With SETI@Home, if you arean't already part of a team, can't you join a team and give them credit for all of your previously completed work units? With the project coming to a close, maybe we could all join Team Lamb Chop and give them a boost to keep them ahead of these cheaters.
>The increase in productivity is not worth the extra cost
Last time i checked, there was no extra cost imposed on an employer when employees didn't wear suits....What did i miss?
I don't think that is what the quote was referring to, I think it was taken out of context. The article covers dress code, but it also has a general theme about reversing the dot-com culture. I have a feeling the "extra cost" that was being referred to was for things like pool tables, TVs, and all the other toys that started to become common place. They were extra expenses that were necessary to attract talent years ago. In the current economy, its not necessary to do that...people are beating down doors begging for jobs.
Yeah, the article isn't really that clearly written, but I think that's what they meant.
Series of slightly incompatible versions? For hackers, yes, but for legitimate developers and end users, most likely not. It's very common for systems to get several redesigns in their lifecycle, including things like firmware updates. The original playstation probably went through a half dozen, and it never had any incompatibilities (other than on hacked systems playing modchip-aware games).
There is a lot more to digital cable than just the music. For me, the 2 main ones are the program guide and extra channels. The program guide is nice because it's quick and easy to see what's you are watching when you are flipping through channels, and you can browse through all the stations for the next week (kinda like a TV guide, except you can't misplace it). Also, the fact that you can look up a program by name and see what days/time it will be on is great also.
The other reason I really like digital cable is for the extra channels. First, there are channels that are part of the digital package that you can't get with regular basic. Some of these are actually pretty good. In addition, if you order HBO/Cinemax/etc, with basic you get 1 or 2 channels but with digital you get 8-12 for the same price.
That's not really what the poster was talking about. "Free air" is a term that is used (more commonly in the car audio market) to refer to infinite baffle installations. In this case, there is a wall or other divider between the front and back of the speaker, so you don't get sound wave cancellation at low frequencies. However, there is no traditional box supporting the speaker. For all practical purposes, the mechanical contribution of the "enclosure" is nonexistant. There is no air pressure difference to act as a spring or anything like that.
Sorry, but you are wrong. They are 2 separate types of driver, and neither has anything to do with an enclosure. Woofers are tuned to better handle midbass and lower midrange frequencies at the expense of very low frequencies. Subwoofers are tuned to handle very low frequencies much better but are less adept at higher frequencies. Its normal to see woofers with optimal response ranges of 50 or 80Hz up to 1 or 2 KHz. Subwoofers on the other hand typically have optimal ranges from 20Hz up to 120 to 300Hz.
Coke not bending us over? Do you actually buy coke? Around here, the Coke prices have stayed equal to Pepsi, while Coke shafted us by switching first from 20oz 8-packs to 1/2 liter 8-packs, then to 1/2 liter 6-packs. All the while Pepsi still sells in 20oz 8-packs. Furthermore, when it comes to sale prices, Pepsi seems to go on sale more often and for even better discounts than Coke does when it is on sale. That's why I hardly drink coke any more.
That Nigerian scam is hysterical, but did anyone else think it would have been even funnier if "James" killed his wife in the pool, rather than in the tub?
Sure, that is more than enough to cover hosting/bandwidth costs. For a high bandwidth site, there are download services that will serve your downloads for less than $1/GB (I know of one that offers $.75/GB, and I have heard of one in the $.50/GB range). And remember that these ISPs even make a profit at these rates. If such a movie distribution service were to take off, they could justify cutting out the middle man and serving the files directly, reducing their costs further.
I'm glad somebody else noticed this. The couldn't make sense out of half of what was said. Granted I don't have the best speakers on this particular computer, but I don't think I've ever heard a trailer with worse audio.
I don't get this. Why do people always say this as if tax deductions were some magical way to make money? If I make a $1000 donation and pay 30% ($300) in taxes, I'm really out $1300 (since I paid the $1000, and still paid the $300 tax). In the best case, where the donation is 100% deductable, all that means is that I pay the $1000 and no taxes. I don't make a magical profit off of it. In fact, I have $700 less than I would if I had not made the donation.
Now, on the otherhand, if himself or his family (or the stockholders, or whoever) were the direct recipients (like parent's who "hire" and "pay" thier kids thousands of dollars a year to get a better tax rate), then yes it would be something to bitch about.
"My operating costs have gone up 1,000 percent this year, just so I can figure out how to get around all these filters," said Balan, a former truck driver and pinball machine mechanic.
Pinball machine mechanic? And now a spammer? Boy, this guy sure has a way of picking his jobs. Maybe he should have stuck it out as a truck driver.
Yes, it would work perfectly because a cop would never notice that your license plate is an LCD, right?
