In order to deal with the additional burden of customers who say they are being overcharged, the cost would probably not work out in your favor. They would have to charge at least $1 per hour, and at the rate your playing you'd pay more on that plan. You'd hate it when you went over your hours and were charged more than the unlimited players, and you'd want a 'cap' at the unlimited payment rate, but since there is an additional overhead there would be no reason for them to cap it for you.
In the end, it wouldn't work out for either you or the publisher. Perhaps once a viable micropayment system is in place...
If they put the bling on their card, fewer modders will try doing the work themselves, and there will be fewer 'warranty' returns that wouldn't have failed without that extra little bit of help.
Plus, consider your market. Many (if not most) gamers who will pay for high end equipment want it to be easily distinguishable from low end equipment so they can show off their stuff. How many gamers paying $600 for a video card can recite exactly whats on their system at any given time? A very high percentage. Making that visual sells the card.
My grocery store has been printing coupons with the receipt forever.
I buy pampers, and a Huggies coupon pops out.
What's the big deal? Litigation for litigations sake, and the low possibility that they'll win, meanwhile they (both sides) get lots of press and the people who already love google or geico will side with their brand. People who don't will be branded and will recognize the name later but probably not the reason they remember the name.
It's an expensive advertising campaign at best, and a waste of money and time at worst.
He could try (drum-roll please) treating his daughters like human beings.
I'm glad we have such an expert on how to treat people like human beings.
So please enlighten us. How is limiting access to the internet to a reasonable amount of time (depending on the PARENT's standards/values/beliefs) not treating them like human beings?
If your child sat in front of the TV every waking moment they weren't forced to do something else, you would, I hope, limit their access. It's the same situation with computers in many cases. It's interactive, and possible to do many different things with the computer where the TV may be more limited, but if they're on the computer 8 hours a day and you don't consider it a problem then it will become a huge problem for them later in life.
Guaranteed.
As far as using the internet as a 'carrot', what about that do you really object to? Do you believe that children always make good choices with no parental influence? Do you believe choices children make don't affect their entire life? I certianly believe in letting them make their own decisions, but I'm going to curb them if they start going down a path I disagree strongly with, and I'll especially block them as much as possible if they start making decisions which will change their lives in a bad way.
Some decisions, made as children, have major lifelong consequences. It's better, in my opinion (and far easier!), to have lots of little nudges in the right direction constantly than to try to force several huge changes occasionally.
Personnally I prefer the carrot approach, rather than the stick, in helping my children make good choices.
Lastly, are you suggesting that animal mistreatment is acceptable? Why would you suggest that instead of parenting classes, if you honestly thought there was a problem?
Pick one:
When he becomes Republican.
When he stops running for public, private, or any other office.
When he actually stops doing things that can easily be picked on in a 2 second sound bite.
When the Democrats finally give up.
When Mrs. Clinton comes into the spotlight (along with the next Mr. Lewinsky) (Zing!)
I'd think that right before sunset the clock would read 6:00PM, so that's over an hour and a half off.
You would think wrong. The reason for the earlier sunset and later sunrise is that the sun is being blocked by the southern horizon (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere) more and more as the earth 'tilts away' from the sun. The angle of incidence, while not linear, is not going to cause such a clock to be off by as much as you indicate.
I assumed what I believe to be a rather high number for the sake of the argument - even if 30-40% of HIV/AIDS sufferers were completely protecting themselves then the original point that 'most' infections occur from 'irresponsible' (I prefer 'risky') behavior is still true.
But let's discuss this further. Show me the numbers. I've linked to two seperate sources of infection source information, neither of which quantifies 'risk'.
Are you claiming that all homosexual infections occur from responsible interaction? Are you claiming that all heterosexual infections occur from irrersponsible interaction?
My claim is that fewer than 20% of the HIV/AIDS infections occur even when the individual is avoiding every situation which puts them at risk. What I'm saying is that I suspect that 80% of those carrying the HIV virus made a choice which put them at great risk to get HIV/AIDS.
