Because they didn't like the look of the big, floor-to-ceiling look of the old XP system, they shrunk it all down so that it only shows 5-6 items at a time and has a scrollbar.
While I agree with most everything else in your post....5-6 items at a time? Damn, I think it might be time to upgrade to a monitor that runs higher than 640x480, because on my monitor the Windows 7 start menu shows 28 items at a time.
Well, now it's just like the MTV evolution, where MTV became all non-music BS, so they created MTV2 to have actual music (disclaimer...I don't watch MTV2 so have no idea what its content is these days...probably non-music now also, which would explain the existence of MTV3). Likewise, Discovery Channel has become a lot of crap just like MTV, but Discovery also produces the Science channel, which actually has a lot of more interesting content on it. I've only had that channel for a month, but so far I've seen countless shows about:
Space exploration - Shows about all of the planets, their moons, and the satellites we sent to explore them. The Apollo missions, and all the steps that were necessary to get there to create the lunar rover, the space suits, the command modules, navigation systems, etc.
Astronomy/physics - Shows about blackholes, wormholes, relativity, parallel universes, string theory, etc.
Modern architecture - document the construction of all sorts of huge projects, such as skyscrapers, stadiums, bridges, etc
Ancient civilizations - I can't tell you much about these (my wife watches them), but there have been plenty of shows on ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.
Geography - Shows on volcanoes, earthquakes & mountain ranges (and all the science behind those things)
And in case that all hasn't sold you, I'll assume you are a typical slashdotter and tell you that they are having a Firefly marathon on Saturday.
The channel also has its fair share of crap too, but it's easily in the minority. So far, I'd probably rate the channel as 20% good shows I'm interested in, 20% crap shows, and 60% shows that appear to be (as far as I can tell) good quality shows that focus on topics that don't personally interest me.
Just looking at the statistics from my mythbox, in the last month we've recorded 100 episodes from that channel. About half of those we've watched (only a handful of which we didn't like), and the other half are sitting there waiting to be watched. I quickly had to become very selective with what I record from that channel just so I don't fill up the hard drive with a backlogs of shows I don't have time to watch.
Well, for starters, I'm assuming the cable company wouldn't want to be sharing its data with the electric company. Second, this is useful for anyone who doesn't have a cablebox. Cablecards installed into a TV, PC, or anything other than a cablebox are inherently one-way devices. The current spec has no mechanism for them to do 2-way communication (unless it's a SDV system that requires a tuning adapter). The same is true for the little DTA devices and QAM tuners.
The main problem is going to probably be that Snoopy is tiny. Something this small is very hard to see even with very good telescopes.
I think that's the understatement of the century. How is this even going to be possible. From what I've always heard, Hubble can't even resolve things like this on the lunar surface.
The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image
Are the Faulkes telescopes THAT much more powerful that they can resolve sometime of the same size at a significantly greater distances? I'm pretty certain the answer to that is no, so how are they doing it?
Yep, the ratings are now separate, too. Another post from the blog.
User says: "The lack of communication between the two services regarding rating and reviews seems like a huge downfall and I would imagine will be a major complaint." CEO Reed Hastings responds: "It may be. At least when you start, your current rating and reviews will be in both. "
That makes it sound like they are essentially going to clone the current system, and then they're independent from there on out.
This is just stupid, but the worst part is that, it seems to me like they didn't even think through all the implications of they way they are doing this. For example, take the following from the official netflix blog.
User asks: " If a film I search for on Netflix is not available for streaming, will the website still tell me if the DVD is available? Or must I search twice?" CEO Reed Hastings responds: "ouch. You'd have to search the second place if we didn't have it in the first place."
Ouch? Are you serious? Ouch? To me, that reads like "hmmmm, we hadn't really thought about that".
Bullshit. I used to believe that crap, then a few years ago I got an opportunity to serve on a jury for the first time. I'd say 2/3 of the jury were pretty smart in one way or another.
When picking a jury, you can't just disqualify as many people as you want. Each side has only a limited number of jurors they can dismiss without reason. They can dismiss an unlimited number of jurors for good reason, if the judge agree's it's a good reason, but I don't think "because he's too smart" is going to be a good reason to do so in the judges eyes. So sure, they could use their limited number of no-reason dismissals to try and get rid of smart people, but the problem is, you quickly run out those, and then you are stuck with whatever jurors get called as a replacement.
