My HP ink cartridge only works in my model of HP printer. Should that also be illegal?
Or hitting closer to home on your exampe, the ECU in my Ford only works in a Ford Exporer. So it should be illegal for Ford to sell that ECU? That doesn't make sense.
As for your example, lets imagine that ford is the only auto manufacturer. Shell starts making gas, but it only works properly in a Ford. NOW is it unfair? Now what will Chrysler do? Would it be smart to make an automobile that you know will not work with the available gas? If you are stupid enough to enter a market were the supply your product will require is incompatible with the product, why on earth do you feel justified in whining about it? Another example of someone doing something they should know is a bad idea, and then expecting the whole world to rally behind them when *surprise* it doesn't work out.
It's not that the product only works with another product that makes Norway dislike it. It's more a case of where Apple is creating an (arguably) unnecessary technological limitation whose (arguably) primary purpose is to prevent competition. The reality of the situation is that the DRM is not there to prevent competition as its primary purpose. (though certainly Apple realizes this is helping prevent competition) but that the actual primary reason for the DRM is to satisfy the recording industry's conditions for playing ball with Apple. The RIAA is actually using the DMCA and is the one forcing Apple to use FairPlay, to help prevent competition and profit losses in their music market. But you don't see norway going after the RIAA, even though they have just as much (if not more) excuse to do so.
is that this is not a "good law". Good laws are carefully worded and carefully considered, so that even if you are trying to bend their meaning and abuse them, you cannot, because they are wored in such a way that they cannot possibly incriminate someome that does not break the spirit the law was written in.
Nowadays however, very few new laws are what I would call "good". They are wored loosely and are open to wide interpretation. The justification is usually that they don't want to create a loophole where a criminal could get away, and that surely no good law enforcement officer would abuse this power.
But we all know, if there is an opportunity for abuse, it will happen. Not some of the time, not most of the time, but each and every time. It's not a risk, it's a promise.
Good Laws are written such that a few guilty go free so that there is no risk that the innocent suffer. The DMCA is not a Good Law, it chooses to error on the side of incrimination.
I find it interesting just how far behind microsoft is lagging. Just about the time the Zune was catching up with the ipod in features and usefulness (and it never really made it), out comes the iPhone. It's like a leisurely drive down the autobahn in a corvette, and you look in your back mirror and see a pinto closing in on you. Small chuckle. Romp on gas. Watch pinto rapidly disappear into nothing.
Such an absurd presumption from Microsoft. It's not even serious enough to be considered a joke.
For one I don't know if I'd call it "spyware" though I suppose by definition that's what it is. Kid monitoring software has been around for years, I don't see this as a new development, and to bundle it with spyware is silly because this "kidsnoop"-ware is fundamentally different than spyware by virtue of why it exists. Kidsnoop exists to help parents keep tabs on their kids, where spyware seeks to advertise to you or scam you, to get your money. Perhaps using the same mechanisms, but entirely different intent and a whole different can of worms on acceptability.
On another inspection, I observe that most kids would like to have absolute independence (though still having the survival support of course) while most parents would like to have absolute control over their kids. A reasonable balance has to be struck, and I think when you are planting kidsnoop on your computer you are starting to cross the line of reasonable parenting. No doubt some parents will jump up and down over this, I suppose I would label them "control freaks".
If this kidsnoop becomes even slightly popular, the kids will no doubt lose trust in their social networking site. A bit like playing with a friend in the neighborhood that will run to your house and snitch on you if you sneak off to the park. How long do you think the kid would hang around with the snitch? They'll just find another site that is more pro-independence for their users. I mean really, do you expect ANY of these kids to continue visiting the same site if they get called into the living room by their parents and lectured about what they did online yesterday? They're kids, but they're not stupid. They understand cause and effect, and they learn fast.
[i]the obvious solution to that being spread out the acceleration more (more distance, long time), like with that ring railgun that came up here awhile ago.[/i]
While true, that does make the railgun less attractive. One of its key features (in theory anyway) is the short "barrel" length. It's not so much a matter of it having to be that short, but that it [i]can[/i] be that short.
Also, the shorter railed units are more efficient because the slug has less rails to slide on before being released, which increases muzzle velocity. I don't know how significant this is, but it's there either way.