Do I have numbers to back this up? No. No numbers for this seem to exist, though I certian someone has more information on this subject.
I did not intend to claim that all homosexual infection is irresponsible. What I was trying to say is that a 'safe' assumption could probably be made - between all sexual infections, perhaps as much as 20% occured through no fault of the person infected, while they were doing everything they could to protect themselves.
By leaving out infections caused by drug use, are you insinuating that all drug infection is irresponsible? Do you find that insulting?
I don't claim that my numbers are correct. I made assumptions, which I pointed out and linked to other documents, then I gave my argument.
I believe my argument is still valid, despite assumptions which may be off by some small amount.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could point me to statistics that prove, disprove, or would otherwise affect my argument.
Since the infection cause is not broken down into long term relationship details, then I believe a rather liberal number of 'all heterosexual contact' would cover those in either category who are acting responsibly.
There's no easy way to tell, however. I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that more than 10% of those infected in either category are in committed, long term relationships and are not at any higher risk than I am. But if that were the case, I'd expect more than 2% of the population to be affected.
The CDC has a more comprehensive report but it only breaks it down a little bit - heterosexual contact with IV drug users, etc. It doesn't comment on how long these partners were together.
The report is very interesting overall.
-Adam
Re:Mixed feeling
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I realize that your sheltered existence makes it easy for you to dismiss the majority of the millions who suffer from HIV as irresponsible, but I'm here to tell you, it's not always so, nor do I find that most cases (at least that I know of through the support groups) are caused by irresponsibility.
If you assume that all heterosexual contact infections were 'responsible', and then add in blood transfusions, coagulation disorders and other 'responsible' actions, then you still end up accounting for under 20% of infections in the US.
HIV/AIDS is terrible, and I certianly don't want to discount the lives that are affected by it.
However, claiming that the majority of infections, at least in the US, are not preventable is far more dangerous than saying that "Chalking a majority of infections to irresponsibility is facile and dangerous."
The caveat 'at least in the US' applies because in other countries, especially the African nations, the culture of male dominance actually speeds the infection. A large percentage of those infected perhaps did not have the opportunity to act responsibly.
I understand how to protect my computer from virus and other attacks, and therefore I have not had an infection on any of my computers for over a decade.
I understand how to protect myself from sexually and body fluid transmitted diseases, and therefore I am not HIV/AIDS positive.
I don't claim that I am immune - far from it - but my chances are greatly reduced. Perhaps equal to your chances prior to your infection.
I claim that if everyone chose to avoid placing themselves in risky situations, whether it be visiting a warez site and catching a virus, or getting drunk at a party and sleeping with a stranger, then the incidence would be drastically reduced. If this was the case, then efforts could go into protecting 'innocent' sufferers of the disease who got it not by risky behavior, but through other's risky behavior.
What the parent is pointing out is that you are not only a minority being part of the 2% of Americans suffering with this disease, you are also a minority within the disease, being one of the few who got it without engaging in risky behavior.
I hope for a simple, cheap treatment and eventual cure for this virus and the disease that generally follows. Until then, I hope that people act responsibly - that is our current best, and only, effective defense.
I cannot possibly understand what you are going through, but I wish you the best of luck.
-Adam
Re:Done in by the people who would buy this stuff
on
Buy a Piece of Acclaim
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Are you making the claim that if their games were not pirated Acclaim would not have failed?
I don't agree with piracy (though, for a variety of personal reasons, I hate protection schemes that require the disk to play, or activation over the internet), but that is part of the business of computer software, like it or not. If Acclaim truly failed because of piracy, then it's due to them underestimating the extent of the piracy, or not taking proper precautions. There is no perfect solution to piracy, so any reasonable business plan must include its effects.
As far as treating the 'creators with the respect they deserve' do you also believe that video game companies should treat the creators with the respect they deserve? And what, pray tell, respect do these various creators deserve, exactly?
