard, we need to unite.
You'd be wrong. Many Americans are either ambivalent (it can't hurt...) or outright supportive (we can't let the terr'ists win!), ignoring the fact that every loss of personal liberty does hurt and that changing our way of life *is* a victory for them. Of course what they really are is irrationally afraid, but it's unpatriotic not to be afraid these days. The biggest irony is that our leaders can on the one hand tell us we have to fight the terrorists who hate our freedom while on the other hand restricting that very freedom.
From a secular perspective, the historicity of the Bible is only relevant inasmuch as it provides an accurate description of events, which it clearly does not. There are chronological, archeological, logistical, and of course, physical issues which contradict available evidence. The Bible lacks both specificity and contemporaneousness; it tells us not about the historical lives of people in the late Iron Age, but about a (likely substantially) imagined history of those people which, at best, must have suffered from changes both intentional and unintentional in the centuries between its origin as oral tradition and whenever it was finally written down.
From a religious perspective, the historicity of the Bible is completely irrelevant, as the basis of religion is faith, not evidence. If religion were about evidence, God would simply reveal himself on a continual basis to remove any doubt rather than relying, in whole or in part, on the notoriously dubious ability of man to present an accurate record of events.
Mathematics aren't independent of experience; they're built on experience. They necessarily make certain predictions which can be extrapolated sans experience, but those predictions are a consequence of a foundation which, again, is based on experience and observation. Mathematics describe reality by intent, not by accident, and if they didn't, the maths would be revised.
Finally, crediting mathematics as a whole because a given formula perfectly describes a natural process is ignoring the infinite variations which do not.
Indeed. The problem with AT&T's networks isn't that they're 3G, it's that their backhaul is underdeveloped and overloaded. Upgrading the last mile won't do a thing help. Moreover, most of their geographic coverage is *still* limited to EDGE. They should upgrade that to 3G before bothering with LTE.
Israeli scientists used satellite imagery to find a canal that figures in the story of the Exodus.
With the minor caveat that there's no evidence that Isrealites were ever enslaved in Egypt en masse, making the whole thing rather moot (as if the supernatural parting of waters wasn't reason enough). Trying to match a fictional account with historical landmarks is little different than repurposing our telescopes to search for Pandora which, I feel I should mention, would be ridiculous.
Putting it all in one convenient piece is the wave of the future.
Modularity offers a better value in almost all cases, particularly if one or more of the components are expensive, durable, or high quality, and disposing of it would be wasteful.
Optical drive broke? Sorry, your [AIO | iMac | PS3 | Entire fucking enternainment center] must be repaired by a qualified technician or replaced.
New media format? Sorry, nobody's writing new firmware or software for your old POS, or it doesn't support the new physical media format.
Want to upgrade to a bigger display? You'll need to replace the entire system.
New physical storage format came out? You're SOL.
No thanks.
Convergence makes sense when mobility is a must, when divergence offers no value (no point taking the cupholder out of the sofa), or when integration is free (phones can play MP3s). For everything else, there's modularity.
I think it's more correct to call them aliased images than anti-aliased. There's no way of knowing whether an anti-aliasing filter was applied during downsampling since the original information is inherently lost (aliased). Though to be fair, they call them "anti-aliased" in the paper as well.
I expect it's because simply destroying assets would only garner sympathy for Sony, whilst exposing customer data will undermine their credibility and customer faith, things which can't easily be replaced from backups or by installing new hardware. If attackers are successful in mounting a prolonged attack, breaching Sony's systems on a regular basis, eventually they could erode all customer (and creditor) support, and the company could crumble.
And yet, if the price is the same (as it now appears to be), wouldn't it be better to get the workstation card and have all the features of the consumer card and then some?
You're providing for a bunch of students that don't have a contractual agreement with you.
You mean besides the enrollment contract, but otherwise you're spot on. Just like I have no contractual agreement with my ISP other than the one I signed when they installed my service.
Obesity is a natural protection against STDs, but other than that, your logic is flawless.
Oops, not flawless.. completely wrong. Completely wrong is the phrase I was looking for.
Here's the thing: Curing one person's STD protects many other people from potentially acquiring that same STD. And even if a cure doesn't exist (since yours is a thinly veiled argument for not paying for "fat fags who get AIDS") treating other people with respect and dignity incentivizes their participation in society instead of the self-perpetuating disdain and lack of compassion that we have today.
