Crikey, hotel suites exist for two purposes. 1, Folk with money who want space, and 2, business people who need space to meet clients without inviting them into their bedroom.
Journalists book suites to conduct interviews, senior business people use them to conduct large transactions. I'd guess in most hotels, suites are used more for business than they are for ordinary guests.
You're determined to compare a high spec blu-ray player with a PS3.
I said "if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV" and if that's what you want there were, and probably will be again shortly, blu-ray players for under $60. That's where the premium becomes hundreds of dollars.
I didn't at any time say the PS3 wasn't a good solution. What I did do was point out that if you just want to watch your movies, overbuying to future proof is a very expensive course of action. It's much cheaper to buy a decent yet cheap player today and upgrade later.
Funny, the end-user reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Why do you say it will suck? Is it because you've seen one and it was bad, or because you simply don't believe a $55 blu-ray player can be any good? Oh, and it also does up to 1080p upscaling of DVDs.
In December, a PS3 cost about $350, while Walmart would sell you a Blu-Ray player for $55. So, exactly as I said - "if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV, over-buying is an expensive way to go about it." (I've added some emphasis for you this time).
Equally, before Christmas Walmart in some states were selling a blu-ray player for $55. You could buy a new player annually for five years and spend less than a PS3.
Of course the PS3 offers a lot more, but if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV, over-buying is an expensive way to go about it.
-Operating system: The Android operating system is in its infancy and like any new piece of software is likely to be full of security bugs. Android is also open source, so it is highly susceptible to developers with malicious intent finding those bugs quicker than if the OS was closed like the iPhone or blackberry OS. However, the open source nature of the OS should also become a benefit for its security longer term as coders with good intent scrub Android and find the security holes and patch them. Without the source code this job becomes much harder and takes considerably longer. Bottom line is it’s a mixed bag, less secure in the short term but able to become more secure faster than a close OS can.
Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?
After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.
I simply want an HDMI/VGA capable, networkable device to throw the web onto my television without stuttering. So far, it doesn't exist.
I assume you want to play HD, as most the Atom based devices will happily play SD video. it sounds like you want an Acer Revo. It's been around for a while.
You are right, I was making the assumption that an organisation the size of the BBC would be using sensible settings to get decent performance out of their HD encodings.
Or at least that things would be configured such that they couldn't get better performance at half the bitrate. I figured that when most your HD is delivered over satellite, bits are at a premium and you'd be trying to keep things efficient.
Certainly if things were badly configured initially, then a 50% improvement may be possible, but I'd have to wonder why an broadcaster with an annual budget of $7 billion would have badly configured encoders?
So the argument is that because you can't forward mail, SPF is broken.
Forwarding mail is almost entirely unnecessary. Every major webmail provider allows you to get mail from third party accounts via POP3/IMAP. Rather than forward mail just fetch it like any other client. It doesn't need anything to be upgraded, works reliably and allows you to use SPF verifying the hosts permitted to send mail from your domain.
If they drop the unlimited plan then they will lose me as a customer.
Really? What if the new plan offers more data than you currently still use in a month?
If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?
The problem in the US isn't the proposal to cap data. It's the complete and utter lack of affordable data in the sort of quantities the mass market needs to encourage mobile internet use to take off.
Think, type taxi into your google phone. GPS finds the nearest taxi firms. Then places a call direct to the firm that's willing to pay Google, just like ad-words on their website.
If no one pays, it could select randomly, but one firm pays and it gets all the calls - at least until someone comes along and bids a higher per call rate.
I'm thinking they might light to monetize calls through Google's 411 service.
By integrating that right into the phone, you can lookup business numbers and then, in theory, charge businesses to have customer calls placed to them.
That way you get a revenue stream, and the only adverts are the ones the customer requests when performing a search.
No idea what the revenue potential would be though.
I'd also seriously question how much less energy they use in real terms. In our place up north I fitted CFLs throughout, hoping to squeeze a bit more than eight hours from a tank of diesel for the generator. With the incandescents replaced with CFLs, we now see six hours from a tank of diesel. Just to be clear, that's *less* efficient, and using *more* fuel. Nothing else has changed, just the lights.
Then something's up with the lights you're using, your electrics or your generator.
Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.
I doubt your random Somali hijacker is going to have the cash to upgrade their motors.
These guys are in new(ish) boats with big engines, an arsenal of weapons and satellite phones. A successful hijacking is worth millions.
When approached by military boats they toss everything into the water and pretend to be fishing. They then return to shore and restock. If they can afford that, I'd hazard a guess that they can afford new engines if these nets become the biggest obstacle to a successful hijacking.
While you might be used to SMSs arriving instantly, they very often do not.
This, too, seems to be a peculiarly US problem. I've heard of many many more lost and delayed SMSs in the US than in Europe. Perhaps that's because Europe has been making significant use of text messaging for far longer, so the systems there are now more reliable?
Perhaps US users just have lower expectations, so cell networks can get away with such things?
So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages
I'm not sure anyone (yet) has been sued for downloading. Typically people are sued for the uploading bit (that typically goes hand in hand with downloading in most clients), where you are making it available to others.
It's a lot easier for them to convince the judge and jury to award astronomical awards if they show you were sharing the file, not just downloading it for personal usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo is especially interesting here. If you search for something innocuous like Hong Kong
http://search.cn.yahoo.com/search?p=Hong%20Kong
It works fine.
Change the search
http://search.cn.yahoo.com/search?p=Falun%20Gong
And yahoo.cn drops the connection, and seems to do so based on your IP for a few minutes thereafter.
There's still search differences though
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong
is quite different to
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong
Though either does a lot better than Yahoo!
http://search.cn.yahoo.com/s?p=falun+gong&v=web&pid=ysearch
Newegg has burners for circa $150, so three times as much, not five times.