My experience has been that with any profession if you, not part of that profession, claim to know better or push them to do what you believe needs to be done, they will be infinitely less useful than they would be otherwise.
Think about computer technical support, as an example we are all familiar with. They are paid to solve your problem according to their standards as quickly as possible, then get the the next call.
Physicians are not different, due to hospital and insurance policy.
If you act belligerent, and insist that you know what's wrong and that they are to follow your orders, they will likely turn a deaf ear to your complaints, do the minimum necessary that won't get them in trouble, and hope that you bug some other physician next time.
Further, like a tech, if they hear that you are searching for the right doctor to diagnose you according to your desires, they will all the more easily dismiss your problem. Firstly because you may well be a hypochondriac, secondly because they know you won't stop until you're treated, and thus they don't need to be burdened with the thought that you might take their advice and then die.
The best way I've found to deal with people who essentially must operate according to a 'script' or 'SOP' is to approach them with my most major complaints/symptoms, avoid using any terminology that might show I know more than I'm letting on, and let them go through their normal procedures.
Doctors (and techs) are getting more used to the idea of self-help, so it can help sometimes to say something like, "I looked my symptoms up online and [reliable medical website] suggested something called 'technical term'. Is there a way to prove that I don't have that?"
The reason physicians and techs are so jaded is because in the vast majority of cases, the doctor hopping, belligerent, advice ignoring patient/client is wrong. Further, if they aren't willing to go through your normal procedure for knocking off the most obvious problems, there's no way in this world that they'll diagnose you for something that is rare.
The fact that your are doctor hopping and hospital hurts you more than it helps. At the minimum you need to get a copy of your medical record from every provider you've visited and then choose a doctor/health system and stick with them. Changing doctors is resetting your medical care. A new doctor has to start from scratch.
Lastly, make sure the 'trouble ticket' isn't closed until you are satisfied. If the doctor gives you a clean bill of health, then ask them why you still have these symptoms. If they won't give you a clear answer, then ask to be bumped up to the second tier of support. There are only three reasons why you might continue to have these symptoms, and ask them point blank which one it is: 1) You have an unresolved medical problem or 2) You are imagining your medical problem or 3) You are considering something 'normal' to be a medical or resolvable issue (ie, there is no treatment)
Tell them this is causing a quality of life issue, and if the problem is 1 then you need it to be resolved. If it's 2 then ask them to send you to a qualified psychologist (who can rule out or resolve hypochondria). If it's 3 then ask them who can help you resolve your pain and suffering so you can be productive again.
I'm sure I don't have the whole story from this side of the issue, nevermind the doctor's side of the issue, so I can't really weigh in on this particular case. My gut tells me that if this was a serious (ie, death at the door) case, then portions of his body would be failing in a detectable way. Especially if he's had this 'bacterial infection' for this long. Perhaps systems are failing and doctors haven't been given the chance (or time before switching) to find them. Funny thing about 'normal' levels of [measurement x] is that normal is a large band, and while you may fall in that band, it may not be normal for you. Until you have a comprehensive case h
So saying that the plants are 'dark' is a wee bit of an overstatment, ya think?
Yes, I think that saying the plants are dark is a wee bit of an overstatement.
Saying the plants have "all but gone dark" is not.
However, these plants will continue to run for years to come. They'll be sold to companies wanting to produce a cheap monitor for developing markets. So it's unlikely they will go dark any time soon.
I am exaggerating, but clearly the CRT industry is losing the market that it used to be the only reasonable solution for. It will maintain a double percentage market share for some time yet.
Sure, if you want to trade depth for width. Note that these tubes were about twice as tall or wide as the actual screen height or width.
Even back then you can see the tit-for-tat between the british and the french: It is for example a multi-standard receiver with automatic switching between most u.h.f. standards worldwide except for France.