Also, most things you want to put into orbit (satellites or meatbags) require gradual accelleration because they cannot tolerate sudden high G-forces associated with most railguns. Going from 0 to 3000 feet/sec in 1 second is really hard on your internal organs. May as well get hit by a car.
The other thing to think about is wear. Rail guns have a design problem that the rails tend to take really heavy wear on every shot. This probably contributes heavily to the max fires per day, as they probably have to do maintenance on the rails after every shot. (replace the tracks entirely I would expect)
Although it may be somewhat interesting or entertaining to read those reviews, all they seem to do is trash on the game, insulting it. (you expect the next line to start out something intelligent and informative like "yo momma's so fat that...") Very few details, very shallow on the reasons why we should hate the game. These reviews are more of a rant on how much the author hates the games, rather than why we should feel the same way. Not worth the read unless you are looking for not-so-creative general and unsupported insults.
You've obviously never had to pay on a subscription-based software service before.
Like it or not, you bought it for X and Y, and if it just happens to have Z but not the way you like it, and you didn't even KNOW that Z was there until this morning, you can't complain about having to pay for Z to work right. What's the difference between having to buy hardware or pay for an unlock? If they never even told you the feature was there would you care? Could you care? would it make a difference? Them not telling you, or them charging you and you refusing to pay, the result is precisely the same, Z doesn't work for you. It never did, it's not like they took something away from you even. You agreed to pay them for X and Y without knowing Z even existed, so at the time you clearly thought the deal was fair without Z. Why does it make a difference if they want to sell it to you? Look at it this way, how much would it cost to send you new hardware, vs how much it would cost to say, give you a download link or an activation key? It saves you money doesn't it? $4.99 for them to mail you a CD, or $49.95 plus shipping to send you a new combo card, a screwdriver, and a good-luck manual. I'll take the CD thanks.
Another excellent example is software that has a graded activation key. You have the standard, the Pro, and the Enterprise keys. Sure you bought it and paid for the standard key, but hey, there's a lot of things that aren't turned on, they want to CHARGE me for the Pro key! Imagine the NERVE! It's already in there, they're just taunting me, it's not fair! waaah.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, legally or morally. They're saving themselves a buck and happen to also be saving you a buck and you are complaining about it.
that and she doesn't even get the satisfaction (post-mortem) of a Darwin Award, (as implied in the "beta" tagging) because she is inelligible, she has children. Maybe if she had somehow managed to take them with her she might get in on a technicality.
But really, people that do dangerous, stupid stunts for money (whatever the cause) are one of the mainstays of the Darwin Awards. People are stupid when it comes to what appears to be "easy money". I bet if you placed an ad in the paper saying you'd give $10,000 to anyone that let you shoot them in the arm with a.45, your phone would ring with volunteers. The world is dumb. This is just the world trying to correct itself.
so what was the inspiration to sack the entire netscape team?
And this is not the first time it has happened. Every time I install netscape on an old iMac, it stalls out for like 90 seconds on initia launch because something else on your server the browser depends on has been deleted. A few times I had a very hard time installing Netscape because it refused to quit digging for that page on launch. I never did figure out exactly what it was it was looking for. (something to do with first run registration I would guess) This happened about what, a year ago.
So, how many other things in Netscape will blow up if netscape.com goes away? Since that would mean netscape was out of business, does anyone at netscape care? I've had to throw out software I paid for because the author's web site went away and prevented me from reinstalling the app, and that's REALLY annoying.
That's a bit like trying to get satisfaction from Ford due to your bad tires. You should be talking to Firestone, not Ford. Yes, you bought it from Ford but they didn't make the thing and don't have nearly as much control over its quality or design process as Firestone does, so it doesn't make sense to chase down Ford because they can't (directly) help you. If you contact Ford and they act as the relay beween you and Firestone they are going out of their way and doing you a favor, it's not their job.
This is like building a list of windows bugs and submitting a norton product as an exhibit. If this is the week of APPLE bugs, why are we hearing about macintosh software developers? Must be slim pickins in Mac OS X for security holes?? I thought they were going to post some real apple bugs? This is very disappointing, though I suppose it's nice to see they are having this problem.