Furthermore, it's fairly difficult to figure out who's smart just based on the questions that get asked. The judge just asks for simple stuff like your occupation and a few questions to try to determine any bias...whether you know anyone involved with the case, whether someone you know or are related to has been involved in a similar case, whether you or someone you know has been a victim of the sort of crime about to be tried, etc.
But it's OK, the destructive nature of this planetary system is mutual; CoRoT-2b's orbit is likely maintaining the high spin rate of the star, boosting magnetic activity, thus boosting the X-ray output.
That's not mutual destruction. Mutual destruction would be if the planet were destroying the star at the same time.
1) Look at living beings...at the huge variety of diseases and malformations that can occur, many of them fatal, and you'll see that nature often doesn't do better
2) Look at the speed of our advancement. We typically get a new technology off the ground in 5 to 20 and then make pretty radical changes to it over the course of each couple decades, never mind centuries. Nature, on the other hand, spends millions of year, just slightly tweaking it a tiny bit at a time.
Imagine if, for example, instead of moving on to building skyscrapers out of steel and concrete (and more modern materials), we instead spent the last thousand years just slightly tweaking and perfecting the techniques of gothic architecture. Yeah, we'd probably have made gigantic strides in gothic architecture. We'd probably have it down to a science and be making cathedrals that put the existing ones to shame. But no, we haven't done that. We've moved on to modern materials, designs, and techniques, and as a result, we build things much more amazing.
Instead of spending forever perfecting the old design with slow and tiny changes, we get close enough to perfect and then move on to the next, better technology.
And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.
All they need is the location? OK, so assuming the location is a private residence, if 6 people live there, who did it? All 6 of them say "I have no idea what you are talking about". Who do you charge? Do you go get a warrant to search the house? By the time you get it, the person who actually has it will likely have disposed of it. Do you get the warrant before your initial contact and then just search the house right away? What if it was a friend who was using the laptop in that house when they visited? You'll find nothing in the house. Do you wait until they are online somewhere and then try to show up at the location and get them before they disappear? What if it doesn't show up again?
You can't know before the fact that you won't need the evidence later, so you gather it when you have the opportunity.
Wow. That's one very pessimistic view of LDAP, from someone who probably hasn't spent enough time using LDAP in the way it should be used in order to appreciate it's featues. So lets just address a few of your complaints (sorry if I miss anything, but it's sort of hard to quote and address things when you basically turned your post into work of literary fiction).
1) Supporting authentication is a bad thing? Really? So you have a DB-like source with loads of info about everything and everybody in your organization, and you don't think it's a good thing that people should have to authenticate before seeing it? Or that certain bits of info should only be available to certain users (which is impossible to do without authentication)? Or that while some people should only be able to view it, certain people can edit it, and different people may need to have rights to edit different bits of information (again, impossible without authentication)? I think you are totally off base here
2) Once authentication is there, you think it's a bad thing that we reuse this authentication to authenticate other services? You would rather create 2 separate sets of authentication credentials...one for the LDAP server, and one for the other servers? When you consider some of the purposes of LDAP, like being able to manage groups of users, and that on other servers you will want to reference those groups (like say, only users from department X can access this folder, and department X is defined as a group on the LDAP server), it doesn't make sense to want to do the authentication against LDAP since we'll also be doing the group member verification against LDAP?
3) I'm pretty sure you've got your security ordering mixed up. LDAPS came before TLS. TLS sort of unifies the two methods.
4) About the structure of the objects, LDAP is nicely extendable. It provides you a way to add features and services to accounts, so you can say "this entry is for a person", and then you get available to you only the attributes that apply to a person. Then you can take a subset of those accounts and say "these particular accounts have unix shell accounts" and then you get available to you additional attributes that apply specifically to the unix shell account. You can require that some of these new attributes be required, some optional, and you also assure that no entries will have these extra attributes set unless they've been designated as having that objectclass.