The electron beams (RGB) have to be deflected at a very severe angle right out of the gun, then they have to be redeflected to undo the angle so they hit the grille and phospher relatively straight. Chances are good that the grille and phospher coating is also carefully designed for an exact angle of entry for each pixel on the screen since the electrons will not only not be perpendicular to the screen, but the particular angle will be different for each pixel. The signals driving the coils are going to be very complex, but that's taken care of with high speed DSPs.
This is not new technology - they wouldn't be introducing this if it meant they'd have to change the tube manufacturing process more than a little bit. This is the last gasp of the CRT industry in order to use the leftover production capability of plants that have all but gone dark.
Actually, when they say "The best of both worlds" they mean:
The best of both worlds: LCD Profits and Sales, without building a new factory. They can build these for much less than the cost of an LCD, but they can price them with a much higher margin than current CRTs.
The reality is they are losing market share fast, and this is a way to shore up their sales while they write off the plants that inevitably will not only be worthless, but will cost them money to get rid of because of all the contamination.
There are many things you can do, some which will help lower bandwidth and requests, others will simply cost money to implement.
First, put a meta cache tag in the web page, and make sure your webserver responds properly to "Has this page changed" requests. A lot of downloads are simply going to be people playing it over and over again - by going to your web page. Let the proxies and caches do their job by making sure they know your page isn't changing for a month.
Second, lower the bandwidth. The music is one obvious spot - select a lower quality encoding. Simplify the flash as much as possible. You may not be able to do much, but if you completely re-think it you will be surprised how small a high quality flash can be.
Develop the website properly. Put in a message that says "Please wait while loading..." since many web users will impatiently click on the url over and over if they don't see the flash immediately, causing extra stress and bandwidth on the server. In the extreme, consider limiting downloads and queuing visitors. "Your card will show in 25 seconds, please wait."
Also be aware of content thieves. Make sure your server is configured to upload the content only to users who have specifically requested your webpage (not just the file on the page). If you look through the server logs of old you may find a lot of referrer tags coming from sites that embedded your url on their page and got revenue on your work, without paying for the bandwidth, nevermind obeying copyright laws.
Third, you need at minimum a bandwidth of 25Mb/s (assuming you meant 230Gbytes, and not 230Gbits). The real minimum is actually closer to twice that since the bursty traffic will be at least twice the average traffic. This means you need to host a dedicated server with someone who has a T3 or greater dedicated to your use. This is big bucks. You may find that it will be cheaper working with a content distribution service such as Akamai.
Lastly, while notriety is nice, and it's fun to see everyone looking at you, make sure you are weighing all the costs - including your sanity - against the percieved benefit. For this type of thing, if you aren't making money then it usually isn't worth it.
confirmed that there will be a Metal Gear Solid 4...this news casts the 'Final Episode of the Metal Gear Solid Trilogy', Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, in a new light.
Lowly Production Manager: Sorry, sir - it won't be completely finished in time for Christmas. I will commit sepeku for this dishonor.
Boss: No need, grasshopper. We will simply ship it and let the ending dangle. Finish the story line with #4, and then we will consider your ritual suicide.
LPM: Yes sir, thank you sir.
Heh heh. I love completely ludicrious stereotypes.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the odds are better than most slot machines, and vastly better than most state lotteries.
Quite frankly, I don't trust the odds NASA is giving until I get the real odds from my bookie.
-Adam
According to the ad copy it'll even work in your 486DX system!
I just found it funny to see the picture demonstrating the device in a computer that needs no special CPU cooling.
-Adam
Until the MPAA submits the Freenet torrent to the Freenet torrent. It would all go down in recursive flames.
-Adam
Actually, the more regular noobs who get IP banned, the faster slashdot will go for the rest of us.
Good plan!
-Adam
In order to deal with the additional burden of customers who say they are being overcharged, the cost would probably not work out in your favor. They would have to charge at least $1 per hour, and at the rate your playing you'd pay more on that plan. You'd hate it when you went over your hours and were charged more than the unlimited players, and you'd want a 'cap' at the unlimited payment rate, but since there is an additional overhead there would be no reason for them to cap it for you.