It appears the english language lacks a word for what the capacitors do. Saying they "explode" seems to take things a little too far, I get an image of a charred black spot on the board around two stumps of wire, and the outer can of the capacitor embedded in the ceiling, with the bottom cork and electrolyte scattered around the room like confetti. (I have seen that happen, twice) Thats more my idea of "exploded". (makes one heck of loud pop too!) What we see with the caps as of lately are more like they swell and break the vent at the top and sometimes ooze out crusty brown crap. Far less exciting than an explosion, and usually occurs over a long stretch of time. (several days at least) So what should we really call it? I've had the pleasure of replacing about half a gross of motherboards that had bad caps, and I would not describe a single one as having "exploded capacitors". Saying you have oozing or bulging capacitors sounds so much less exciting though don't you think?
On one hand we have people saying the problem with macs is there's not enough software available for them, and since it's the developers for that platform that control that, it's clearly a platform issue.
Then we have people saying that software not following established programming standards is something the platform developers control, so clearly it's NOT a platform issue.
Make a decision. You can't have it both ways. You're not allowed to beat the dog if he's standing OR sitting.
I don't believe it's possible to get a fair comparison of two so completely different things unless you have been forced to use both of them for an extended period of time and have truly given them both a chance.
I am in that position where I work, and I have to support both macs and PCs in the desktop support world. For me what it all comes down to is simplicity of use. Just pulling an example out of thin air... 99% of mac software runs as non-admin, and better than 70% will run as a very restricted user. (kids) 98% of software can be installed as a non-admin so long as you know the admin l/p. Then we have windows. 0% of software can be installed as a non-admin, even if you know the admin l/p. After that, 80% of it requires you to be logged in as an administrator. So make them an administrator you say? (like THAT is a good idea in a school!) In OS X that is one check box and takes 15 seconds to do. I have a sheet of paper somewhere around here with all the steps needed to promote a user in Windows, I was astounded by what the PC tech said had to be done. Anyone that says windows is easier to use needs a closed door meeting with a baseball bat. When it all comes down to it, the amount of software available isn't truly what's important, it's how easy, pleasant, and non-frustrating the system is that actually matters to a lot of people, tho they may not admit it. Having a flying car isn't so great if it takes you 45 minutes to get it into the air every day and is prone to running into buildings. I admit I get a little personal enjoyment when I see a windows user is just totally frustrated and ranting and I say well you know how we can fix that? and they scream back, "Don't tell me about macs, I don't want to hear it. I *LIKE* my pc!!!" Yessir, I can see that, looks like you've having a great time. The 5% of them that finally switch come to me later and say why didn't you tell me about this before? I triiiiiied.....
This would be an interesting way to solve the problem of municiple wifi. If even 5% of the cars in a city were functioning as short range wifi routers, and if they were using tech similar to cell phones how they hand off seamlessly from tower to tower, that would be a really elegant way to network entire cities. No need to plant towers like dandellions, no problems with dead zones due to buildings, etc. I'm not thinking of people browsing web while in their car, but imagine being able to use voice or video chat (think iChat) while driving down the freeway, your car reading you a new email as you sit at a stoplight, or being able to take your laptop to the park and know there are a dozen hotspots within 300 feet of whatever park you pick. I hope this takes off.
Tho the way things are going, some paraoid person is going to flip out because it will make it easier for people to get untraceable internet access and lord knows we can't allow that, and will ruin it for everyone.
A fun story was posted here a year or so ago, http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010409S0012 , about a server that had been running for awhile without anyone knowing where it was at. When they tried to track it down, they finally discovered it had been entombed withinin a wall of a building.
OP suggests ebaying your old cards. I have a 16mb CF card, anyone interested? Cost me $80 new, you can have it for $40. I can get you another one if you are interested in two.
I have revisited this option several times in the last five years, buying anywhere from a $7 to $19 light bulb to see how well it works. There are two problems they don't tell you about.
