It's not an order to the shopkeeper; it's in the shopkeeper's best interests to avoid credit card fraud. If a shopkeeper sells product and it turns out the charge was fraudulent, the shopkeeper gets no money and is out the product.
There's no law saying that the shopkeeper has to follow my orders if I wear a shirt that says, "Videotape me to make sure I don't shoplift," but they seem to do it alot anyways.
You're thinking of the RID boxes. Previously, only non-RID boxes would accept 4.x -- the DSR7000 and HDVR2. Newer ones like the DSR704 would not. But that's not true anymore; currently (as of about 6 weeks ago), any S2 DTivo except for the really new nightlight models can take the 4.x software.
Re:BIG High Contrast Display Readout - Data Storag
on
Designing Diabetes Gear?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you are going for the cool stuff, a reader that store the results, timestamps them and can display graphs of the sugar levels would be a great tool for doctors.
The Onetouch UltraSmart does this, though on the tiny screen it's difficult to make things out. The info can be downloaded via a serial cable and then printed out, much more readable. USB would be much easier, though.
The UltraSmart is pretty good. Nice, highly readable. The backlight only comes on when you hold the button, so it saves on battery time. Those are all good things.
Annoyances: Although it remembers the values used for previous days, it doesn't default them. Eg, if I take 2u Humalog and 8u NPH for breakfast on one day, it will use those values as the default for breakfast the next day, but it won't automatically select them; instead, I have to press the insulin button, add NPH, and add Humalog. Since the majority of the time I'm taking the same amount (or minor variation) of insulin each day, this is annoying.
There's a serial cable to download the data, but it's Windows only. The charts and graphs that the app produces are nice, but I'd like the ability to be able to import them into the database of my choice, rather than having to open the Access file it generates. Also, the settings between the UltraSmart and the program are seperate; it doesn't transfer over (even one way) on the serial cable, which means I had to enter my ranges on the UltraSmart, and then again on the app.
No numeric keypad. The Ultrasmart has the capability to record fat, carbohydrates, and protein entries, but it's a real PITA to enter the number "36" when you have to scroll to it (also, no way to enter exactly what it is that you ate, but a keyboard may be way too big). Hence, I don't use this feature at all, which is too bad.
Read up. You can put 4.x software on the DTivos and it'll run fine. Requires knowledge of linux, and opening your Tivo (and thus voiding any warranty), but it works great.
Legally, "abandonware" doesn't exist. If the copyright holder doesn't release it, it's not legal for you to swap the stuff around. Doesn't matter if it's not in print anymore. Doesn't matter if the copyright holder has no plans to ever get another red cent from it again. If the copyholder doesn't say you can do it, then you can't.
Now, morally, a lot of people feel that trading abandonware is (less wrong|more legitimate), since it is, indeed, not stealing profits from anyone. But there's still no legal backing.
Saying you didn't like playing Sands of Time because of jumping puzzles is sort of like saying you don't like playing FPSes because of all the violence.
Depends on where you work. In central Florida, $50,000 / yr is a pretty good salary. In San Francisco, $50,000 / yr is less than the janitor gets paid.
I'd have a friend turn me in for the reward, take the minimal risk that anyone could actually prosecute me on it
Most (all?) of these bounty type rewards are predicated on successful prosecution. So, split it three ways with the prosecutor to agree to some probationary sentence...
1) If the stock pays dividends (Google won't, AFAIK), the more stock you have, the more dividends you get, so 100 shares of stock at $10 would be better than 10 shares of stock at $100.
2) Stock is only worth what you can sell it for. The standard yardstick of what a stock is worth is the price-to-earnings-ratio (P/E); how much money the company earns vs what its stock is worth. The higher this number, the more "overvalued" the company. The S&P has a P/E of ~30 currently (Yahoo has...~82 I believe). In short, the higher the P/E, the less likely the company will make enough money to justify its stock price.
Right. Because it's the investors who get swept away in paying too much for something that they like or have "heard good things about", and the layman who makes the calm, rational, well-informed decisions.
Maybe it's time to reprioritize, since, after all, after the dingo eats your baby, no baby, but if your credit card gets charged with stuff you never authorized, you can dispute it, and the maximum amount you owe in cases of fraud is $50.
