Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault.
I blame God. God made people dumb AND he forbid them from eating the fruit of knowledge. It's not the devil's fault, he's just as god made him.
Theological notions aside, once you know about the depressing truths of human nature, it would be in everyone's best interest to shape their government in such a way that reason weighs more than emotions in the policy-making process. Like, with laws.
Final Fantasy II (US) was advertised as requiring 40 hours to beat, and I did it in ~22, with no cheats, and no, I'm not trying to brag about this. And then for FF III(US) it was hyped as OMG, you NEED like 70-80 hours to beat this. Actual: 43.
It's 60 hours+ if you bother to go save the lil' boy's father from the whatever-it-is-in-the-forest and whatnot.
And it's worth it, sometimes, to take your time: When I was playing RE, everyone was surprised it took me so long, I was surprised they had such crappy endings.
It's called a MetroCard. Plenty faster, more energy-efficient, and more convenient than a car, and it only costs $76 a month. And you can actually do stuff on your way to work, like read.
1- Try going 500 miles in a municipal transit system. 2- Some of us get motion sickness, you insensitive clod!
If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.
If Gamera the giant firebreathing space turtle lands on their offices, they'll bit in quite a bit of trouble too, and that's about as likely to happen.
Who the hell is going to buy a 600$ piece of electronic equipment out of spite with no intention of using it?
strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."
You ARE aware that Apple doesn't want to have DRM, they're only forced to do it because of companies like Sony who will not let them sell their songs online without it?
Now about the court order, there was only one party at the hearing, google never got an invitation.
FTFA: "Attendu que le tribunal de céans ne manque pas d'être surpris par l'attitude de la défenderesse qui n'a pas jugé utile de participer à la mission d'expertise, malgré les invitations qui lui avaient été adressées par l'expert judiciaire, et qui ne comparaît pas; "
For those who can't parse French: The tribunal is surprised by google's attitude, who failed to participate in the expert proceedings despite invitations to do so.
Hard to say, the last part of the ruling mention's the court dismay that Google refused to take part in the technical assesment portion of the trial, which is where such details would have been timely and constructive to divulge.
It's kinda hard to vote for the right thing when all available choices are in synch with the same bullshit. Most people don't have a good politician to vote for.
You made a mistake, put your ego aside and quit writing paragraph after paragraph to try and pretend you were right.
Since you still don't get it, I'll explain it a third and final time: The launch companies are not their own clients.
The companies with payloads hire the companies with rockets to get their cargo to orbit. A technology to reduce the need for multiple launches would benefit those with a payload, but would not benefit those who invested in launch technologies based on predictions of launches per annum that would have to be reviewed downwards.
If you want to dismiss the launch-company conspiracy theory, you can't do it by pretending that it is not in their interest to keep their business model as it is, with frequent launches. Nor can you do it by pretending that the two sides of a business relationship are one and the same.
Well, if you believe in the rocket monopolist conspiracy
No, I believe in reading comprehension.
In rocket launches, there are two parties: 1- One with a satellite they want in orbit 2- the other with a rocket that needs a payload.
Here's what the article said, and what you replied:
Shawyer argues that for companies investing billions in rockets and launch sites, a new technology that leads to fewer launches and longer-lasting satellites has little commercial appeal.
Yeah, those companies are just dying to spend as much money as possible trying to get their satellites in orbit.
Shawyer talks about companies of category 1 You reply as if he was talking about companies in category 2, saying his logic is preposterous, when you completely failed to understand what he was talking about.
The New Scientist is a weekly publication. This article is from the Sept. 9th edition. In what way does this make it 'the latest', given that two subsequent editions (16th, 23rd) have been published?
I was guessing this was a dupe and I'd missed the first two times it was posted;-)
Either that or relativity is involved, you know, twins publishing the same article, but one is moving close to lightspeed on the internet's fibreoptics and the other isn't so we get this one later, on account of all that relativity in those internet tubes.
Shawyer argues that for companies investing billions in rockets and launch sites, a new technology that leads to fewer launches and longer-lasting satellites has little commercial appeal.
Yeah, those companies are just dying to spend as much money as possible trying to get their satellites in orbit.
No, those companies are just dying to get others to spend as much money as possible to get them to launch their satellites.
Hint: The people building rockets and launch sites are not their own clients with satelites who need to be in orbit.
lol, listen, dumbass, it takes a special kind of stupid not to notice that without laws to that effect, EVERY bar and restaurant is full of smoke.