This extensible structure is sort of an alternative to how a relational DB would do it. In the DB, you would have to have a bunch of separate tables for all of the different services, and then link the tables together (so a generic object table, and then link that to a table for people, and then link that to another table for unix shell accounts, etc). Doing a query and joining all of those tables together can actually be quite a pain. With LDAP, you can simplay say "give me all objects that are for people with unix shell accounts". The query would be something like (&(objectclass=person)(objectclass=unixaccount)). That's it, and it will get you all the info about the object. By contrast, the query you'd do in SQL would be SELECT * FROM object INNER JOIN person ON object.id=person.object_id INNER JOIN unixaccount ON object.id=unixaccount.object_id. Which one is simpler? Now try to go further...try to get a list of everything that matches any of multiple criteria (example, has a unix account OR an email account). In SQL you'l have to start doing outer joins. Then filter it further...only get accounts where they've logged in to either system during the past 30 days. The LDAP filter would be something like (&
(objectclass=person)
(|
(&(objectclass=unixaccount)(unixlogindate>=20110801))
(&(objectclass=emailaccount)(emaillogindate>=20110801))
) )
Lesson: if there is more than one thing wrong with the camera, do NOT mention anything else wrong. Gives you more leverage when they try to send it back saying that repair is not covered, and you can say, "What about this here thing wrong? Did you cause this?"
What the hell kind of lesson is that? So your idea is, 2 things break, you send it back and only mention 1 thing? Ok, so when you mention the first thing, they take your camera for a month, and even if they successfully fix it, the 2nd thing is still broken and you've got to send it back for another month. Sounds like a great plan.
When you go to sync an iPod with another computer, iTunes ASKS YOU if you want to wipe the iPod. If you don't want to, you can either sync manually, or not sync at all
Sorry, itunes can sometimes act like crap when syncing. Several years ago I hooked my ipod touch up to my work computer (which was not my primary computer, but I had used it many times to connect and sync before). I manually told it to make a backup. I then tried copying a new podcast to it . itunes popped up a message saying something like it wasn't authorized and it would have to delete the content off the ipod, and do I want to continue? Of course not, so I say no. itunes starts wiping my apps. CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!!!!!!!! Ok, so I figure maybe I misread it so I repeat the process. When I get to the dialog box, I read it very careful and come to the same conclusion. I figured maybe I clicked the wrong button last time (you know how sometimes you click things on autopilot) So I click no again. It begins wiping again. CANCEL!!! So now I go back and, and think I must be misunderstanding the dialog. This time I answer yes, and it starts wiping again. WTF? No matter which answer I give, it wants to wipe.
Fine, no sweat. I just made a backup. I double check the timestamp on the backup and it was indeed from 30 minutes ago. So I restore from the backup. Guess what? It restored me to the state the device was in 6 FUCKING MONTHS AGO.
If you use a Mac, you might be fine with iTunes, but if you use Windows, iTunes is an utter piece of shit
I absolutely can not believe that it took some stupid facebook integration bs to actually get this done. It's ridiculous that ticketmaster hasn't allowed you to choose seats all along. Every time I get tickets, you get to choose from 1 of 3 broad regions (main floor, lower bowl, and upper bowl). That's it. You can't even choose a specific section, much less a row or seat. A few months ago, a friend wanted tickets for a specific section of the arena, and we actually had to wait 4 days before enough tickets had sold that it began selling in the section he wanted. That's absolutely ridiculous.
or to return it at a 15%-20% restocking fee per Best Buys computers return poicy on opened items.
I doubt there would be a restocking fee. The reason Best Buy would extend the return policy would be either 1) They want to remove ill will from people who just bought into a dead platform...sort of a way of saying "you won't regret buying from us" (yeah yeah, cue the jokes) Charging a restocking fee wouldn't accomplish this goal 2) HP informed retailers that the product is discontinued, and they have 60 days to get them any returns back to them. In that case, Best Buy isn't eating the cost, so why should they care.
Many of them do, yes, but that's not because of java as much is it is that people take the easy way out and don't put any effort into the look. It's the same way that most visual basic apps look like crap. Even though VB uses the exact same controls as other windows apps, people put no real effort into making it look nice. They leave things at the default (like not adjust the button height, so all your buttons are plump) and just throw things together without giving it much thought.
Except the music studios typically DON'T finance it. From pretty much everything I've every read, they usually give the artist an advance to cover costs and then recoup that money from the sales. That's one of the many reason a lot of artists hardly see any money come their way from record sales.
And the funny thing is, if you DO find oil in your backyard, you'll find that most urban property owners don't actually have mineral rights to their property.
I never understand this logic. We hear it all the time: this drug/cure will never make it to market because there's more money to be made treating than curing.