In the end, it wouldn't work out for either you or the publisher. Perhaps once a viable micropayment system is in place...
-Adam
If they put the bling on their card, fewer modders will try doing the work themselves, and there will be fewer 'warranty' returns that wouldn't have failed without that extra little bit of help.
Plus, consider your market. Many (if not most) gamers who will pay for high end equipment want it to be easily distinguishable from low end equipment so they can show off their stuff. How many gamers paying $600 for a video card can recite exactly whats on their system at any given time? A very high percentage. Making that visual sells the card.
-Adam
My grocery store has been printing coupons with the receipt forever.
I buy pampers, and a Huggies coupon pops out.
What's the big deal? Litigation for litigations sake, and the low possibility that they'll win, meanwhile they (both sides) get lots of press and the people who already love google or geico will side with their brand. People who don't will be branded and will recognize the name later but probably not the reason they remember the name.
It's an expensive advertising campaign at best, and a waste of money and time at worst.
-Adam
When a person is using a cell phone there is one party that is in a different environment. And he leads the conversation
Have you ever had the urge to turn down the volume of your phone when talking to someone you don't like and making them shout?
*I* haven't done this, but it makes for good times I bet.
-Adam
He could try (drum-roll please) treating his daughters like human beings.
I'm glad we have such an expert on how to treat people like human beings.
So please enlighten us. How is limiting access to the internet to a reasonable amount of time (depending on the PARENT's standards/values/beliefs) not treating them like human beings?
If your child sat in front of the TV every waking moment they weren't forced to do something else, you would, I hope, limit their access. It's the same situation with computers in many cases. It's interactive, and possible to do many different things with the computer where the TV may be more limited, but if they're on the computer 8 hours a day and you don't consider it a problem then it will become a huge problem for them later in life.
Guaranteed.
As far as using the internet as a 'carrot', what about that do you really object to? Do you believe that children always make good choices with no parental influence? Do you believe choices children make don't affect their entire life? I certianly believe in letting them make their own decisions, but I'm going to curb them if they start going down a path I disagree strongly with, and I'll especially block them as much as possible if they start making decisions which will change their lives in a bad way.
Some decisions, made as children, have major lifelong consequences. It's better, in my opinion (and far easier!), to have lots of little nudges in the right direction constantly than to try to force several huge changes occasionally.
Personnally I prefer the carrot approach, rather than the stick, in helping my children make good choices.
Lastly, are you suggesting that animal mistreatment is acceptable? Why would you suggest that instead of parenting classes, if you honestly thought there was a problem?
-Adam
When will Republicans stop picking on this man?
Pick one:
When he becomes Republican.
When he stops running for public, private, or any other office.
When he actually stops doing things that can easily be picked on in a 2 second sound bite.
When the Democrats finally give up.
When Mrs. Clinton comes into the spotlight (along with the next Mr. Lewinsky) (Zing!)
-Adam
I'd think that right before sunset the clock would read 6:00PM, so that's over an hour and a half off.
You would think wrong. The reason for the earlier sunset and later sunrise is that the sun is being blocked by the southern horizon (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere) more and more as the earth 'tilts away' from the sun. The angle of incidence, while not linear, is not going to cause such a clock to be off by as much as you indicate.
-Adam
I assumed what I believe to be a rather high number for the sake of the argument - even if 30-40% of HIV/AIDS sufferers were completely protecting themselves then the original point that 'most' infections occur from 'irresponsible' (I prefer 'risky') behavior is still true.
But let's discuss this further. Show me the numbers. I've linked to two seperate sources of infection source information, neither of which quantifies 'risk'.
Are you claiming that all homosexual infections occur from responsible interaction? Are you claiming that all heterosexual infections occur from irrersponsible interaction?