And you think it's bad/expensive/inconvenient when people go around stealing registration tabs from plates? Just wait until they decided to steal the whole LCD.
But you said the term "cable service" wans't even mentioned. Its right there in the title. Read down a bit further, you will see the term is again used, and not in the title.
The point about receiving extra channels is no different. When you sign up, you are signing on to receive a certain set of channels. Each additional channel is an additional service. If you steal an additional channel, you steal a service you didnt subscribe to. I dont think the quantity of bandwidth you consume is quite the same thing, but that's a thin line I suppose.
"Secondly, when they breached the contract, their authorization was revoked" Their authorization is not revoked until the cable company removes their service. If the cable company had not yet removed the service, they were simply operating outside the realm of the contract while still being authorized to receive the service. Another way to think about this is if a friend came over to your house, and you told him "I'll let you in, but only if you are nice to me." So you let him in, and then the friend says something mean to you. You cant instantly charge him for tresspassing. You have to remove him from your house and wait for him to come back in (or for him to refuse to leave in the first place) before you can consider the act trespassing. Unless that happens, all you have against him is breach of a verbal contract.
"I don't see where the term "cable service" is mentioned in the law"
Perhaps you should read all the way down to...the title:
"Sec. 553. - Unauthorized reception of cable service"
Besides, even IF this law applied, they aren't getting an unauthorized reception. They were authorized to receive it, but were using it beyond the terms of their contract.
Are you sure it's not 47 U.S.C. 553 [cornell.edu]?
Pretty sure. That law applies to cable service. Internet service, even over a cable system, is a completely different beast. I know, because in the fiasco of Comcast buying Mediaone and then failing to follow through on the promises they made, I started checking in with the local cable franchises to see what they could do, and what policies existed. It turns out they dont fall under the same classification, arent subject to the same laws, etc.
Im not the slightest bit worried about it. It wont happen in that way. Its just paranoia. Remember back long before XP came out, and everyone was talking about how horrible XP was going to be because it was going to only allow you to run digitally signed applications? Didnt happen, and it wont. The average joe user wants to run fun little $5 and $10 games and apps that they download (think card games, personal diaries, system utilities, etc). They want to run these cute little freeware screen savers that friends email to them. Its not going to fly.
The article talks about digitally signing everything, all purchase transactions, etc. Again, it wont happen. People want to provide as little identification as possible when they are browsing porn sites, and face it...porn is pretty darn popular. So at the very least, you are going to have to leave open some holes for certain things to happen. But once you leave a hole open in your ship, there isnt much you can do to stop if from sinking. One hole is all virus writers and spammers need to get the nasty stuff through.
And doesn't anyone at Microsoft remember what happened when Intel put a simple processor serial number in their CPUs? People bitched up a storm about it. And that wasnt even a personal identifier (it identified your CPU...and if you changed CPUs nobody would know). Now they are talking about something that would identify you personally? Not gonna happen.
And another thing, did Microsoft even collaborate with anyone on this? I know they have agreements from Intel and AMD to manfacture chips, but as far as I can tell from everything I read, Microsoft has masterminded this whole thing on their own. Ignoring for the moment the fact that I dont think consumers will adopt the idea, I dont think Microsoft could be successful in addressing all the necessary issues on their own. Even if 50 of the top companies got together and tried to come up with something like this, it would still be extremely difficult for them to come up with something robust, secure, and that addresses all future possibilities. If Microsoft is masterminding this on their own, its going to be a million times more difficult to do so.
The difference is that the cell or organism is a living thing. In order to safeguard against companies patenting cells/genes/dna/whatever and then claiming any type of property rights (you cant transplant that organ unless you pay me a fee...I have a patent on the genes in that heart), the patent is only allowed to cover creating the gene/dna, and not cases where the gene/dna creates itself.
Is it really shorter? When I saw the movie, some angles I thought it was shorter, others I thought it was the same length. I was thinking that it was just the fact that he is a lot shorter and thus lower to the ground, and the semi-overhead perspective makes it look shorter. All in all, I really couldnt make up my mind either way, but at least I'm not the only one who saw this.
This is informative? I think a bunch of Lepricans run our country, so much so that I started eating Lucky Charms cereal just to make sure I'm on their good side. Is this informative?
Seriously, if you want to say Sirius is a dead end, give us details. As it is, it sounds like you are saying "They have to be going out of business, because I made money shorting their stock". That can happen with any stock. Give us details.
Slashdot Mirror
With SETI@Home, if you arean't already part of a team, can't you join a team and give them credit for all of your previously completed work units? With the project coming to a close, maybe we could all join Team Lamb Chop and give them a boost to keep them ahead of these cheaters.