They also have a pack of 10 blank blu-ray disks for $28, so $2.80 per disk.
Crikey, hotel suites exist for two purposes. 1, Folk with money who want space, and 2, business people who need space to meet clients without inviting them into their bedroom.
Journalists book suites to conduct interviews, senior business people use them to conduct large transactions. I'd guess in most hotels, suites are used more for business than they are for ordinary guests.
You're determined to compare a high spec blu-ray player with a PS3.
I said "if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV" and if that's what you want there were, and probably will be again shortly, blu-ray players for under $60. That's where the premium becomes hundreds of dollars.
I didn't at any time say the PS3 wasn't a good solution. What I did do was point out that if you just want to watch your movies, overbuying to future proof is a very expensive course of action. It's much cheaper to buy a decent yet cheap player today and upgrade later.
Funny, the end-user reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Why do you say it will suck? Is it because you've seen one and it was bad, or because you simply don't believe a $55 blu-ray player can be any good? Oh, and it also does up to 1080p upscaling of DVDs.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=123984
Sorry, which part of:
did you find difficult to understand?
In December, a PS3 cost about $350, while Walmart would sell you a Blu-Ray player for $55. So, exactly as I said - "if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV, over-buying is an expensive way to go about it." (I've added some emphasis for you this time).
Equally, before Christmas Walmart in some states were selling a blu-ray player for $55. You could buy a new player annually for five years and spend less than a PS3.
Of course the PS3 offers a lot more, but if you just want to watch Blu-Rays on your HDTV, over-buying is an expensive way to go about it.
Is there any evidence that an open source program is less secure in the short term than a closed source one?
After all, when coding an program they know will be open sourced, programmers are much less likely to add a vulnerable piece of code in the hope it won't be spotted or with the intention to fix it at some later date.
In Q3 2009 Nokia sold 16.16 million smart phones. Apple sold 7.04 million.
Apple's market share is certainly growing, but in the world of cell phones, they don't come much larger than Nokia.
I assume you want to play HD, as most the Atom based devices will happily play SD video. it sounds like you want an Acer Revo. It's been around for a while.
You are right, I was making the assumption that an organisation the size of the BBC would be using sensible settings to get decent performance out of their HD encodings.
Or at least that things would be configured such that they couldn't get better performance at half the bitrate. I figured that when most your HD is delivered over satellite, bits are at a premium and you'd be trying to keep things efficient.
Certainly if things were badly configured initially, then a 50% improvement may be possible, but I'd have to wonder why an broadcaster with an annual budget of $7 billion would have badly configured encoders?
MPEG 2 dates from the mid 1990s whereas h.264 is from 2003. That was my point about comparing modern codecs.
So the argument is that because you can't forward mail, SPF is broken.
Forwarding mail is almost entirely unnecessary. Every major webmail provider allows you to get mail from third party accounts via POP3/IMAP. Rather than forward mail just fetch it like any other client. It doesn't need anything to be upgraded, works reliably and allows you to use SPF verifying the hosts permitted to send mail from your domain.
It would also be quite remarkable to see better quality compared to any other modern encoding while reducing bitrate by 50%.
Cash has the advantage of leaving no record of payment. Unfortunately when settling a bill, this becomes a disadvantage.
I'd rather not post the plumber an envelope full of $20 bills.
Really? What if the new plan offers more data than you currently still use in a month?
If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?
The problem in the US isn't the proposal to cap data. It's the complete and utter lack of affordable data in the sort of quantities the mass market needs to encourage mobile internet use to take off.
I'm thinking advertising, not protection money.
Think, type taxi into your google phone. GPS finds the nearest taxi firms. Then places a call direct to the firm that's willing to pay Google, just like ad-words on their website.
If no one pays, it could select randomly, but one firm pays and it gets all the calls - at least until someone comes along and bids a higher per call rate.
I'm thinking they might light to monetize calls through Google's 411 service.
By integrating that right into the phone, you can lookup business numbers and then, in theory, charge businesses to have customer calls placed to them.
That way you get a revenue stream, and the only adverts are the ones the customer requests when performing a search.
No idea what the revenue potential would be though.
Then something's up with the lights you're using, your electrics or your generator.
Either way, it would be trivial to identify if the bulbs are not consuming their rated wattage by plugging in a kill-a-watt and measuring it.
Are you aware that heat rises? Do you spend a lot of time sitting on your ceiling?
It's all very well to make heat, but it's pointless to be making it where it's not needed. That's not in any way efficient.
These guys are in new(ish) boats with big engines, an arsenal of weapons and satellite phones. A successful hijacking is worth millions.
When approached by military boats they toss everything into the water and pretend to be fishing. They then return to shore and restock. If they can afford that, I'd hazard a guess that they can afford new engines if these nets become the biggest obstacle to a successful hijacking.
This, too, seems to be a peculiarly US problem. I've heard of many many more lost and delayed SMSs in the US than in Europe. Perhaps that's because Europe has been making significant use of text messaging for far longer, so the systems there are now more reliable?
Perhaps US users just have lower expectations, so cell networks can get away with such things?
I'm not sure anyone (yet) has been sued for downloading. Typically people are sued for the uploading bit (that typically goes hand in hand with downloading in most clients), where you are making it available to others.
It's a lot easier for them to convince the judge and jury to award astronomical awards if they show you were sharing the file, not just downloading it for personal usage.
Let's be clear - it's not removed from Ubuntu, it's removed from the default install.
It's still a click away in the package manager.
Sounds sensible to me. I'd imagine the vast majority of Ubuntu users are unlikely to use the gimp.