B) PS3s are uniform. Other than HD differences, a PS3 built in 2008 will be the same PS3 built in 2012 (assuming the PS3 lasts that long) this allows for a uniform cluster without worrying about differing parts (for example, the Core i7 built in 2008 will not be the same as the Core i7 built in 2012 and getting a 2008 Core i7 is going to be a pain)
Don't rely on this - there are large hardware differences between early PS2 and later PS2 models as manufacturing tweaks and cost reduction packages were applied to the production process, to the extent where some games refused to run and some features were changed. I don't expect Sony to act any differently with the PS3.
The Shuttle is not designed for long term spaceflight - it has a limited life power source and leaks like hell (much more than the ISS wants to sustain over a long period of time).
If a semi-ballistic transport can be made reliable then a lot of money will be saved on time alone. The problem is that going half way around the Earth uses almost as much fuel as going into orbit, so you need a complete shuttle stack to do it.
The problem with semi-ballistic, or sub-orbital hops, is that you more often than not end up wearing your breakfast - which businessmen do not like to do.
There is scope for intercontinental flights to become faster, but there is also a balance to be met between speed and passenger comfort./p?
They refuse to listen to their market segment (touchscreen Mac, mac pro mini, and others)
More like they refuse to dive headlong into a market segment the moment a few people bleat demands. Just because someone wants it, doesn't make it viable long term - or in the case of new technology, viable in the short term. Touch screens are all very well and good, but they open up a whole new ball of crap when it comes to full size systems.
I will agree with you, to the point where it is wrong to cover someone elses risk taking through refinancing from public sources. However, I think it is a basic requirement of a modern civilisation for the many to take care of the few that are in that position through no fault of their own - I'm not sure whether you are including this in your blanket statement, or if you are accepting it as a given without need of mention?
You say, very simplisticly, 'those who are religious or who have children surfing'. The problem is, one size does not fit all - censorship is extremely individualistic, because everyone has a different personal concept of what is acceptable and what is not.
Is hardcore sex Ok? What about softcore sex? How about scantilly clad women? Suggestive motions? Innuendo? Sex outside of marriage? Sex at all? Educational sex websites? Homosexuality? Promiscuity?
How about evolution? Should Comcast have to go to any length to censor the Encyclopedia Britannica because it has pages on evolution? What about pages that do not count Intelligent Design as science?
What about other religions? Should those be censored? Or just the sites that show other religions in a good light? On that note, which religion should be the 'good one'? Oh, looks like its a highly individualistic choice...
So, what should Comcast filter? And how should they filter it? What lengths should Comcast go to to filter? How many packages should Comcast offer to people wanting filtering? Is this an 'all or nothing' scenario?
What happens when Comcast accidentally let some unwanted content through? Whose fault is it, and what punishment is required? What about websites that went live 4 hours ago? Should Comcast be required to ensure any Youtube videos are acceptable before they can be played?
Now try telling me Comcast should be doing the filtering.
The default is 'everything' - you, and only you, should be responsible for limiting that to your household. Trying to cater to requirements that are, quite simply, infinitely diverse, and more importantly, trying to succeed at catering to those requirements is a job already set up to fail.
Your car provider doesn't let you, on your own request, limit what you or your family can do or say in the vehicle, nor where you can travel or how they drive while travelling there.
Your cellphone provider doesn't allow you to tell them what you can and cannot say during a conversation, nor who you can or cannot call (they may block premium rate numbers, but I've yet to see a provider that blocks sex lines but allows gaming lines).
Your kitchen provider doesn't cater for preventing you or your family members from buying fatty foods and storing them in your brand new refrigerator, or deciding what you can and cannot eat.
So your ISP should not be required to cater to what you should and should not be able to download - especially as 'censorship' is a highly individual 'want'. One persons opinion on what is acceptable is almost never in line with someone elses - you are never going to be able to cater to everyone, and the moment the ISP makes a mistake and either allows something through or blocks something they shouldn't, there will be heavy criticism from those very same people demanding the impossible.