>The increase in productivity is not worth the extra cost
Last time i checked, there was no extra cost imposed on an employer when employees didn't wear suits....What did i miss?
I don't think that is what the quote was referring to, I think it was taken out of context. The article covers dress code, but it also has a general theme about reversing the dot-com culture. I have a feeling the "extra cost" that was being referred to was for things like pool tables, TVs, and all the other toys that started to become common place. They were extra expenses that were necessary to attract talent years ago. In the current economy, its not necessary to do that...people are beating down doors begging for jobs.
Yeah, the article isn't really that clearly written, but I think that's what they meant.
- the right to sleep with your spouse at our discretion -
Hmmm... do you happen to recall which company had that in their EULA? And are they hiring?
Yes, I think it might have been a CD-ROM put out by Cosmopolitan magazine. Are you interested in the job?
Greg Ballard...Microsoft CEO? Honest mistake? Or are you trying to pull a fast one with the similar names?
Well then try to explain why Win 9x is alright by them. It doesn't even begin to understand the concept of Administrator.
Series of slightly incompatible versions? For hackers, yes, but for legitimate developers and end users, most likely not. It's very common for systems to get several redesigns in their lifecycle, including things like firmware updates. The original playstation probably went through a half dozen, and it never had any incompatibilities (other than on hacked systems playing modchip-aware games).
There is a lot more to digital cable than just the music. For me, the 2 main ones are the program guide and extra channels. The program guide is nice because it's quick and easy to see what's you are watching when you are flipping through channels, and you can browse through all the stations for the next week (kinda like a TV guide, except you can't misplace it). Also, the fact that you can look up a program by name and see what days/time it will be on is great also.
The other reason I really like digital cable is for the extra channels. First, there are channels that are part of the digital package that you can't get with regular basic. Some of these are actually pretty good. In addition, if you order HBO/Cinemax/etc, with basic you get 1 or 2 channels but with digital you get 8-12 for the same price.
That's not really what the poster was talking about. "Free air" is a term that is used (more commonly in the car audio market) to refer to infinite baffle installations. In this case, there is a wall or other divider between the front and back of the speaker, so you don't get sound wave cancellation at low frequencies. However, there is no traditional box supporting the speaker. For all practical purposes, the mechanical contribution of the "enclosure" is nonexistant. There is no air pressure difference to act as a spring or anything like that.
Sorry, but you are wrong. They are 2 separate types of driver, and neither has anything to do with an enclosure. Woofers are tuned to better handle midbass and lower midrange frequencies at the expense of very low frequencies. Subwoofers are tuned to handle very low frequencies much better but are less adept at higher frequencies. Its normal to see woofers with optimal response ranges of 50 or 80Hz up to 1 or 2 KHz. Subwoofers on the other hand typically have optimal ranges from 20Hz up to 120 to 300Hz.
Coke not bending us over? Do you actually buy coke? Around here, the Coke prices have stayed equal to Pepsi, while Coke shafted us by switching first from 20oz 8-packs to 1/2 liter 8-packs, then to 1/2 liter 6-packs. All the while Pepsi still sells in 20oz 8-packs. Furthermore, when it comes to sale prices, Pepsi seems to go on sale more often and for even better discounts than Coke does when it is on sale. That's why I hardly drink coke any more.
That Nigerian scam is hysterical, but did anyone else think it would have been even funnier if "James" killed his wife in the pool, rather than in the tub?
Sure, that is more than enough to cover hosting/bandwidth costs. For a high bandwidth site, there are download services that will serve your downloads for less than $1/GB (I know of one that offers $.75/GB, and I have heard of one in the $.50/GB range). And remember that these ISPs even make a profit at these rates. If such a movie distribution service were to take off, they could justify cutting out the middle man and serving the files directly, reducing their costs further.
I'm glad somebody else noticed this. The couldn't make sense out of half of what was said. Granted I don't have the best speakers on this particular computer, but I don't think I've ever heard a trailer with worse audio.
I don't get this. Why do people always say this as if tax deductions were some magical way to make money? If I make a $1000 donation and pay 30% ($300) in taxes, I'm really out $1300 (since I paid the $1000, and still paid the $300 tax). In the best case, where the donation is 100% deductable, all that means is that I pay the $1000 and no taxes. I don't make a magical profit off of it. In fact, I have $700 less than I would if I had not made the donation.
Now, on the otherhand, if himself or his family (or the stockholders, or whoever) were the direct recipients (like parent's who "hire" and "pay" thier kids thousands of dollars a year to get a better tax rate), then yes it would be something to bitch about.
"My operating costs have gone up 1,000 percent this year, just so I can figure out how to get around all these filters," said Balan, a former truck driver and pinball machine mechanic.
