Look at the other TLD extensions, like.tv,.cc, etc. How many sites under those TLD's do you actually see?
A local radio station, WHTZ 94.9 (Zeta) swtiched from 949zeta.com to 949zeta.cc, but a few months after going to.cc, they went back home to.com, to the tune of http://zetarocks.com/.
I think the.us domain will be similarly received by business interests.
Sorry, not trolling here. One of my functions at work is receiving manager, and have worked a lot with UPS dealing with components that get stuck in Customs from time to time.
I was illustrating the knee-jerk reaction the authorities have lately concerning copyright violation.
And your analogy is poor, there is quite a difference between a specialized cable and a low-tech general-purpose instrument as a pencil.
Is that they do not know your true intentions. They saw what was being imported, and thought some 1337 h4x0r was going to use it to copy Dreamcast software.
It's also not an ordinary, general-purpose serial cable. What separates it from an ordinary serial cable is the special end to plug into a Dreamcast. That might set off bells and whistles at customs as well.
Unfortunately, they must err on the side of caution.
Admittedly, the screen is small, and not backlit, but I've been able to play it for extended periods of time by folowing a simple rule for reading.
Plenty of ambient light. Yes, the very same light one uses for proper book reading is more than adequate for GBA-playing. I've played it comfortably on airplanes, on my couch and yes, even on the can.
The small screen lends itself to problems, but that's what makes it portable. It's a trade-of at this point, until LCD screen technology imporves.
The bottom line: I spent $100 a while ago, and have enjoyed it plenty since.
Please knock it off. I work in the electronics parts industry (Controller of Corp.) and know what I'm talking about. This has been a major problem for years now.
EBN Online has many, many articles on this subject.
Here is a sample. Use their search engine, and you'll find others.
Try The ERAI website for checking the effects this problem has on our industry. It's costing us millions, if not billions.
Before you open up your mouth and spew your "humanitarian" garbage, check facts first.
Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption.
Just because you buy a book on breaking encryption does not mean you'll automatically get your purchasing reacords subpoenad, or find the police at your door. It just means they have another avenue to catch you, if you're already a suspect.
I don't think the casual reader (curious about it, not actually a practitioner) of such books would set off any red flags.
I'd prefer not to waste my time buying new equipment to save cost. Not to mention downtime, etc. because you are waiting for your next player to be shipped.
But with the unlicensed players you also get shoddy manufacturing quality, especially with the rise of counterfeit electronic components from the Shenzhen region of China.
Enron's net revenue was $1.266 million or roughly 1.1% that of revenue. How can they have a net income exceeding revenue, since the equation is NetIncome = Revenue - Cost.
According to Enron's Financial Highlights for 2000 Enron had revenues of $100.789 million, and net income of $1.266 million.
According to Microsoft's Financial Highlights (word document) Microsoft had revenues of $9,050 million and net income of $2,195 million.
To compare these two saying that Microsoft contributed roughly four times as much is kind of moot, considering the financial firepower of Microsoft. $ 6million to them is a deck chair on the Titanic to them and could have contributed a lot more.
Probably not, since Microvision just developed the prototype.
But I see where you're coming from with the idea, no pun intended. Ever try to focus on a close up object? It's rather difficult, so I figure eyestrain would be a factor.
Also, the article is somewhat light on the specifics on usage, how close to the eye, power usage (current and intended market), etc.
Computers now are generating more and more "pure" art. From the use of software like Paint Shop Pro, more and more people can produce artowrk of relatively high quality. I speak from experience, being one who got sympathy high marks in my art classes in high school.
Even more dependent on technology is fractal design, which is facilitated by the high processing power of modern computers.
In this way, technology is providing a fresh, new canvas for many who couldn't or afraid to use earlier kinds of canvas.
sharing TV shows that broadcast for free seems just a tad over the top.
It's the same way with music that you can tape off the radio and share.
The copyright holder of whatever program is the only one who can distribute, transmit or share the material, regardless if you can listen or watch for free.
Nobody's suing people who actually infringe copyrights anymore. Everyone is suing people who make devices...
True. They aren't going after all those who actually infringe copyrights, since that would number in the millions. Instead, they are going after the makers, for contributory copyright infringement, much like the way Napster was sued. Napster itself did not violate copyright, but its users did, and Napster provided a convenient way to do it.
In the case of PVR's, its a little different, since fair-use does allow for time shifting, IIRC. It's the sharing of the "perfect digital copies" that the industry fears.
They are suing device-makers as a preventive measure. Without these devices, many will go back to using VCR's to make imperfect copies.
Most unfortunately, postulating what we could do is much more exciting than perfecting something we already do.
Apparently, the public has a certain tolerance to defects and bugs. A fine exmple is the automobile, with its near-certain breakdowns, despite Tucker proving otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the other TLD extensions, like .tv, .cc, etc. How many sites under those TLD's do you actually see?
.cc, they went back home to .com, to the tune of http://zetarocks.com/.
.us domain will be similarly received by business interests.
A local radio station, WHTZ 94.9 (Zeta) swtiched from 949zeta.com to 949zeta.cc, but a few months after going to
I think the
It should require that the owner of a geographic domain actually live in that state.
What if someone moves inter-state, like I did a few years back? Does your domain change, too?
Why is it wrong to copy a CD, but not a living creature?
There are much bigger ramifications in the latter type of "copying" than the former.
I'd rather have any character from Quake 2 on my desktop than Clippy the Paperclip!
Now all my job has to do is ditch Windows 2000 and install Linux...
And you have just illustrated the problem of copyright violation enforcement.
The notion of "copy-protected" CD's is another example. It pretty much assumes every consumer is a pirating thief.