In every single industry, people always talk about how short sighted businesses are. They do things that are absolutely detrimental to their long term outlook because it gives them short term gains (and not even necessarily huge gains). Yet every time it comes to pharmaceutical companies, the story always changes to "they would never dare reap the unimaginably enormous short term and medium term gains because it would hurt the company 10 or 20 years down the road". That's total BS. The profit potential is so huge, no executives could pass that up, and if word of it ever got out, the shareholders would sue the executives into the ground.
Aside from that, it's ridiculous to even think that it would destroy the companies long term. First of all, it's not likely to wipe every virus from the face of the earth. The drug will continue to be needed. Second, there are still non-virual infections to be cured and treated. Third, there are countless other sources of revenue, such as pain killers, treatment for genetic disorders, boner pills, etc.
In short, this whole idea that they would bury such a cure is one of the worst thought out conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
He never said it was a virus. He said destroying the immune system is essentially the same thing as AIDS. Of course he's wrong there. The difference (I think) is that with AIDS, the HIV virus is still present and keeps the immune system from regenerating. With this idea, you'd temporarily have the same effect as having HIV cause AIDS, but there would be nothing stopping your immune system from regenerating over time (other than contracting some other sort of infection and dying).
We need height back in our displays for all the portrait document-oriented stuff that we spend the majority of our times with on computers (emails, webpages, word processing, heck even board-based casual games). I'm sick of seeing my interactive options through a narrow slit.
I disagree. What I'm sick of is having 2 documents side by side (trying to diff my code) and not being able to read the full width of both files. I'm also sick of not being able to see my code or images in an editor because the extra toolboxes take up half the width of the window. And I'm not complaining about the toolboxes (they're very useful)...just that on a non-widescreen they leave very little actual room for the document itself. A widescreen solves both of these problems quite well
Re:How Good is "Good Enough?"
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you are the one that needs to see an optometrist, because I never once mentioned anything about 720p. I said "BEYOND 1080P", "ANY MORE THAN 1080P", and "FULL BENEFIT OF CURRENT 1080P" (I made those quotes all caps to make it easier for you to see). Can you see the difference there?
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with most everything else in your post....5-6 items at a time? Damn, I think it might be time to upgrade to a monitor that runs higher than 640x480, because on my monitor the Windows 7 start menu shows 28 items at a time.
Well, now it's just like the MTV evolution, where MTV became all non-music BS, so they created MTV2 to have actual music (disclaimer...I don't watch MTV2 so have no idea what its content is these days...probably non-music now also, which would explain the existence of MTV3). Likewise, Discovery Channel has become a lot of crap just like MTV, but Discovery also produces the Science channel, which actually has a lot of more interesting content on it. I've only had that channel for a month, but so far I've seen countless shows about:
Space exploration - Shows about all of the planets, their moons, and the satellites we sent to explore them. The Apollo missions, and all the steps that were necessary to get there to create the lunar rover, the space suits, the command modules, navigation systems, etc.
Astronomy/physics - Shows about blackholes, wormholes, relativity, parallel universes, string theory, etc.
Modern architecture - document the construction of all sorts of huge projects, such as skyscrapers, stadiums, bridges, etc
Ancient civilizations - I can't tell you much about these (my wife watches them), but there have been plenty of shows on ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.
Geography - Shows on volcanoes, earthquakes & mountain ranges (and all the science behind those things)
And in case that all hasn't sold you, I'll assume you are a typical slashdotter and tell you that they are having a Firefly marathon on Saturday.
The channel also has its fair share of crap too, but it's easily in the minority. So far, I'd probably rate the channel as 20% good shows I'm interested in, 20% crap shows, and 60% shows that appear to be (as far as I can tell) good quality shows that focus on topics that don't personally interest me.
Just looking at the statistics from my mythbox, in the last month we've recorded 100 episodes from that channel. About half of those we've watched (only a handful of which we didn't like), and the other half are sitting there waiting to be watched. I quickly had to become very selective with what I record from that channel just so I don't fill up the hard drive with a backlogs of shows I don't have time to watch.
Well, for starters, I'm assuming the cable company wouldn't want to be sharing its data with the electric company. Second, this is useful for anyone who doesn't have a cablebox. Cablecards installed into a TV, PC, or anything other than a cablebox are inherently one-way devices. The current spec has no mechanism for them to do 2-way communication (unless it's a SDV system that requires a tuning adapter). The same is true for the little DTA devices and QAM tuners.