Yeah, except it seems to happen the other way around: they take a game for the XBox, and port it to the PC. That's how we end up with games like Halo for the PC (no cooperative multiplayer?) or Deus Ex 2 for the PC (where it's obvious that the interface was designed for something with 8 buttons, not a keyboard).
Obviously still a no-brainer for the publisher, but limiting PC games to the confines of a console seems like a sure-fire way to make sure no one bothers to buy the PC game.
Re:Thanks for all the comments!
on
Hardware Hacking
·
· Score: 1
Those are guidelines for graphics. Text will wrap just fine unless you tell it not to. Instead of a fixed width and height, you could use, say, 90%, still get the border effect (if desired), and not have to worry about the resolution of the display at all.
Re:Thanks for all the comments!
on
Hardware Hacking
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Some comments on your website. I'm using Firefox.
First, my monitor is huge. Frickin' huge. And it's set to a really high resolution. Your website, though, seems to be set to an absolute height (592 px) and width (770px), and so is this tiny box taking up about a third of the screen, centered. Wouldn't be so bad, except I have to scroll down. A lot. With all this blank space around, unused.
Second, 'Books & Chapters' is confusing placed underneath 'Computer Security', which makes it difficult to find it again after I've moved away. Even more confusing, since I expected it would be under 'Consumer Electronics' and 'Hobbyist & Experimental'. I'd prefer to see those subcategories done away with altogether.
With random characters in the spam, hash-based blocklists are more or less useless, neh?
'Sides, after a few hours, if not minutes, of the spammer sending mail to you and not seeing anything come back, they'd just stop using you.
Re:First thought....
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Though spammers have, as a rule, shown themselves to be pretty dumb in general, they are not, as a rule, dumb technically.
Trivial to have every nth (perhaps with some random deviation) email address be one of a number that the spammer itself monitors. If the mail does not get to those monitor accounts, you don't get paid.
People aren't going to want to order a channel that they rarely watch, even if that channel occassionally has a show that they view.
Depends on the price. Besides, undoubtedly, cable companies would offer "bulk" discounts -- "Buy ten channels and get the eleventh free", or "Buy _all_ the channels for the low, low price..." If it costs five extra bucks to get some rarely watched channel, sure, people aren't going to do it a lot. If it costs fifty cents...that's much more likely.
This will also make it extremely difficult to start new channels. Since consumer won't just get a channel added to their lineup as now, a new channel will have to fight extremely hard to gain viewers.
And this'll be different from today...how? The new channel has to have enough startup cash in order to get shows, and to get the cable company to broadcast them -- which usually involves paying the cable company, not the other way around. And once that's happened, the new cable channel is now one of a few hundred channels available to the viewer. Even today, without some sort of new killer show, that channel's going to get buried in the noise.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
Except you wouldn't have to pay for the channels that you don't want. If I get 150 channels that I'm paying, oh, $0.25 each for, then that's $37.50. But if I only really watch ten of those channels, even if I have to pay $3.00 for, it's still cheaper. Obviously this all depends on the numbers, but some of the channels are expensive: ESPN, by itself, costs roughly $2 per subscriber. Why should I have to pay that if I never watch it?
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
This is true as far as analog cable goes. Digital cable already has fully addressable cable boxes, so isn't really a problem.
Apple has $4.8 billion cash. Why keep around another $300 million that you're paying interest on, when it's obvious that you have all the money you need right now?
Sure, Apple could've taken that $300 mil and invested in R&D or what have you...but they have plenty of money to do that with after paying off the debt. I'm not seeing the point of keeping it around when you have so much cash.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an order to the shopkeeper; it's in the shopkeeper's best interests to avoid credit card fraud. If a shopkeeper sells product and it turns out the charge was fraudulent, the shopkeeper gets no money and is out the product.
There's no law saying that the shopkeeper has to follow my orders if I wear a shirt that says, "Videotape me to make sure I don't shoplift," but they seem to do it alot anyways.
If those are integers, the answer is 1. The 5/10 evaluates to 0, 0*8 is 0, 1+0 is 1. C will do this, for instance. Not sure about FORTRAN.
#include
int main() {
printf("Result: %i\n", 1 + 5 / 10 * 8);
return 0;
}
Will print out 1.