Sorry, not trolling here. One of my functions at work is receiving manager, and have worked a lot with UPS dealing with components that get stuck in Customs from time to time.
I was illustrating the knee-jerk reaction the authorities have lately concerning copyright violation.
And your analogy is poor, there is quite a difference between a specialized cable and a low-tech general-purpose instrument as a pencil.
Is that they do not know your true intentions. They saw what was being imported, and thought some 1337 h4x0r was going to use it to copy Dreamcast software.
It's also not an ordinary, general-purpose serial cable. What separates it from an ordinary serial cable is the special end to plug into a Dreamcast. That might set off bells and whistles at customs as well.
Unfortunately, they must err on the side of caution.
And radio contest, but never on a weblog!
AFAIK, this is somewhat original.
Admittedly, the screen is small, and not backlit, but I've been able to play it for extended periods of time by folowing a simple rule for reading.
Plenty of ambient light. Yes, the very same light one uses for proper book reading is more than adequate for GBA-playing. I've played it comfortably on airplanes, on my couch and yes, even on the can.
The small screen lends itself to problems, but that's what makes it portable. It's a trade-of at this point, until LCD screen technology imporves.
The bottom line: I spent $100 a while ago, and have enjoyed it plenty since.
To speed performance, these proxy computers retain copies of the most-popular Web sites that customers visit.
We don't need that. Web surfers already have something like that on a personal, local level. It's called web cache.
This was an largely unnecessary step to "improve performance", and a lousy excuse to collect the data in the first place.
Please knock it off. I work in the electronics parts industry (Controller of Corp.) and know what I'm talking about. This has been a major problem for years now.
EBN Online has many, many articles on this subject.
Here is a sample. Use their search engine, and you'll find others.
Try The ERAI website for checking the effects this problem has on our industry. It's costing us millions, if not billions.
Before you open up your mouth and spew your "humanitarian" garbage, check facts first.
Just imaging if they start to use DMCA and the new Anti-terrorist bill to subpoena someone buying books on breaking encryption.
Just because you buy a book on breaking encryption does not mean you'll automatically get your purchasing reacords subpoenad, or find the police at your door. It just means they have another avenue to catch you, if you're already a suspect.
I don't think the casual reader (curious about it, not actually a practitioner) of such books would set off any red flags.
We need to be a little less paranoid here.
I'd prefer not to waste my time buying new equipment to save cost. Not to mention downtime, etc. because you are waiting for your next player to be shipped.
But with the unlicensed players you also get shoddy manufacturing quality, especially with the rise of counterfeit electronic components from the Shenzhen region of China.
Buyer beware!
Enron's net revenue was $1.266 million or roughly 1.1% that of revenue. How can they have a net income exceeding revenue, since the equation is NetIncome = Revenue - Cost.
Size does matter.
According to Enron's Financial Highlights for 2000 Enron had revenues of $100.789 million, and net income of $1.266 million.
According to Microsoft's Financial Highlights (word document) Microsoft had revenues of $9,050 million and net income of $2,195 million.
To compare these two saying that Microsoft contributed roughly four times as much is kind of moot, considering the financial firepower of Microsoft. $ 6million to them is a deck chair on the Titanic to them and could have contributed a lot more.
Probably not, since Microvision just developed the prototype.
But I see where you're coming from with the idea, no pun intended. Ever try to focus on a close up object? It's rather difficult, so I figure eyestrain would be a factor.
Also, the article is somewhat light on the specifics on usage, how close to the eye, power usage (current and intended market), etc.
Given the ever-increasing number of awards handed out, it's getting easier and easier to get nominated.
In 1929, only 13 awards were handed out, including two honorary awards.
In 2001, 24 awards were handed out, including two honorary awards, plus over a dozen special awards.
That's over a hundred nominations. Yes, a lot of movies don't get anything, but an average-plus movie can score a nomination.
Besides, who remembers the nominees, anyway?
In 1982, E.T. was nominated for 9 Oscars, including Best Picture, but it won just one, for Best Visual Effects.
Being nominated is fine and such, but the real test will be on oscar night.
Computers now are generating more and more "pure" art. From the use of software like Paint Shop Pro, more and more people can produce artowrk of relatively high quality. I speak from experience, being one who got sympathy high marks in my art classes in high school.
Even more dependent on technology is fractal design, which is facilitated by the high processing power of modern computers.
In this way, technology is providing a fresh, new canvas for many who couldn't or afraid to use earlier kinds of canvas.
sharing TV shows that broadcast for free seems just a tad over the top.
It's the same way with music that you can tape off the radio and share.
The copyright holder of whatever program is the only one who can distribute, transmit or share the material, regardless if you can listen or watch for free.
Nobody's suing people who actually infringe copyrights anymore. Everyone is suing people who make devices...
True. They aren't going after all those who actually infringe copyrights, since that would number in the millions. Instead, they are going after the makers, for contributory copyright infringement, much like the way Napster was sued. Napster itself did not violate copyright, but its users did, and Napster provided a convenient way to do it.
In the case of PVR's, its a little different, since fair-use does allow for time shifting, IIRC. It's the sharing of the "perfect digital copies" that the industry fears.
They are suing device-makers as a preventive measure. Without these devices, many will go back to using VCR's to make imperfect copies.
Since most often colors on monitors are represented by RGB values which determine the color.
Most unfortunately, postulating what we could do is much more exciting than perfecting something we already do.
Apparently, the public has a certain tolerance to defects and bugs. A fine exmple is the automobile, with its near-certain breakdowns, despite Tucker proving otherwise.
Are they going to go to every U.S.-hosted website and count all the hyperlinks to calculate their royalties?
It also seem strikingly similar to Amazon.com's claim to single-click patent.
It seems noble, yet absurd.