(1) the bulbs are big. Yes the article says compact, but that's by flourescent tube standards, and the usual one is what, four feet long? So they coil them up so they are more or less in the same shape as a bulb, but you have this huge inverter at the base of the bulb that converts the 120vac wall power to the what, 2000v (guessing) needed to strike the tube up. This eats up 30% of the available space in most lamp fixtures so you don't have a lot of room left for bulb. Bulbs have gotten smaller over the years, but there are a few lamps here and NO wall light globes that I can fit most of the compact flourescent bulbs into. It's annoying to screw in the bulb and try to put the globe back on and find it is 1/2" from closing and has struck the top of the bulb.
(2) the bulbs are not bright. I realize there is a "light color" difference, and that makes the flourescent tubes seem "colder", but the best replacement bulb I could find to change out my 75 watt bulbs was what was described as "equivelent to a 72 watt bulb". Never mind that the bulb was 2" taller than a standard bulb and I could not get the bedroom fixture globe back on. It was running something like 15 watts of power. Too good to be true? You bet. I have TWO of them in the same room as I had one 75 earlier, and it's still not as well lit. The light may be brighter by a light meter, but it doesn't have it where it counts, my visible spectrum.
You can rob 2 to boost 1 of course. But when a "72 watt equivelent" is actually hitting around 35 watts of performance, imagine what happens when you get one of the smaller bulbs that will fit in the globe. Those are "42 watt equivelent" and make very good night lights.
The first bulb I bought I put in a lamp in my living room. It went CRSHHH and went out in a crispy flash. Though I had not used the feature in a long time, that lamp was a three intensity setting touchlamp that used standard bulbs. Read the fine print. Adjustable lamps kill the inverters in the base of the bulbs. That was a $17 camera flash I bought.
Six years ago I bought a set of six "long life" 65 watt bulbs. They are tiny little things, smaller than a standar bulb, and are apparently designed to run on 130v. So when you plug them into 110 they run a little dim. They are a tad bit brighter than the flourescent ones though. I put three of them in my kitchen light. I did this because the light gets turned on and off a lot and it goes through lightbulbs fast, maybe one a month. Now, in six years I have had to replace TWO of them. The bulbs cost $7 for a set of six. Now you tell me what the better deal is.
As far as I can tell, the usual consumer bulbs are not designed for long life. It's like cigarettes. How much would Marlborough make if a single cigarette lasted all day? They control how long the product will last so you feel you got some value from it and go buy another one. I believe light bulbs are the same way, judging by the 130v bulbs in my kitchen. Where today's technology sits, on a level playing field, compact flourescents lose on all fronts.
I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. At the rate things are going now, ten years from now we will live in a society of 0% crime and 0% fredom. Surely a state-monitored camera in every house would reduce crime? Think of the lives it would save! Lets do it!
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
Did you know, if you toss a live frog into a boiling pot of water he jumps right out, that's no surprise. But put him in a pot of room temperature water and he stays there, even while you are slowly turning up the burner. An hour later you have one dead frog. It's amazing how similar this is to how the sheep behave.
The proponants of things like this try to present it as a choice, you either do as we say or you deal with the consequences. You can either be safe OR you can live in a cage. They don't discuss the possibility of being safe without living in a cage. This issue is a small one, but that's how it works, your fredoms are chipped away a little at a time over a long term, and leaves you staring back at 20 years ago wondering who let it happen.
And even if that fails (and I don't see how) then they could just resort to screen scrapers and feed that output to their capcha image processing engine.
You will recall that Ultima also had classes, eight of them. Didn't they have 8 of everything? You could read the programmers behind the monitor so easily! Eight reagents, eight circles of spell level, 8 skill levels, eight classes, eight towns, eight cities, eight shrines, eight stones, eight words of power, etc etc. Three of everything else, castles, abbeys, etc.
The different classes were not balanced either. You would have a much quicker game if you answered the gypsy to become say, a mage rather than a shepherd. So a lot of people played a more difficult (or easier) game than their friends did.
The different classes' main differences seemed to be where the stats maxed out at. The shepherd maxed out very low on most stats except spirituality, and had no magic. The mage was at the opposite end of the coin I believe. I don't think there were any specific advantages to starting as any of the "weaker" classes. Certain weapons could only be weilded by certain classes though. I recall the magic axe being the weapon of choice to outfit the entire party with. What good was the glass sword?
Slashdot Mirror
My HP ink cartridge only works in my model of HP printer. Should that also be illegal?