I think that's the understatement of the century. How is this even going to be possible. From what I've always heard, Hubble can't even resolve things like this on the lunar surface.
http://news.discovery.com/space/apollo-10-search-snoopy-astronomy-110919.html
Are the Faulkes telescopes THAT much more powerful that they can resolve sometime of the same size at a significantly greater distances? I'm pretty certain the answer to that is no, so how are they doing it?
Sorry. The link came from the email sent to netflix customers:
http://blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explanation-and-some-reflections.html
Yep, the ratings are now separate, too. Another post from the blog.
User says: "The lack of communication between the two services regarding rating and reviews seems like a huge downfall and I would imagine will be a major complaint."
CEO Reed Hastings responds: "It may be. At least when you start, your current rating and reviews will be in both. "
That makes it sound like they are essentially going to clone the current system, and then they're independent from there on out.
This is just stupid, but the worst part is that, it seems to me like they didn't even think through all the implications of they way they are doing this. For example, take the following from the official netflix blog.
User asks: " If a film I search for on Netflix is not available for streaming, will the website still tell me if the DVD is available? Or must I search twice?"
CEO Reed Hastings responds: "ouch. You'd have to search the second place if we didn't have it in the first place."
Ouch? Are you serious? Ouch? To me, that reads like "hmmmm, we hadn't really thought about that".
Bullshit. I used to believe that crap, then a few years ago I got an opportunity to serve on a jury for the first time. I'd say 2/3 of the jury were pretty smart in one way or another.
When picking a jury, you can't just disqualify as many people as you want. Each side has only a limited number of jurors they can dismiss without reason. They can dismiss an unlimited number of jurors for good reason, if the judge agree's it's a good reason, but I don't think "because he's too smart" is going to be a good reason to do so in the judges eyes. So sure, they could use their limited number of no-reason dismissals to try and get rid of smart people, but the problem is, you quickly run out those, and then you are stuck with whatever jurors get called as a replacement.
Furthermore, it's fairly difficult to figure out who's smart just based on the questions that get asked. The judge just asks for simple stuff like your occupation and a few questions to try to determine any bias...whether you know anyone involved with the case, whether someone you know or are related to has been involved in a similar case, whether you or someone you know has been a victim of the sort of crime about to be tried, etc.
That's not mutual destruction. Mutual destruction would be if the planet were destroying the star at the same time.
1) Look at living beings...at the huge variety of diseases and malformations that can occur, many of them fatal, and you'll see that nature often doesn't do better
2) Look at the speed of our advancement. We typically get a new technology off the ground in 5 to 20 and then make pretty radical changes to it over the course of each couple decades, never mind centuries. Nature, on the other hand, spends millions of year, just slightly tweaking it a tiny bit at a time.
Imagine if, for example, instead of moving on to building skyscrapers out of steel and concrete (and more modern materials), we instead spent the last thousand years just slightly tweaking and perfecting the techniques of gothic architecture. Yeah, we'd probably have made gigantic strides in gothic architecture. We'd probably have it down to a science and be making cathedrals that put the existing ones to shame. But no, we haven't done that. We've moved on to modern materials, designs, and techniques, and as a result, we build things much more amazing.
Instead of spending forever perfecting the old design with slow and tiny changes, we get close enough to perfect and then move on to the next, better technology.
And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.
All they need is the location? OK, so assuming the location is a private residence, if 6 people live there, who did it? All 6 of them say "I have no idea what you are talking about". Who do you charge? Do you go get a warrant to search the house? By the time you get it, the person who actually has it will likely have disposed of it. Do you get the warrant before your initial contact and then just search the house right away? What if it was a friend who was using the laptop in that house when they visited? You'll find nothing in the house. Do you wait until they are online somewhere and then try to show up at the location and get them before they disappear? What if it doesn't show up again?
You can't know before the fact that you won't need the evidence later, so you gather it when you have the opportunity.
Wow. That's one very pessimistic view of LDAP, from someone who probably hasn't spent enough time using LDAP in the way it should be used in order to appreciate it's featues. So lets just address a few of your complaints (sorry if I miss anything, but it's sort of hard to quote and address things when you basically turned your post into work of literary fiction).