My claim is that fewer than 20% of the HIV/AIDS infections occur even when the individual is avoiding every situation which puts them at risk. What I'm saying is that I suspect that 80% of those carrying the HIV virus made a choice which put them at great risk to get HIV/AIDS.
Do I have numbers to back this up? No. No numbers for this seem to exist, though I certian someone has more information on this subject.
I did not intend to claim that all homosexual infection is irresponsible. What I was trying to say is that a 'safe' assumption could probably be made - between all sexual infections, perhaps as much as 20% occured through no fault of the person infected, while they were doing everything they could to protect themselves.
By leaving out infections caused by drug use, are you insinuating that all drug infection is irresponsible? Do you find that insulting?
I don't claim that my numbers are correct. I made assumptions, which I pointed out and linked to other documents, then I gave my argument.
I believe my argument is still valid, despite assumptions which may be off by some small amount.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could point me to statistics that prove, disprove, or would otherwise affect my argument.
-Adam
the forth boot
There's your problem - the Thinkpad was never meant to be booted with Forth. Some bios software is written in Forth, but not the thinkpad.
-Adam
Since the infection cause is not broken down into long term relationship details, then I believe a rather liberal number of 'all heterosexual contact' would cover those in either category who are acting responsibly.
There's no easy way to tell, however. I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that more than 10% of those infected in either category are in committed, long term relationships and are not at any higher risk than I am. But if that were the case, I'd expect more than 2% of the population to be affected.
The CDC has a more comprehensive report but it only breaks it down a little bit - heterosexual contact with IV drug users, etc. It doesn't comment on how long these partners were together.
The report is very interesting overall.
-Adam
I realize that your sheltered existence makes it easy for you to dismiss the majority of the millions who suffer from HIV as irresponsible, but I'm here to tell you, it's not always so, nor do I find that most cases (at least that I know of through the support groups) are caused by irresponsibility.
If you assume that all heterosexual contact infections were 'responsible', and then add in blood transfusions, coagulation disorders and other 'responsible' actions, then you still end up accounting for under 20% of infections in the US.
HIV/AIDS is terrible, and I certianly don't want to discount the lives that are affected by it.
However, claiming that the majority of infections, at least in the US, are not preventable is far more dangerous than saying that "Chalking a majority of infections to irresponsibility is facile and dangerous."
The caveat 'at least in the US' applies because in other countries, especially the African nations, the culture of male dominance actually speeds the infection. A large percentage of those infected perhaps did not have the opportunity to act responsibly.
I understand how to protect my computer from virus and other attacks, and therefore I have not had an infection on any of my computers for over a decade.
I understand how to protect myself from sexually and body fluid transmitted diseases, and therefore I am not HIV/AIDS positive.
I don't claim that I am immune - far from it - but my chances are greatly reduced. Perhaps equal to your chances prior to your infection.
I claim that if everyone chose to avoid placing themselves in risky situations, whether it be visiting a warez site and catching a virus, or getting drunk at a party and sleeping with a stranger, then the incidence would be drastically reduced. If this was the case, then efforts could go into protecting 'innocent' sufferers of the disease who got it not by risky behavior, but through other's risky behavior.
What the parent is pointing out is that you are not only a minority being part of the 2% of Americans suffering with this disease, you are also a minority within the disease, being one of the few who got it without engaging in risky behavior.
I hope for a simple, cheap treatment and eventual cure for this virus and the disease that generally follows. Until then, I hope that people act responsibly - that is our current best, and only, effective defense.
I cannot possibly understand what you are going through, but I wish you the best of luck.
-Adam
Are you making the claim that if their games were not pirated Acclaim would not have failed?
I don't agree with piracy (though, for a variety of personal reasons, I hate protection schemes that require the disk to play, or activation over the internet), but that is part of the business of computer software, like it or not. If Acclaim truly failed because of piracy, then it's due to them underestimating the extent of the piracy, or not taking proper precautions. There is no perfect solution to piracy, so any reasonable business plan must include its effects.