That is why filtering should be done at your own end, its your personal choice and the ISP should not be responsible for limiting content to your own, personal demands.
Filtering is something you can, and should, provide yourself - it should not be the providers responsibility to cater to your individual whim (because that is what censorship is - highly individual).
But the big thing about Android is that you aren't limited to the Market Place for apps.... And who gets to write that text anyhow? The developers? Google?
Is selective quoting somehow the norm with some people? Try finishing Brabens quote, if you will:
Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's.
He isnt 'stating that you don't care if the games you make are good or bad', he's saying that it doesn't matter now because the second hand market has grown to the extent where it is reducing sales of new games. Good games no longer have a longer new sales period than bad games. The market has changed, and Braben is highlighting that fact.
You gloss over the 'Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients'.
Is this person in question representing some University office, and is the communication necessary to the normal course of business? Not as far as I can gather from what I have read on the subject thus far.
Context is everything. Your conclusion is lacking it.
If you visit a site daily, why don't you use a bookmark?
Why should I? In any case, sometimes typing the first few letters in a domain is faster than going to bookmarks, finding the right bookmark and selecting it.
You're not a customer, and free to use an alternative.
I most certainly am a customer - Mozilla gets income from my searches.
Interesting to note that I raise a valid complaint, one that many people seem to have, and I get back 'you are free to use something else'. If thats not kicking the customer in the teeth, what isn't?
Again, I say that if it wasn't Mozilla doing this.....
oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
You didn't look too hard, did you? Oldbar doesn't change what we want changed - the algorithm behind the url bar function. I wish people would stop offering it as the ultimate solution to the 'Awesome Bar', because it isn't.
Ahh, someone who knows me inside out - glad you could be of service, but nothing you said has been of any help to me.
Firstly, who said I wasn't using FF3? I certainly never did in this (or any other) thread - you simply surmised that from things I did say, and your assumption has proven to be wrong. I use FF3 daily, because it has better memory usage than FF2 - but the Awesome Bar still sucks, even after six months of usage and 'training' as it certainly doesn't seem to learn my browsing habits.
Take, for instance, the example I gave in another thread - I start typing the domain of a site I use daily and the 'Awesome Bar' decides that what I actually want is a site I visited once, several months ago. How many times should I train the 'Awesome Bar' in that situation?
I want my old url bar back. You have said nothing which has changed my opinion of the current system.
Fine, some people may find it better than the old alternative - so why not make it an option they could use? Even make it the default, just allow it to be disabled. Or am I worth less as a customer to Mozilla for some reason?
None of the addons actually work to the extent where I get my behaviour back - and I do tend to wonder why I need to go to such huge lengths, and time sinks, just to get the behavior that I have become acustomed to over the past 15 years. If it were anyone but Mozilla doing this....
I've given it since it was introduced - I still hate it. Do I need to give it any longer?
Explain to me why the 'Awesome Bar' decides that, when I start typing the domain name of a website I visit daily, it thinks I would prefer the url of a site I visited once several months ago? Daily or several months ago. What makes more sense?
The 'Awesome Bar' is one of the things I hate about FireFox 3 (and the hate list isn't all that big).
Thanks, Mozilla, for deciding that I need to change my tried and tested browsing habits of 15 years, simply because you think your way is better - you could have at least given us a way to revert to the old url bar behaviour, but you didn't.
And yes, I've installed various extensions, I've tweaked the about:config and no, it doesn't get the behaviour anywhere near FF2 - infact, some of it is just plain broken, like having the 'browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped' setting set to true still allows the url bar to match on non-typed urls.
Slashdot Mirror
B) PS3s are uniform. Other than HD differences, a PS3 built in 2008 will be the same PS3 built in 2012 (assuming the PS3 lasts that long) this allows for a uniform cluster without worrying about differing parts (for example, the Core i7 built in 2008 will not be the same as the Core i7 built in 2012 and getting a 2008 Core i7 is going to be a pain)
Don't rely on this - there are large hardware differences between early PS2 and later PS2 models as manufacturing tweaks and cost reduction packages were applied to the production process, to the extent where some games refused to run and some features were changed. I don't expect Sony to act any differently with the PS3.