You're thinking of the RID boxes. Previously, only non-RID boxes would accept 4.x -- the DSR7000 and HDVR2. Newer ones like the DSR704 would not. But that's not true anymore; currently (as of about 6 weeks ago), any S2 DTivo except for the really new nightlight models can take the 4.x software.
If you are going for the cool stuff, a reader that store the results, timestamps them and can display graphs of the sugar levels would be a great tool for doctors.
The Onetouch UltraSmart does this, though on the tiny screen it's difficult to make things out. The info can be downloaded via a serial cable and then printed out, much more readable. USB would be much easier, though.
The UltraSmart is pretty good. Nice, highly readable. The backlight only comes on when you hold the button, so it saves on battery time. Those are all good things.
Annoyances: Although it remembers the values used for previous days, it doesn't default them. Eg, if I take 2u Humalog and 8u NPH for breakfast on one day, it will use those values as the default for breakfast the next day, but it won't automatically select them; instead, I have to press the insulin button, add NPH, and add Humalog. Since the majority of the time I'm taking the same amount (or minor variation) of insulin each day, this is annoying.
There's a serial cable to download the data, but it's Windows only. The charts and graphs that the app produces are nice, but I'd like the ability to be able to import them into the database of my choice, rather than having to open the Access file it generates. Also, the settings between the UltraSmart and the program are seperate; it doesn't transfer over (even one way) on the serial cable, which means I had to enter my ranges on the UltraSmart, and then again on the app.
No numeric keypad. The Ultrasmart has the capability to record fat, carbohydrates, and protein entries, but it's a real PITA to enter the number "36" when you have to scroll to it (also, no way to enter exactly what it is that you ate, but a keyboard may be way too big). Hence, I don't use this feature at all, which is too bad.
Go to dealdatabase.com/forum
Read up. You can put 4.x software on the DTivos and it'll run fine. Requires knowledge of linux, and opening your Tivo (and thus voiding any warranty), but it works great.
Legally, "abandonware" doesn't exist. If the copyright holder doesn't release it, it's not legal for you to swap the stuff around. Doesn't matter if it's not in print anymore. Doesn't matter if the copyright holder has no plans to ever get another red cent from it again. If the copyholder doesn't say you can do it, then you can't.
Now, morally, a lot of people feel that trading abandonware is (less wrong|more legitimate), since it is, indeed, not stealing profits from anyone. But there's still no legal backing.
Saying you didn't like playing Sands of Time because of jumping puzzles is sort of like saying you don't like playing FPSes because of all the violence.
Oh, wait. This isn't kuro5hin.
Depends on where you work. In central Florida, $50,000 / yr is a pretty good salary. In San Francisco, $50,000 / yr is less than the janitor gets paid.
National averages are pretty useless.
I'd have a friend turn me in for the reward, take the minimal risk that anyone could actually prosecute me on it
Most (all?) of these bounty type rewards are predicated on successful prosecution. So, split it three ways with the prosecutor to agree to some probationary sentence...
It was a bidding system. Google said, "Hey, guys, we want to sell 26.4 million shares. How much would you pay for 'em?"
People wrote in bids and the amount they'd buy at that bid. Google took the highest until they'd sold all 26.4 million shares.
So the answer is, because someone was willing to pay that much.
1) If the stock pays dividends (Google won't, AFAIK), the more stock you have, the more dividends you get, so 100 shares of stock at $10 would be better than 10 shares of stock at $100.
2) Stock is only worth what you can sell it for. The standard yardstick of what a stock is worth is the price-to-earnings-ratio (P/E); how much money the company earns vs what its stock is worth. The higher this number, the more "overvalued" the company. The S&P has a P/E of ~30 currently (Yahoo has...~82 I believe). In short, the higher the P/E, the less likely the company will make enough money to justify its stock price.
Right. Because it's the investors who get swept away in paying too much for something that they like or have "heard good things about", and the layman who makes the calm, rational, well-informed decisions.
Basically, because it breaks how people navigate pages.
1) You can't bookmark an individual page. In that scenario, you can only bookmark the page that holds the frameset.
2) Similarly, you can't link to an individual page. If you do, they'll get that _just_ that page, no table of contents.
3) If you hit the refresh button, it refreshes the frameset page, which puts you back at the "default" page, not the one you were looking at.
4) Doesn't work with the "History" that browsers keep.