As far as treating the 'creators with the respect they deserve' do you also believe that video game companies should treat the creators with the respect they deserve? And what, pray tell, respect do these various creators deserve, exactly?
-Adam
My experience has been that with any profession if you, not part of that profession, claim to know better or push them to do what you believe needs to be done, they will be infinitely less useful than they would be otherwise.
Think about computer technical support, as an example we are all familiar with. They are paid to solve your problem according to their standards as quickly as possible, then get the the next call.
Physicians are not different, due to hospital and insurance policy.
If you act belligerent, and insist that you know what's wrong and that they are to follow your orders, they will likely turn a deaf ear to your complaints, do the minimum necessary that won't get them in trouble, and hope that you bug some other physician next time.
Further, like a tech, if they hear that you are searching for the right doctor to diagnose you according to your desires, they will all the more easily dismiss your problem. Firstly because you may well be a hypochondriac, secondly because they know you won't stop until you're treated, and thus they don't need to be burdened with the thought that you might take their advice and then die.
The best way I've found to deal with people who essentially must operate according to a 'script' or 'SOP' is to approach them with my most major complaints/symptoms, avoid using any terminology that might show I know more than I'm letting on, and let them go through their normal procedures.
Doctors (and techs) are getting more used to the idea of self-help, so it can help sometimes to say something like, "I looked my symptoms up online and [reliable medical website] suggested something called 'technical term'. Is there a way to prove that I don't have that?"
The reason physicians and techs are so jaded is because in the vast majority of cases, the doctor hopping, belligerent, advice ignoring patient/client is wrong. Further, if they aren't willing to go through your normal procedure for knocking off the most obvious problems, there's no way in this world that they'll diagnose you for something that is rare.
The fact that your are doctor hopping and hospital hurts you more than it helps. At the minimum you need to get a copy of your medical record from every provider you've visited and then choose a doctor/health system and stick with them. Changing doctors is resetting your medical care. A new doctor has to start from scratch.
Lastly, make sure the 'trouble ticket' isn't closed until you are satisfied. If the doctor gives you a clean bill of health, then ask them why you still have these symptoms. If they won't give you a clear answer, then ask to be bumped up to the second tier of support. There are only three reasons why you might continue to have these symptoms, and ask them point blank which one it is: 1) You have an unresolved medical problem or 2) You are imagining your medical problem or 3) You are considering something 'normal' to be a medical or resolvable issue (ie, there is no treatment)
Tell them this is causing a quality of life issue, and if the problem is 1 then you need it to be resolved. If it's 2 then ask them to send you to a qualified psychologist (who can rule out or resolve hypochondria). If it's 3 then ask them who can help you resolve your pain and suffering so you can be productive again.
I'm sure I don't have the whole story from this side of the issue, nevermind the doctor's side of the issue, so I can't really weigh in on this particular case. My gut tells me that if this was a serious (ie, death at the door) case, then portions of his body would be failing in a detectable way. Especially if he's had this 'bacterial infection' for this long. Perhaps systems are failing and doctors haven't been given the chance (or time before switching) to find them. Funny thing about 'normal' levels of [measurement x] is that normal is a large band, and while you may fall in that band, it may not be normal for you. Until you have a comprehensive case h
Take this one step further, to prevent changing on the day of the election, then changing the code before the post election audit:
Print a hash on each voter receipt.
-Adam
So saying that the plants are 'dark' is a wee bit of an overstatment, ya think?
Yes, I think that saying the plants are dark is a wee bit of an overstatement.
Saying the plants have "all but gone dark" is not.
However, these plants will continue to run for years to come. They'll be sold to companies wanting to produce a cheap monitor for developing markets. So it's unlikely they will go dark any time soon.
I am exaggerating, but clearly the CRT industry is losing the market that it used to be the only reasonable solution for. It will maintain a double percentage market share for some time yet.