1) Supporting authentication is a bad thing? Really? So you have a DB-like source with loads of info about everything and everybody in your organization, and you don't think it's a good thing that people should have to authenticate before seeing it? Or that certain bits of info should only be available to certain users (which is impossible to do without authentication)? Or that while some people should only be able to view it, certain people can edit it, and different people may need to have rights to edit different bits of information (again, impossible without authentication)? I think you are totally off base here
2) Once authentication is there, you think it's a bad thing that we reuse this authentication to authenticate other services? You would rather create 2 separate sets of authentication credentials...one for the LDAP server, and one for the other servers? When you consider some of the purposes of LDAP, like being able to manage groups of users, and that on other servers you will want to reference those groups (like say, only users from department X can access this folder, and department X is defined as a group on the LDAP server), it doesn't make sense to want to do the authentication against LDAP since we'll also be doing the group member verification against LDAP?
3) I'm pretty sure you've got your security ordering mixed up. LDAPS came before TLS. TLS sort of unifies the two methods.
4) About the structure of the objects, LDAP is nicely extendable. It provides you a way to add features and services to accounts, so you can say "this entry is for a person", and then you get available to you only the attributes that apply to a person. Then you can take a subset of those accounts and say "these particular accounts have unix shell accounts" and then you get available to you additional attributes that apply specifically to the unix shell account. You can require that some of these new attributes be required, some optional, and you also assure that no entries will have these extra attributes set unless they've been designated as having that objectclass.
This extensible structure is sort of an alternative to how a relational DB would do it. In the DB, you would have to have a bunch of separate tables for all of the different services, and then link the tables together (so a generic object table, and then link that to a table for people, and then link that to another table for unix shell accounts, etc). Doing a query and joining all of those tables together can actually be quite a pain. With LDAP, you can simplay say "give me all objects that are for people with unix shell accounts". The query would be something like (&(objectclass=person)(objectclass=unixaccount)). That's it, and it will get you all the info about the object. By contrast, the query you'd do in SQL would be SELECT * FROM object INNER JOIN person ON object.id=person.object_id INNER JOIN unixaccount ON object.id=unixaccount.object_id. Which one is simpler? Now try to go further...try to get a list of everything that matches any of multiple criteria (example, has a unix account OR an email account). In SQL you'l have to start doing outer joins. Then filter it further...only get accounts where they've logged in to either system during the past 30 days. The LDAP filter would be something like
(&
(objectclass=person)
(|
(&(objectclass=unixaccount)(unixlogindate>=20110801))
(&(objectclass=emailaccount)(emaillogindate>=20110801))
)
)
You could actua
Lesson: if there is more than one thing wrong with the camera, do NOT mention anything else wrong. Gives you more leverage when they try to send it back saying that repair is not covered, and you can say, "What about this here thing wrong? Did you cause this?"
What the hell kind of lesson is that? So your idea is, 2 things break, you send it back and only mention 1 thing? Ok, so when you mention the first thing, they take your camera for a month, and even if they successfully fix it, the 2nd thing is still broken and you've got to send it back for another month. Sounds like a great plan.
When you go to sync an iPod with another computer, iTunes ASKS YOU if you want to wipe the iPod. If you don't want to, you can either sync manually, or not sync at all
Sorry, itunes can sometimes act like crap when syncing. Several years ago I hooked my ipod touch up to my work computer (which was not my primary computer, but I had used it many times to connect and sync before). I manually told it to make a backup. I then tried copying a new podcast to it . itunes popped up a message saying something like it wasn't authorized and it would have to delete the content off the ipod, and do I want to continue? Of course not, so I say no. itunes starts wiping my apps. CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!!!!!!!! Ok, so I figure maybe I misread it so I repeat the process. When I get to the dialog box, I read it very careful and come to the same conclusion. I figured maybe I clicked the wrong button last time (you know how sometimes you click things on autopilot) So I click no again. It begins wiping again. CANCEL!!! So now I go back and, and think I must be misunderstanding the dialog. This time I answer yes, and it starts wiping again. WTF? No matter which answer I give, it wants to wipe.
Fine, no sweat. I just made a backup. I double check the timestamp on the backup and it was indeed from 30 minutes ago. So I restore from the backup. Guess what? It restored me to the state the device was in 6 FUCKING MONTHS AGO.