Or hitting closer to home on your exampe, the ECU in my Ford only works in a Ford Exporer. So it should be illegal for Ford to sell that ECU? That doesn't make sense.
As for your example, lets imagine that ford is the only auto manufacturer. Shell starts making gas, but it only works properly in a Ford. NOW is it unfair? Now what will Chrysler do? Would it be smart to make an automobile that you know will not work with the available gas? If you are stupid enough to enter a market were the supply your product will require is incompatible with the product, why on earth do you feel justified in whining about it? Another example of someone doing something they should know is a bad idea, and then expecting the whole world to rally behind them when *surprise* it doesn't work out.
It's not that the product only works with another product that makes Norway dislike it. It's more a case of where Apple is creating an (arguably) unnecessary technological limitation whose (arguably) primary purpose is to prevent competition. The reality of the situation is that the DRM is not there to prevent competition as its primary purpose. (though certainly Apple realizes this is helping prevent competition) but that the actual primary reason for the DRM is to satisfy the recording industry's conditions for playing ball with Apple. The RIAA is actually using the DMCA and is the one forcing Apple to use FairPlay, to help prevent competition and profit losses in their music market. But you don't see norway going after the RIAA, even though they have just as much (if not more) excuse to do so.
deploy pre-release builds into production environments
are they completely mad? Their GM's unstable enough as it is.
is that this is not a "good law". Good laws are carefully worded and carefully considered, so that even if you are trying to bend their meaning and abuse them, you cannot, because they are wored in such a way that they cannot possibly incriminate someome that does not break the spirit the law was written in.
Nowadays however, very few new laws are what I would call "good". They are wored loosely and are open to wide interpretation. The justification is usually that they don't want to create a loophole where a criminal could get away, and that surely no good law enforcement officer would abuse this power.
But we all know, if there is an opportunity for abuse, it will happen. Not some of the time, not most of the time, but each and every time. It's not a risk, it's a promise.
Good Laws are written such that a few guilty go free so that there is no risk that the innocent suffer. The DMCA is not a Good Law, it chooses to error on the side of incrimination.
I find it interesting just how far behind microsoft is lagging. Just about the time the Zune was catching up with the ipod in features and usefulness (and it never really made it), out comes the iPhone. It's like a leisurely drive down the autobahn in a corvette, and you look in your back mirror and see a pinto closing in on you. Small chuckle. Romp on gas. Watch pinto rapidly disappear into nothing.
Such an absurd presumption from Microsoft. It's not even serious enough to be considered a joke.
For one I don't know if I'd call it "spyware" though I suppose by definition that's what it is. Kid monitoring software has been around for years, I don't see this as a new development, and to bundle it with spyware is silly because this "kidsnoop"-ware is fundamentally different than spyware by virtue of why it exists. Kidsnoop exists to help parents keep tabs on their kids, where spyware seeks to advertise to you or scam you, to get your money. Perhaps using the same mechanisms, but entirely different intent and a whole different can of worms on acceptability.
On another inspection, I observe that most kids would like to have absolute independence (though still having the survival support of course) while most parents would like to have absolute control over their kids. A reasonable balance has to be struck, and I think when you are planting kidsnoop on your computer you are starting to cross the line of reasonable parenting. No doubt some parents will jump up and down over this, I suppose I would label them "control freaks".
If this kidsnoop becomes even slightly popular, the kids will no doubt lose trust in their social networking site. A bit like playing with a friend in the neighborhood that will run to your house and snitch on you if you sneak off to the park. How long do you think the kid would hang around with the snitch? They'll just find another site that is more pro-independence for their users. I mean really, do you expect ANY of these kids to continue visiting the same site if they get called into the living room by their parents and lectured about what they did online yesterday? They're kids, but they're not stupid. They understand cause and effect, and they learn fast.
[i]the obvious solution to that being spread out the acceleration more (more distance, long time), like with that ring railgun that came up here awhile ago.[/i]
While true, that does make the railgun less attractive. One of its key features (in theory anyway) is the short "barrel" length. It's not so much a matter of it having to be that short, but that it [i]can[/i] be that short.
Also, the shorter railed units are more efficient because the slug has less rails to slide on before being released, which increases muzzle velocity. I don't know how significant this is, but it's there either way.