So what you're saying is that because smokers are too braindead not to get hooked to an addictive poison, they should get the special right to fill the air of every place they feel like polluting with the waste of their disgusting habit, rendering the place inhospitable for anyone but their own, vile, kind.
This is how a LOT of people use to start smoking: To build up a tolerance, since being in a smoke-filled room was the only way to have a social life.
accommodate your finickiness.
Oh yeah, "don't make my clothes stink, my hair stink, my eyes hurt and my lungs fill up with SMOKE carrying a poison to my bloodstream" is finicky! lol! It's a CHEMICAL AGRESSION from one party to another, it's the very basis of society that such agressions are not tolerated. A lot of smokers are too egocentrical to admit that their own addiction does not entitle them to subject others to their filth, but their delusions are inconsequential.
That you took my statement...and made a complete leap of illogic to this...means that pond scum has more intelligence than you.
No, it means that your statement was such a pile of nonsensical drivel that there was no point in adressing any of the specifics. Your "statement" is an expression of self-centered idiocy, the only reply possible is to laugh at it, and at you for reposting it, as if you stood by that shit!
You don't get it, obviously, so I'll make it more clear: You are so obviously stupid that I did not reply to you with intelligence, you don't deserve it, you wouldn't get it if I did, so fuck off, loser.
Slashdot Mirror
...and 18 years later he gets a vote.
Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault.
I blame God. God made people dumb AND he forbid them from eating the fruit of knowledge. It's not the devil's fault, he's just as god made him.
Theological notions aside, once you know about the depressing truths of human nature, it would be in everyone's best interest to shape their government in such a way that reason weighs more than emotions in the policy-making process.
Like, with laws.
It sure beats the back and forth.
Even lowball estimates of HDTV penetration are that 10%
That would include 480i...
If 10% of all people have it, then it's not the high-end electronics market anymore.
Interresting way to look at it. It's not high-end anymore? There's higher grade than that because a tiny minority has it?
The PS2 won wide acceptance in part because it was a very cheap (at the time) DVD player.
The difference is that people wanted a DVD player.
Running at 1080p widescreen
What proportion of gamers have that screen?
The PS3 caters to the high-end electronics market, not to gamers.
Can we also add "Revolutionary" to the list?
I get an ironic smirk when I read/hear about a revolutionary new tech: I parse that as "a complete 360, bringing us back to point A".
Yeah, I'm one sarcastic consummer.
Final Fantasy II (US) was advertised as requiring 40 hours to beat, and I did it in ~22, with no cheats, and no, I'm not trying to brag about this. And then for FF III(US) it was hyped as OMG, you NEED like 70-80 hours to beat this. Actual: 43.
It's 60 hours+ if you bother to go save the lil' boy's father from the whatever-it-is-in-the-forest and whatnot.
And it's worth it, sometimes, to take your time: When I was playing RE, everyone was surprised it took me so long, I was surprised they had such crappy endings.
I have heard rumor prices could hit $1.15 per gallon by Christmas.
There's people who expect this price-drop to last past november???
It's called a MetroCard. Plenty faster, more energy-efficient, and more convenient than a car, and it only costs $76 a month. And you can actually do stuff on your way to work, like read.
1- Try going 500 miles in a municipal transit system.
2- Some of us get motion sickness, you insensitive clod!
I feel ripped off for buying those £70 N64 games.
Region-locking is fun!
This PS3 thing is sounding better and better
And you assume they won't charge Europe a different price becauuuuuuse?
but the caption below the title is talking about XBOX 360 games being $72.
If a game is priced 72 bucks in a country where no one will buy it, does it make a cash-register noise?
If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.
If Gamera the giant firebreathing space turtle lands on their offices, they'll bit in quite a bit of trouble too, and that's about as likely to happen.
Who the hell is going to buy a 600$ piece of electronic equipment out of spite with no intention of using it?
strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."
You ARE aware that Apple doesn't want to have DRM, they're only forced to do it because of companies like Sony who will not let them sell their songs online without it?
Now about the court order, there was only one party at the hearing, google never got an invitation.
; "
FTFA: "Attendu que le tribunal de céans ne manque pas d'être surpris par l'attitude de la défenderesse qui n'a pas jugé utile de participer à la mission d'expertise, malgré les invitations qui lui avaient été adressées par l'expert judiciaire, et qui ne comparaît pas
For those who can't parse French: The tribunal is surprised by google's attitude, who failed to participate in the expert proceedings despite invitations to do so.
does google.be not follow robots.txt?