If you use a Mac, you might be fine with iTunes, but if you use Windows, iTunes is an utter piece of shit
I absolutely can not believe that it took some stupid facebook integration bs to actually get this done. It's ridiculous that ticketmaster hasn't allowed you to choose seats all along. Every time I get tickets, you get to choose from 1 of 3 broad regions (main floor, lower bowl, and upper bowl). That's it. You can't even choose a specific section, much less a row or seat. A few months ago, a friend wanted tickets for a specific section of the arena, and we actually had to wait 4 days before enough tickets had sold that it began selling in the section he wanted. That's absolutely ridiculous.
or to return it at a 15%-20% restocking fee per Best Buys computers return poicy on opened items.
I doubt there would be a restocking fee. The reason Best Buy would extend the return policy would be either
1) They want to remove ill will from people who just bought into a dead platform...sort of a way of saying "you won't regret buying from us" (yeah yeah, cue the jokes) Charging a restocking fee wouldn't accomplish this goal
2) HP informed retailers that the product is discontinued, and they have 60 days to get them any returns back to them. In that case, Best Buy isn't eating the cost, so why should they care.
Agreed. Java GUIs always have a certain "look" to them you can spot right away.
Not always. Please try spotting that "look" here:
http://www.eclipse.org/swt/
or here:
http://www.eclipse.org/screenshots/images/SDK-RedFlag_Linux.png
Many of them do, yes, but that's not because of java as much is it is that people take the easy way out and don't put any effort into the look. It's the same way that most visual basic apps look like crap. Even though VB uses the exact same controls as other windows apps, people put no real effort into making it look nice. They leave things at the default (like not adjust the button height, so all your buttons are plump) and just throw things together without giving it much thought.
It is possible to have nice looking java GUIs. For example, look at Eclipse:
http://www.eclipse.org/screenshots/images/SDK-RedFlag_Linux.png
Eclipse was built using SWT:
http://www.eclipse.org/swt/
Except the music studios typically DON'T finance it. From pretty much everything I've every read, they usually give the artist an advance to cover costs and then recoup that money from the sales. That's one of the many reason a lot of artists hardly see any money come their way from record sales.
And the funny thing is, if you DO find oil in your backyard, you'll find that most urban property owners don't actually have mineral rights to their property.
Depends on whether or not your boss is understanding of you not showing up for work because there's no gas for your car...
Wait. So the presumption we're going on here is that the world ran out of oil for him, but has plenty of oil left for the rest of the employees? OK.
I never understand this logic. We hear it all the time: this drug/cure will never make it to market because there's more money to be made treating than curing.
In every single industry, people always talk about how short sighted businesses are. They do things that are absolutely detrimental to their long term outlook because it gives them short term gains (and not even necessarily huge gains). Yet every time it comes to pharmaceutical companies, the story always changes to "they would never dare reap the unimaginably enormous short term and medium term gains because it would hurt the company 10 or 20 years down the road". That's total BS. The profit potential is so huge, no executives could pass that up, and if word of it ever got out, the shareholders would sue the executives into the ground.
Aside from that, it's ridiculous to even think that it would destroy the companies long term. First of all, it's not likely to wipe every virus from the face of the earth. The drug will continue to be needed. Second, there are still non-virual infections to be cured and treated. Third, there are countless other sources of revenue, such as pain killers, treatment for genetic disorders, boner pills, etc.
In short, this whole idea that they would bury such a cure is one of the worst thought out conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
He never said it was a virus. He said destroying the immune system is essentially the same thing as AIDS. Of course he's wrong there. The difference (I think) is that with AIDS, the HIV virus is still present and keeps the immune system from regenerating. With this idea, you'd temporarily have the same effect as having HIV cause AIDS, but there would be nothing stopping your immune system from regenerating over time (other than contracting some other sort of infection and dying).
We need height back in our displays for all the portrait document-oriented stuff that we spend the majority of our times with on computers (emails, webpages, word processing, heck even board-based casual games). I'm sick of seeing my interactive options through a narrow slit.
I disagree. What I'm sick of is having 2 documents side by side (trying to diff my code) and not being able to read the full width of both files. I'm also sick of not being able to see my code or images in an editor because the extra toolboxes take up half the width of the window. And I'm not complaining about the toolboxes (they're very useful)...just that on a non-widescreen they leave very little actual room for the document itself. A widescreen solves both of these problems quite well
Apparently you are the one that needs to see an optometrist, because I never once mentioned anything about 720p. I said "BEYOND 1080P", "ANY MORE THAN 1080P", and "FULL BENEFIT OF CURRENT 1080P" (I made those quotes all caps to make it easier for you to see). Can you see the difference there?