Maybe it's time to reprioritize, since, after all, after the dingo eats your baby, no baby, but if your credit card gets charged with stuff you never authorized, you can dispute it, and the maximum amount you owe in cases of fraud is $50.
Yeah, except it seems to happen the other way around: they take a game for the XBox, and port it to the PC. That's how we end up with games like Halo for the PC (no cooperative multiplayer?) or Deus Ex 2 for the PC (where it's obvious that the interface was designed for something with 8 buttons, not a keyboard).
Obviously still a no-brainer for the publisher, but limiting PC games to the confines of a console seems like a sure-fire way to make sure no one bothers to buy the PC game.
Those are guidelines for graphics. Text will wrap just fine unless you tell it not to. Instead of a fixed width and height, you could use, say, 90%, still get the border effect (if desired), and not have to worry about the resolution of the display at all.
Some comments on your website. I'm using Firefox.
First, my monitor is huge. Frickin' huge. And it's set to a really high resolution. Your website, though, seems to be set to an absolute height (592 px) and width (770px), and so is this tiny box taking up about a third of the screen, centered. Wouldn't be so bad, except I have to scroll down. A lot. With all this blank space around, unused.
Second, 'Books & Chapters' is confusing placed underneath 'Computer Security', which makes it difficult to find it again after I've moved away. Even more confusing, since I expected it would be under 'Consumer Electronics' and 'Hobbyist & Experimental'. I'd prefer to see those subcategories done away with altogether.
With random characters in the spam, hash-based blocklists are more or less useless, neh?
'Sides, after a few hours, if not minutes, of the spammer sending mail to you and not seeing anything come back, they'd just stop using you.
Though spammers have, as a rule, shown themselves to be pretty dumb in general, they are not, as a rule, dumb technically.
Trivial to have every nth (perhaps with some random deviation) email address be one of a number that the spammer itself monitors. If the mail does not get to those monitor accounts, you don't get paid.
People aren't going to want to order a channel that they rarely watch, even if that channel occassionally has a show that they view.
Depends on the price. Besides, undoubtedly, cable companies would offer "bulk" discounts -- "Buy ten channels and get the eleventh free", or "Buy _all_ the channels for the low, low price..." If it costs five extra bucks to get some rarely watched channel, sure, people aren't going to do it a lot. If it costs fifty cents...that's much more likely.
This will also make it extremely difficult to start new channels. Since consumer won't just get a channel added to their lineup as now, a new channel will have to fight extremely hard to gain viewers.
And this'll be different from today...how? The new channel has to have enough startup cash in order to get shows, and to get the cable company to broadcast them -- which usually involves paying the cable company, not the other way around. And once that's happened, the new cable channel is now one of a few hundred channels available to the viewer. Even today, without some sort of new killer show, that channel's going to get buried in the noise.
Now, if you begin to divy up on a per channel basis, where you had 300k of subscribers to charge equally for the Discovery channel, you now have to charge more for Discovery channel for the subs that want it. So ostensibly, you could be paying a ton more for your service.
Except you wouldn't have to pay for the channels that you don't want. If I get 150 channels that I'm paying, oh, $0.25 each for, then that's $37.50. But if I only really watch ten of those channels, even if I have to pay $3.00 for, it's still cheaper. Obviously this all depends on the numbers, but some of the channels are expensive: ESPN, by itself, costs roughly $2 per subscriber. Why should I have to pay that if I never watch it?
plus, on the feasibility end of things, you would force 1 of 2 methods of channel blocking; either putting traps on the line outside, and attenuating the total signal getting into the house, or setting up an addressable cable converter for each set in the house, and scrambling all the cable channels on the service.
This is true as far as analog cable goes. Digital cable already has fully addressable cable boxes, so isn't really a problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Mac G5 was the fastest processor you could buy to date. ( I prefer PC running AMD )
Please no flames.
If you want a 1600 Mhz FSB and like AMD, I recommend you just go ahead and get an AMD chip with a 1600 Mhz FSB. Like this one.
But, financially, this isn't good news.
And why not?
Apple has $4.8 billion cash. Why keep around another $300 million that you're paying interest on, when it's obvious that you have all the money you need right now?
Sure, Apple could've taken that $300 mil and invested in R&D or what have you...but they have plenty of money to do that with after paying off the debt. I'm not seeing the point of keeping it around when you have so much cash.