I understand the desire to provide a disincentive for costly and selfish behavior, or at the very least to isolate the effects, but there is no "carrot or stick" decision unless you start by using carrots AND sticks. Just using sticks is ineffective when the alternative is being ignored. That just breeds contempt. Part of living in a society means that we're *not* immune from the bad decisions of others. And the upside is that other people must tolerate our bad decisions as well, as long as those decisions aren't criminal. If we're not going exercise reasonable care for each other (and providing medical care seems quite reasonable), then that, at the very least, diminishes the value of society and undermines its stability.
That's like saying you have every right to steal things unless you get caught. The fact that there are external consequences imposed effectively means that you are not free to pursue that particular avenue of behavior.
1) Where did I say that, or even imply it? Presumably there's a rather large overlap anyway.
2) A computer with a glossy screen is just as much of a computer as one with a matte screen. A better comparison might be perhaps organic raspberries versus the store brand. At any rate, you've just admitted that the glossiness of the screen is not the most important factor in your purchasing decisions.
3) Believe it or not, they actually sell stand alone displays that aren't integrated into the computer, and on these displays, colloquially known as "monitors," the only "attractor" is the device itself.
Slashdot Mirror
there have been some really nasty things reported.
References? While there's certainly the potential for such abuses, I haven't heard of anything in the wild to date.
Yes we do. Silence is exactly what these companies want. They want us (and everyone else) to ignore the abuse of the customer so they can provide ever less value for more money. Soon games will shift entirely to services, not products, and if you want to play, you'll pay, and pay, and pay. Many, like those who admonish us to STFU, will pay willingly and gladly, and these are the people who are truly ruining it for everyone by making this sort of crap profitable.
The problem is that people do not naturally act in concert, and are too often unwilling to sacrifice even a small amount by denying themselves the latest gaming indulgence (even if only until there's a price drop, to show they're unwilling to be fleeced), because they believe it will be ineffective. And without cooperation, it will. Corporations know this all too well. Many gamers have been jaded by the relentless march of overbearing software publishers, their allies in hardware manufacturing, and a complicit legislature willing to bend over backwards to meet the demands of the entertainment industry.
What we need is the consumer equivalent of a union, a collective to bargain on behalf of those without enough of a voice to bargain on their own, to involve itself in both purchasing and policy. With sufficient numbers, such an organization could force the inclusion of some features (freely moddable content; the ability to play on private networks), while disallowing others (DRM, required network connection). It needn't limit itself to gaming either: the cellular, ISP, and cable/satellite industries are ripe for customer pushback as well. It could lobby Congress to stop passing onerous IP laws and to repeal or modify existing law. Being vocal in online forums can only accomplish so much, especially when the audience either already knows (Slashdot), consists of fanboys (publisher forums), or doesn't care (more general forums). To really make our voices heard, we need to unite.
"When all you've got is an iPhone, everything starts to look like you're getting screwed."
Sure does.
measuring the number of people an individual can maintain regular contact with, and came up with 150
My number is more like 2-3. Maybe that's why I'm so anti-social.
In a world where eBay Motors needs to get its shit together. Talk about overpriced!
Did you use Google Translate for that translation?
It does, as long as the balls you're talking about are truck nutz.
You'd be wrong. Many Americans are either ambivalent (it can't hurt...) or outright supportive (we can't let the terr'ists win!), ignoring the fact that every loss of personal liberty does hurt and that changing our way of life *is* a victory for them. Of course what they really are is irrationally afraid, but it's unpatriotic not to be afraid these days. The biggest irony is that our leaders can on the one hand tell us we have to fight the terrorists who hate our freedom while on the other hand restricting that very freedom.
From a secular perspective, the historicity of the Bible is only relevant inasmuch as it provides an accurate description of events, which it clearly does not. There are chronological, archeological, logistical, and of course, physical issues which contradict available evidence. The Bible lacks both specificity and contemporaneousness; it tells us not about the historical lives of people in the late Iron Age, but about a (likely substantially) imagined history of those people which, at best, must have suffered from changes both intentional and unintentional in the centuries between its origin as oral tradition and whenever it was finally written down.
From a religious perspective, the historicity of the Bible is completely irrelevant, as the basis of religion is faith, not evidence. If religion were about evidence, God would simply reveal himself on a continual basis to remove any doubt rather than relying, in whole or in part, on the notoriously dubious ability of man to present an accurate record of events.
Bew-bew-bew wa-aa!
Mathematics aren't independent of experience; they're built on experience. They necessarily make certain predictions which can be extrapolated sans experience, but those predictions are a consequence of a foundation which, again, is based on experience and observation. Mathematics describe reality by intent, not by accident, and if they didn't, the maths would be revised.