Compared to custom hardware and software that the previous solution was constructed from...
The Shuttle is not designed for long term spaceflight - it has a limited life power source and leaks like hell (much more than the ISS wants to sustain over a long period of time).
If a semi-ballistic transport can be made reliable then a lot of money will be saved on time alone. The problem is that going half way around the Earth uses almost as much fuel as going into orbit, so you need a complete shuttle stack to do it.
The problem with semi-ballistic, or sub-orbital hops, is that you more often than not end up wearing your breakfast - which businessmen do not like to do.
There is scope for intercontinental flights to become faster, but there is also a balance to be met between speed and passenger comfort./p?
They refuse to listen to their market segment (touchscreen Mac, mac pro mini, and others)
More like they refuse to dive headlong into a market segment the moment a few people bleat demands. Just because someone wants it, doesn't make it viable long term - or in the case of new technology, viable in the short term. Touch screens are all very well and good, but they open up a whole new ball of crap when it comes to full size systems.
I will agree with you, to the point where it is wrong to cover someone elses risk taking through refinancing from public sources. However, I think it is a basic requirement of a modern civilisation for the many to take care of the few that are in that position through no fault of their own - I'm not sure whether you are including this in your blanket statement, or if you are accepting it as a given without need of mention?
So, I'm confused as to how they can justify this.
Why should they have to justify it?
Ok, let me try and restate my comment:
Who do Comcast aim their censorship at?
You say, very simplisticly, 'those who are religious or who have children surfing'. The problem is, one size does not fit all - censorship is extremely individualistic, because everyone has a different personal concept of what is acceptable and what is not.
Is hardcore sex Ok? What about softcore sex? How about scantilly clad women? Suggestive motions? Innuendo? Sex outside of marriage? Sex at all? Educational sex websites? Homosexuality? Promiscuity?
How about evolution? Should Comcast have to go to any length to censor the Encyclopedia Britannica because it has pages on evolution? What about pages that do not count Intelligent Design as science?
What about other religions? Should those be censored? Or just the sites that show other religions in a good light? On that note, which religion should be the 'good one'? Oh, looks like its a highly individualistic choice...
So, what should Comcast filter? And how should they filter it? What lengths should Comcast go to to filter? How many packages should Comcast offer to people wanting filtering? Is this an 'all or nothing' scenario?
What happens when Comcast accidentally let some unwanted content through? Whose fault is it, and what punishment is required? What about websites that went live 4 hours ago? Should Comcast be required to ensure any Youtube videos are acceptable before they can be played?
Now try telling me Comcast should be doing the filtering.
The default is 'everything' - you, and only you, should be responsible for limiting that to your household. Trying to cater to requirements that are, quite simply, infinitely diverse, and more importantly, trying to succeed at catering to those requirements is a job already set up to fail.
Your car provider doesn't let you, on your own request, limit what you or your family can do or say in the vehicle, nor where you can travel or how they drive while travelling there.
Your cellphone provider doesn't allow you to tell them what you can and cannot say during a conversation, nor who you can or cannot call (they may block premium rate numbers, but I've yet to see a provider that blocks sex lines but allows gaming lines).
Your kitchen provider doesn't cater for preventing you or your family members from buying fatty foods and storing them in your brand new refrigerator, or deciding what you can and cannot eat.
So your ISP should not be required to cater to what you should and should not be able to download - especially as 'censorship' is a highly individual 'want'. One persons opinion on what is acceptable is almost never in line with someone elses - you are never going to be able to cater to everyone, and the moment the ISP makes a mistake and either allows something through or blocks something they shouldn't, there will be heavy criticism from those very same people demanding the impossible.