Pinball machine mechanic? And now a spammer? Boy, this guy sure has a way of picking his jobs. Maybe he should have stuck it out as a truck driver.
Yes, it would work perfectly because a cop would never notice that your license plate is an LCD, right?
And you think it's bad/expensive/inconvenient when people go around stealing registration tabs from plates? Just wait until they decided to steal the whole LCD.
But you said the term "cable service" wans't even mentioned. Its right there in the title. Read down a bit further, you will see the term is again used, and not in the title.
The point about receiving extra channels is no different. When you sign up, you are signing on to receive a certain set of channels. Each additional channel is an additional service. If you steal an additional channel, you steal a service you didnt subscribe to. I dont think the quantity of bandwidth you consume is quite the same thing, but that's a thin line I suppose.
"Secondly, when they breached the contract, their authorization was revoked"
Their authorization is not revoked until the cable company removes their service. If the cable company had not yet removed the service, they were simply operating outside the realm of the contract while still being authorized to receive the service.
Another way to think about this is if a friend came over to your house, and you told him "I'll let you in, but only if you are nice to me." So you let him in, and then the friend says something mean to you. You cant instantly charge him for tresspassing. You have to remove him from your house and wait for him to come back in (or for him to refuse to leave in the first place) before you can consider the act trespassing. Unless that happens, all you have against him is breach of a verbal contract.
"I don't see where the term "cable service" is mentioned in the law"
Perhaps you should read all the way down to...the title:
"Sec. 553. - Unauthorized reception of cable service"
Besides, even IF this law applied, they aren't getting an unauthorized reception. They were authorized to receive it, but were using it beyond the terms of their contract.
Are you sure it's not 47 U.S.C. 553 [cornell.edu]?
Pretty sure. That law applies to cable service. Internet service, even over a cable system, is a completely different beast. I know, because in the fiasco of Comcast buying Mediaone and then failing to follow through on the promises they made, I started checking in with the local cable franchises to see what they could do, and what policies existed. It turns out they dont fall under the same classification, arent subject to the same laws, etc.
Im not the slightest bit worried about it. It wont happen in that way. Its just paranoia. Remember back long before XP came out, and everyone was talking about how horrible XP was going to be because it was going to only allow you to run digitally signed applications? Didnt happen, and it wont. The average joe user wants to run fun little $5 and $10 games and apps that they download (think card games, personal diaries, system utilities, etc). They want to run these cute little freeware screen savers that friends email to them. Its not going to fly.
The article talks about digitally signing everything, all purchase transactions, etc. Again, it wont happen. People want to provide as little identification as possible when they are browsing porn sites, and face it...porn is pretty darn popular. So at the very least, you are going to have to leave open some holes for certain things to happen. But once you leave a hole open in your ship, there isnt much you can do to stop if from sinking. One hole is all virus writers and spammers need to get the nasty stuff through.
And doesn't anyone at Microsoft remember what happened when Intel put a simple processor serial number in their CPUs? People bitched up a storm about it. And that wasnt even a personal identifier (it identified your CPU...and if you changed CPUs nobody would know). Now they are talking about something that would identify you personally? Not gonna happen.
And another thing, did Microsoft even collaborate with anyone on this? I know they have agreements from Intel and AMD to manfacture chips, but as far as I can tell from everything I read, Microsoft has masterminded this whole thing on their own. Ignoring for the moment the fact that I dont think consumers will adopt the idea, I dont think Microsoft could be successful in addressing all the necessary issues on their own. Even if 50 of the top companies got together and tried to come up with something like this, it would still be extremely difficult for them to come up with something robust, secure, and that addresses all future possibilities. If Microsoft is masterminding this on their own, its going to be a million times more difficult to do so.
The difference is that the cell or organism is a living thing. In order to safeguard against companies patenting cells/genes/dna/whatever and then claiming any type of property rights (you cant transplant that organ unless you pay me a fee...I have a patent on the genes in that heart), the patent is only allowed to cover creating the gene/dna, and not cases where the gene/dna creates itself.
Not a problem, since he's probably now sterile
Is it really shorter? When I saw the movie, some angles I thought it was shorter, others I thought it was the same length. I was thinking that it was just the fact that he is a lot shorter and thus lower to the ground, and the semi-overhead perspective makes it look shorter. All in all, I really couldnt make up my mind either way, but at least I'm not the only one who saw this.
This is informative? I think a bunch of Lepricans run our country, so much so that I started eating Lucky Charms cereal just to make sure I'm on their good side. Is this informative?
Seriously, if you want to say Sirius is a dead end, give us details. As it is, it sounds like you are saying "They have to be going out of business, because I made money shorting their stock". That can happen with any stock. Give us details.
Wrong. Launch codes are only 10 digits. Didn't you ever see WarGames? TV never lies.