Also, most things you want to put into orbit (satellites or meatbags) require gradual accelleration because they cannot tolerate sudden high G-forces associated with most railguns. Going from 0 to 3000 feet/sec in 1 second is really hard on your internal organs. May as well get hit by a car.
The other thing to think about is wear. Rail guns have a design problem that the rails tend to take really heavy wear on every shot. This probably contributes heavily to the max fires per day, as they probably have to do maintenance on the rails after every shot. (replace the tracks entirely I would expect)
Although it may be somewhat interesting or entertaining to read those reviews, all they seem to do is trash on the game, insulting it. (you expect the next line to start out something intelligent and informative like "yo momma's so fat that...") Very few details, very shallow on the reasons why we should hate the game. These reviews are more of a rant on how much the author hates the games, rather than why we should feel the same way. Not worth the read unless you are looking for not-so-creative general and unsupported insults.
You've obviously never had to pay on a subscription-based software service before.
Like it or not, you bought it for X and Y, and if it just happens to have Z but not the way you like it, and you didn't even KNOW that Z was there until this morning, you can't complain about having to pay for Z to work right. What's the difference between having to buy hardware or pay for an unlock? If they never even told you the feature was there would you care? Could you care? would it make a difference? Them not telling you, or them charging you and you refusing to pay, the result is precisely the same, Z doesn't work for you. It never did, it's not like they took something away from you even. You agreed to pay them for X and Y without knowing Z even existed, so at the time you clearly thought the deal was fair without Z. Why does it make a difference if they want to sell it to you? Look at it this way, how much would it cost to send you new hardware, vs how much it would cost to say, give you a download link or an activation key? It saves you money doesn't it? $4.99 for them to mail you a CD, or $49.95 plus shipping to send you a new combo card, a screwdriver, and a good-luck manual. I'll take the CD thanks.
Another excellent example is software that has a graded activation key. You have the standard, the Pro, and the Enterprise keys. Sure you bought it and paid for the standard key, but hey, there's a lot of things that aren't turned on, they want to CHARGE me for the Pro key! Imagine the NERVE! It's already in there, they're just taunting me, it's not fair! waaah.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, legally or morally. They're saving themselves a buck and happen to also be saving you a buck and you are complaining about it.
I thought they did specify household? Will have to rtfm tomorrow.
that and she doesn't even get the satisfaction (post-mortem) of a Darwin Award, (as implied in the "beta" tagging) because she is inelligible, she has children. Maybe if she had somehow managed to take them with her she might get in on a technicality.
.45, your phone would ring with volunteers. The world is dumb. This is just the world trying to correct itself.
But really, people that do dangerous, stupid stunts for money (whatever the cause) are one of the mainstays of the Darwin Awards. People are stupid when it comes to what appears to be "easy money". I bet if you placed an ad in the paper saying you'd give $10,000 to anyone that let you shoot them in the arm with a
so what was the inspiration to sack the entire netscape team?
And this is not the first time it has happened. Every time I install netscape on an old iMac, it stalls out for like 90 seconds on initia launch because something else on your server the browser depends on has been deleted. A few times I had a very hard time installing Netscape because it refused to quit digging for that page on launch. I never did figure out exactly what it was it was looking for. (something to do with first run registration I would guess) This happened about what, a year ago.
So, how many other things in Netscape will blow up if netscape.com goes away? Since that would mean netscape was out of business, does anyone at netscape care? I've had to throw out software I paid for because the author's web site went away and prevented me from reinstalling the app, and that's REALLY annoying.
It now occurs to me just how good of a comparison that is. In both cases, when the included accessory fails, it causes a crash!
That's a bit like trying to get satisfaction from Ford due to your bad tires. You should be talking to Firestone, not Ford. Yes, you bought it from Ford but they didn't make the thing and don't have nearly as much control over its quality or design process as Firestone does, so it doesn't make sense to chase down Ford because they can't (directly) help you. If you contact Ford and they act as the relay beween you and Firestone they are going out of their way and doing you a favor, it's not their job.
This is like building a list of windows bugs and submitting a norton product as an exhibit. If this is the week of APPLE bugs, why are we hearing about macintosh software developers? Must be slim pickins in Mac OS X for security holes?? I thought they were going to post some real apple bugs? This is very disappointing, though I suppose it's nice to see they are having this problem.