That is why filtering should be done at your own end, its your personal choice and the ISP should not be responsible for limiting content to your own, personal demands.
Filtering is something you can, and should, provide yourself - it should not be the providers responsibility to cater to your individual whim (because that is what censorship is - highly individual).
But the big thing about Android is that you aren't limited to the Market Place for apps.... And who gets to write that text anyhow? The developers? Google?
Tell me again what Apache uses to determine how to handle content? I do believe it uses .... file extensions.
He isnt 'stating that you don't care if the games you make are good or bad', he's saying that it doesn't matter now because the second hand market has grown to the extent where it is reducing sales of new games. Good games no longer have a longer new sales period than bad games. The market has changed, and Braben is highlighting that fact.
You gloss over the 'Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients'.
Is this person in question representing some University office, and is the communication necessary to the normal course of business? Not as far as I can gather from what I have read on the subject thus far.
Context is everything. Your conclusion is lacking it.
How can it be unconstitutional? No publication or service *has* to carry your message.
Why couldnt he do both?
Oh I'm sorry, because I'm not paying money I don't have any grounds to complain?
I think your post says it all about the attitude involved here.
Safari, here I come.
If you visit a site daily, why don't you use a bookmark?
Why should I? In any case, sometimes typing the first few letters in a domain is faster than going to bookmarks, finding the right bookmark and selecting it.
You're not a customer, and free to use an alternative.
I most certainly am a customer - Mozilla gets income from my searches.
Interesting to note that I raise a valid complaint, one that many people seem to have, and I get back 'you are free to use something else'. If thats not kicking the customer in the teeth, what isn't?
Again, I say that if it wasn't Mozilla doing this.....
Banning murder, rape, fraud and every other crime has not made those activities go away.
oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
You didn't look too hard, did you? Oldbar doesn't change what we want changed - the algorithm behind the url bar function. I wish people would stop offering it as the ultimate solution to the 'Awesome Bar', because it isn't.
Ahh, someone who knows me inside out - glad you could be of service, but nothing you said has been of any help to me.
Firstly, who said I wasn't using FF3? I certainly never did in this (or any other) thread - you simply surmised that from things I did say, and your assumption has proven to be wrong. I use FF3 daily, because it has better memory usage than FF2 - but the Awesome Bar still sucks, even after six months of usage and 'training' as it certainly doesn't seem to learn my browsing habits.
Take, for instance, the example I gave in another thread - I start typing the domain of a site I use daily and the 'Awesome Bar' decides that what I actually want is a site I visited once, several months ago. How many times should I train the 'Awesome Bar' in that situation?
I want my old url bar back. You have said nothing which has changed my opinion of the current system.
Fine, some people may find it better than the old alternative - so why not make it an option they could use? Even make it the default, just allow it to be disabled. Or am I worth less as a customer to Mozilla for some reason?
As noted on that page, it doesn't change the algorithm - and thats what I hate about the 'Awesome Bar'. You aren't the first to recommend it.
None of the addons actually work to the extent where I get my behaviour back - and I do tend to wonder why I need to go to such huge lengths, and time sinks, just to get the behavior that I have become acustomed to over the past 15 years. If it were anyone but Mozilla doing this....
I've given it since it was introduced - I still hate it. Do I need to give it any longer?
Explain to me why the 'Awesome Bar' decides that, when I start typing the domain name of a website I visit daily, it thinks I would prefer the url of a site I visited once several months ago? Daily or several months ago. What makes more sense?
The 'Awesome Bar' is one of the things I hate about FireFox 3 (and the hate list isn't all that big).
Thanks, Mozilla, for deciding that I need to change my tried and tested browsing habits of 15 years, simply because you think your way is better - you could have at least given us a way to revert to the old url bar behaviour, but you didn't.
And yes, I've installed various extensions, I've tweaked the about:config and no, it doesn't get the behaviour anywhere near FF2 - infact, some of it is just plain broken, like having the 'browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped' setting set to true still allows the url bar to match on non-typed urls.
It sucks.