-Adam
Sure, if you want to trade depth for width. Note that these tubes were about twice as tall or wide as the actual screen height or width.
;-)
Even back then you can see the tit-for-tat between the british and the french:
It is for example a multi-standard receiver with automatic switching between most u.h.f. standards worldwide except for France.
-Adam
The electron beams (RGB) have to be deflected at a very severe angle right out of the gun, then they have to be redeflected to undo the angle so they hit the grille and phospher relatively straight. Chances are good that the grille and phospher coating is also carefully designed for an exact angle of entry for each pixel on the screen since the electrons will not only not be perpendicular to the screen, but the particular angle will be different for each pixel. The signals driving the coils are going to be very complex, but that's taken care of with high speed DSPs.
This is not new technology - they wouldn't be introducing this if it meant they'd have to change the tube manufacturing process more than a little bit. This is the last gasp of the CRT industry in order to use the leftover production capability of plants that have all but gone dark.
-Adam
Actually, when they say "The best of both worlds" they mean:
The best of both worlds: LCD Profits and Sales, without building a new factory. They can build these for much less than the cost of an LCD, but they can price them with a much higher margin than current CRTs.
The reality is they are losing market share fast, and this is a way to shore up their sales while they write off the plants that inevitably will not only be worthless, but will cost them money to get rid of because of all the contamination.
-Adam
There are many things you can do, some which will help lower bandwidth and requests, others will simply cost money to implement.
First, put a meta cache tag in the web page, and make sure your webserver responds properly to "Has this page changed" requests. A lot of downloads are simply going to be people playing it over and over again - by going to your web page. Let the proxies and caches do their job by making sure they know your page isn't changing for a month.
Second, lower the bandwidth. The music is one obvious spot - select a lower quality encoding. Simplify the flash as much as possible. You may not be able to do much, but if you completely re-think it you will be surprised how small a high quality flash can be.
Develop the website properly. Put in a message that says "Please wait while loading..." since many web users will impatiently click on the url over and over if they don't see the flash immediately, causing extra stress and bandwidth on the server. In the extreme, consider limiting downloads and queuing visitors. "Your card will show in 25 seconds, please wait."
Also be aware of content thieves. Make sure your server is configured to upload the content only to users who have specifically requested your webpage (not just the file on the page). If you look through the server logs of old you may find a lot of referrer tags coming from sites that embedded your url on their page and got revenue on your work, without paying for the bandwidth, nevermind obeying copyright laws.
Third, you need at minimum a bandwidth of 25Mb/s (assuming you meant 230Gbytes, and not 230Gbits). The real minimum is actually closer to twice that since the bursty traffic will be at least twice the average traffic. This means you need to host a dedicated server with someone who has a T3 or greater dedicated to your use. This is big bucks. You may find that it will be cheaper working with a content distribution service such as Akamai.
Lastly, while notriety is nice, and it's fun to see everyone looking at you, make sure you are weighing all the costs - including your sanity - against the percieved benefit. For this type of thing, if you aren't making money then it usually isn't worth it.
-Adam
confirmed that there will be a Metal Gear Solid 4...this news casts the 'Final Episode of the Metal Gear Solid Trilogy', Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, in a new light.
Lowly Production Manager: Sorry, sir - it won't be completely finished in time for Christmas. I will commit sepeku for this dishonor.
Boss: No need, grasshopper. We will simply ship it and let the ending dangle. Finish the story line with #4, and then we will consider your ritual suicide.
LPM: Yes sir, thank you sir.
Heh heh. I love completely ludicrious stereotypes.
-Adam
Ah, so it's really a way to add a higher gasoline tax on more fuel efficient cars.
In other words, they'd be shot down in an instant with a higher gas tax, but 'how many miles you drive' seems somewhat more egalitarian.
If the tax went soley to road maintenance and traffic control then sure, go for it. But these taxes are likely used for the overall state budget.
-Adam