It appears the english language lacks a word for what the capacitors do. Saying they "explode" seems to take things a little too far, I get an image of a charred black spot on the board around two stumps of wire, and the outer can of the capacitor embedded in the ceiling, with the bottom cork and electrolyte scattered around the room like confetti. (I have seen that happen, twice) Thats more my idea of "exploded". (makes one heck of loud pop too!) What we see with the caps as of lately are more like they swell and break the vent at the top and sometimes ooze out crusty brown crap. Far less exciting than an explosion, and usually occurs over a long stretch of time. (several days at least) So what should we really call it? I've had the pleasure of replacing about half a gross of motherboards that had bad caps, and I would not describe a single one as having "exploded capacitors". Saying you have oozing or bulging capacitors sounds so much less exciting though don't you think?
On one hand we have people saying the problem with macs is there's not enough software available for them, and since it's the developers for that platform that control that, it's clearly a platform issue.
Then we have people saying that software not following established programming standards is something the platform developers control, so clearly it's NOT a platform issue.
Make a decision. You can't have it both ways. You're not allowed to beat the dog if he's standing OR sitting.
I don't believe it's possible to get a fair comparison of two so completely different things unless you have been forced to use both of them for an extended period of time and have truly given them both a chance.
I am in that position where I work, and I have to support both macs and PCs in the desktop support world. For me what it all comes down to is simplicity of use. Just pulling an example out of thin air... 99% of mac software runs as non-admin, and better than 70% will run as a very restricted user. (kids) 98% of software can be installed as a non-admin so long as you know the admin l/p. Then we have windows. 0% of software can be installed as a non-admin, even if you know the admin l/p. After that, 80% of it requires you to be logged in as an administrator. So make them an administrator you say? (like THAT is a good idea in a school!) In OS X that is one check box and takes 15 seconds to do. I have a sheet of paper somewhere around here with all the steps needed to promote a user in Windows, I was astounded by what the PC tech said had to be done. Anyone that says windows is easier to use needs a closed door meeting with a baseball bat. When it all comes down to it, the amount of software available isn't truly what's important, it's how easy, pleasant, and non-frustrating the system is that actually matters to a lot of people, tho they may not admit it. Having a flying car isn't so great if it takes you 45 minutes to get it into the air every day and is prone to running into buildings. I admit I get a little personal enjoyment when I see a windows user is just totally frustrated and ranting and I say well you know how we can fix that? and they scream back, "Don't tell me about macs, I don't want to hear it. I *LIKE* my pc!!!" Yessir, I can see that, looks like you've having a great time. The 5% of them that finally switch come to me later and say why didn't you tell me about this before? I triiiiiied.....
This would be an interesting way to solve the problem of municiple wifi. If even 5% of the cars in a city were functioning as short range wifi routers, and if they were using tech similar to cell phones how they hand off seamlessly from tower to tower, that would be a really elegant way to network entire cities. No need to plant towers like dandellions, no problems with dead zones due to buildings, etc. I'm not thinking of people browsing web while in their car, but imagine being able to use voice or video chat (think iChat) while driving down the freeway, your car reading you a new email as you sit at a stoplight, or being able to take your laptop to the park and know there are a dozen hotspots within 300 feet of whatever park you pick. I hope this takes off.
Tho the way things are going, some paraoid person is going to flip out because it will make it easier for people to get untraceable internet access and lord knows we can't allow that, and will ruin it for everyone.
A fun story was posted here a year or so ago, http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010409S0012 , about a server that had been running for awhile without anyone knowing where it was at. When they tried to track it down, they finally discovered it had been entombed withinin a wall of a building.
OP suggests ebaying your old cards. I have a 16mb CF card, anyone interested? Cost me $80 new, you can have it for $40. I can get you another one if you are interested in two.
I have revisited this option several times in the last five years, buying anywhere from a $7 to $19 light bulb to see how well it works. There are two problems they don't tell you about.