Hard to say, the last part of the ruling mention's the court dismay that Google refused to take part in the technical assesment portion of the trial, which is where such details would have been timely and constructive to divulge.
I think google shot itself in the foot there.
I still fail to see how it is a copyright infringement to link to news articles? It's not like Google is hosting the article on it's own website.
According to the ruling I'm reading right now on google.be, I can sum up your misunderstanding in two words: Google cache.
Not much else to say really.
It's kinda hard to vote for the right thing when all available choices are in synch with the same bullshit.
Most people don't have a good politician to vote for.
I was just making a joke. Quit being pedantic.
You made a mistake, put your ego aside and quit writing paragraph after paragraph to try and pretend you were right.
Since you still don't get it, I'll explain it a third and final time:
The launch companies are not their own clients.
The companies with payloads hire the companies with rockets to get their cargo to orbit. A technology to reduce the need for multiple launches would benefit those with a payload, but would not benefit those who invested in launch technologies based on predictions of launches per annum that would have to be reviewed downwards.
If you want to dismiss the launch-company conspiracy theory, you can't do it by pretending that it is not in their interest to keep their business model as it is, with frequent launches. Nor can you do it by pretending that the two sides of a business relationship are one and the same.
No, I believe in reading comprehension.
In rocket launches, there are two parties:
1- One with a satellite they want in orbit
2- the other with a rocket that needs a payload.
Here's what the article said, and what you replied:
Shawyer talks about companies of category 1
You reply as if he was talking about companies in category 2, saying his logic is preposterous, when you completely failed to understand what he was talking about.
Do I need to explain it a third time?
The New Scientist is a weekly publication. This article is from the Sept. 9th edition. In what way does this make it 'the latest', given that two subsequent editions (16th, 23rd) have been published?
;-)
I was guessing this was a dupe and I'd missed the first two times it was posted
Either that or relativity is involved, you know, twins publishing the same article, but one is moving close to lightspeed on the internet's fibreoptics and the other isn't so we get this one later, on account of all that relativity in those internet tubes.
No, those companies are just dying to get others to spend as much money as possible to get them to launch their satellites.
Hint: The people building rockets and launch sites are not their own clients with satelites who need to be in orbit.
a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke.
lol, listen, dumbass, it takes a special kind of stupid not to notice that without laws to that effect, EVERY bar and restaurant is full of smoke.
So what you're saying is that because smokers are too braindead not to get hooked to an addictive poison, they should get the special right to fill the air of every place they feel like polluting with the waste of their disgusting habit, rendering the place inhospitable for anyone but their own, vile, kind.
This is how a LOT of people use to start smoking: To build up a tolerance, since being in a smoke-filled room was the only way to have a social life.
accommodate your finickiness.
Oh yeah, "don't make my clothes stink, my hair stink, my eyes hurt and my lungs fill up with SMOKE carrying a poison to my bloodstream" is finicky! lol! It's a CHEMICAL AGRESSION from one party to another, it's the very basis of society that such agressions are not tolerated. A lot of smokers are too egocentrical to admit that their own addiction does not entitle them to subject others to their filth, but their delusions are inconsequential.
That you took my statement...and made a complete leap of illogic to this...means that pond scum has more intelligence than you.
No, it means that your statement was such a pile of nonsensical drivel that there was no point in adressing any of the specifics. Your "statement" is an expression of self-centered idiocy, the only reply possible is to laugh at it, and at you for reposting it, as if you stood by that shit!
You don't get it, obviously, so I'll make it more clear: You are so obviously stupid that I did not reply to you with intelligence, you don't deserve it, you wouldn't get it if I did, so fuck off, loser.
(dirty Jew, gay, and much much worse)
Ok, I have to ask: According to MMO* trolls, what's worse than being a dirty, gay, jew?
How did you get to be such a stupid asshat?
Easy, I lower myself to your level.
Do you know what he did... burned it all to WMV.
A code monkey from my old job once commented that iTunes was crap because it would not play his ripped CDs.
Apparently "because it's the default option of the dafault auto-launch program" is a good reason to burn to WMA, according to him.
Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enter a bar or restaurant full of tobacco smoke.
So you're saying I should shoot smokers in the head then.
I guess tha would teach them not to create a hostile environment...
Nah, I like the fine system better, much more civilised.
Plus some of the smokers are cute girls, I'd rather not see them shot.