Finally, crediting mathematics as a whole because a given formula perfectly describes a natural process is ignoring the infinite variations which do not.
Indeed. The problem with AT&T's networks isn't that they're 3G, it's that their backhaul is underdeveloped and overloaded. Upgrading the last mile won't do a thing help. Moreover, most of their geographic coverage is *still* limited to EDGE. They should upgrade that to 3G before bothering with LTE.
Israeli scientists used satellite imagery to find a canal that figures in the story of the Exodus.
With the minor caveat that there's no evidence that Isrealites were ever enslaved in Egypt en masse, making the whole thing rather moot (as if the supernatural parting of waters wasn't reason enough). Trying to match a fictional account with historical landmarks is little different than repurposing our telescopes to search for Pandora which, I feel I should mention, would be ridiculous.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say it's better for them to barf on the item that's an order of magnitude cheaper.
Putting it all in one convenient piece is the wave of the future.
Modularity offers a better value in almost all cases, particularly if one or more of the components are expensive, durable, or high quality, and disposing of it would be wasteful.
Optical drive broke? Sorry, your [AIO | iMac | PS3 | Entire fucking enternainment center] must be repaired by a qualified technician or replaced.
New media format? Sorry, nobody's writing new firmware or software for your old POS, or it doesn't support the new physical media format.
Want to upgrade to a bigger display? You'll need to replace the entire system.
New physical storage format came out? You're SOL.
No thanks.
Convergence makes sense when mobility is a must, when divergence offers no value (no point taking the cupholder out of the sofa), or when integration is free (phones can play MP3s). For everything else, there's modularity.
I think it's more correct to call them aliased images than anti-aliased. There's no way of knowing whether an anti-aliasing filter was applied during downsampling since the original information is inherently lost (aliased). Though to be fair, they call them "anti-aliased" in the paper as well.
Pretty sure the .SCR files you're seeing are screensaver files, not scripts, which are essentially just executables for all intents and purposes.
I expect it's because simply destroying assets would only garner sympathy for Sony, whilst exposing customer data will undermine their credibility and customer faith, things which can't easily be replaced from backups or by installing new hardware. If attackers are successful in mounting a prolonged attack, breaching Sony's systems on a regular basis, eventually they could erode all customer (and creditor) support, and the company could crumble.
That definition is cited as referencing "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org/" whoever that is.
And Mr. Howe seems to have taken liberties with the root word of base, which means "the fundamental part of something." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base
Moreover TFL says "This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk," which doesn't conflict with your cited definition.
In other words, all your base are belong to me.
not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase
Yes it does.
Customers are not only the majority slice.
No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.
And yet, if the price is the same (as it now appears to be), wouldn't it be better to get the workstation card and have all the features of the consumer card and then some?
You're providing for a bunch of students that don't have a contractual agreement with you.
You mean besides the enrollment contract, but otherwise you're spot on. Just like I have no contractual agreement with my ISP other than the one I signed when they installed my service.
Obesity is a natural protection against STDs, but other than that, your logic is flawless.
Oops, not flawless.. completely wrong. Completely wrong is the phrase I was looking for.
Here's the thing: Curing one person's STD protects many other people from potentially acquiring that same STD. And even if a cure doesn't exist (since yours is a thinly veiled argument for not paying for "fat fags who get AIDS") treating other people with respect and dignity incentivizes their participation in society instead of the self-perpetuating disdain and lack of compassion that we have today.
I understand the desire to provide a disincentive for costly and selfish behavior, or at the very least to isolate the effects, but there is no "carrot or stick" decision unless you start by using carrots AND sticks. Just using sticks is ineffective when the alternative is being ignored. That just breeds contempt. Part of living in a society means that we're *not* immune from the bad decisions of others. And the upside is that other people must tolerate our bad decisions as well, as long as those decisions aren't criminal. If we're not going exercise reasonable care for each other (and providing medical care seems quite reasonable), then that, at the very least, diminishes the value of society and undermines its stability.
That's like saying you have every right to steal things unless you get caught. The fact that there are external consequences imposed effectively means that you are not free to pursue that particular avenue of behavior.
1) Where did I say that, or even imply it? Presumably there's a rather large overlap anyway.
2) A computer with a glossy screen is just as much of a computer as one with a matte screen. A better comparison might be perhaps organic raspberries versus the store brand. At any rate, you've just admitted that the glossiness of the screen is not the most important factor in your purchasing decisions.
3) Believe it or not, they actually sell stand alone displays that aren't integrated into the computer, and on these displays, colloquially known as "monitors," the only "attractor" is the device itself.