(1) the bulbs are big. Yes the article says compact, but that's by flourescent tube standards, and the usual one is what, four feet long? So they coil them up so they are more or less in the same shape as a bulb, but you have this huge inverter at the base of the bulb that converts the 120vac wall power to the what, 2000v (guessing) needed to strike the tube up. This eats up 30% of the available space in most lamp fixtures so you don't have a lot of room left for bulb. Bulbs have gotten smaller over the years, but there are a few lamps here and NO wall light globes that I can fit most of the compact flourescent bulbs into. It's annoying to screw in the bulb and try to put the globe back on and find it is 1/2" from closing and has struck the top of the bulb.
(2) the bulbs are not bright. I realize there is a "light color" difference, and that makes the flourescent tubes seem "colder", but the best replacement bulb I could find to change out my 75 watt bulbs was what was described as "equivelent to a 72 watt bulb". Never mind that the bulb was 2" taller than a standard bulb and I could not get the bedroom fixture globe back on. It was running something like 15 watts of power. Too good to be true? You bet. I have TWO of them in the same room as I had one 75 earlier, and it's still not as well lit. The light may be brighter by a light meter, but it doesn't have it where it counts, my visible spectrum.
You can rob 2 to boost 1 of course. But when a "72 watt equivelent" is actually hitting around 35 watts of performance, imagine what happens when you get one of the smaller bulbs that will fit in the globe. Those are "42 watt equivelent" and make very good night lights.
The first bulb I bought I put in a lamp in my living room. It went CRSHHH and went out in a crispy flash. Though I had not used the feature in a long time, that lamp was a three intensity setting touchlamp that used standard bulbs. Read the fine print. Adjustable lamps kill the inverters in the base of the bulbs. That was a $17 camera flash I bought.
Six years ago I bought a set of six "long life" 65 watt bulbs. They are tiny little things, smaller than a standar bulb, and are apparently designed to run on 130v. So when you plug them into 110 they run a little dim. They are a tad bit brighter than the flourescent ones though. I put three of them in my kitchen light. I did this because the light gets turned on and off a lot and it goes through lightbulbs fast, maybe one a month. Now, in six years I have had to replace TWO of them. The bulbs cost $7 for a set of six. Now you tell me what the better deal is.
As far as I can tell, the usual consumer bulbs are not designed for long life. It's like cigarettes. How much would Marlborough make if a single cigarette lasted all day? They control how long the product will last so you feel you got some value from it and go buy another one. I believe light bulbs are the same way, judging by the 130v bulbs in my kitchen. Where today's technology sits, on a level playing field, compact flourescents lose on all fronts.
I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. At the rate things are going now, ten years from now we will live in a society of 0% crime and 0% fredom. Surely a state-monitored camera in every house would reduce crime? Think of the lives it would save! Lets do it!
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
Did you know, if you toss a live frog into a boiling pot of water he jumps right out, that's no surprise. But put him in a pot of room temperature water and he stays there, even while you are slowly turning up the burner. An hour later you have one dead frog. It's amazing how similar this is to how the sheep behave.
The proponants of things like this try to present it as a choice, you either do as we say or you deal with the consequences. You can either be safe OR you can live in a cage. They don't discuss the possibility of being safe without living in a cage. This issue is a small one, but that's how it works, your fredoms are chipped away a little at a time over a long term, and leaves you staring back at 20 years ago wondering who let it happen.
You did.
And even if that fails (and I don't see how) then they could just resort to screen scrapers and feed that output to their capcha image processing engine.
You will recall that Ultima also had classes, eight of them. Didn't they have 8 of everything? You could read the programmers behind the monitor so easily! Eight reagents, eight circles of spell level, 8 skill levels, eight classes, eight towns, eight cities, eight shrines, eight stones, eight words of power, etc etc. Three of everything else, castles, abbeys, etc.
The different classes were not balanced either. You would have a much quicker game if you answered the gypsy to become say, a mage rather than a shepherd. So a lot of people played a more difficult (or easier) game than their friends did.
The different classes' main differences seemed to be where the stats maxed out at. The shepherd maxed out very low on most stats except spirituality, and had no magic. The mage was at the opposite end of the coin I believe. I don't think there were any specific advantages to starting as any of the "weaker" classes. Certain weapons could only be weilded by certain classes though. I recall the magic axe being the weapon of choice to outfit the entire party with. What good was the glass sword?