Also at only 11" what use is it to anyone? They will have to film everything really zoomed in to compensate for this appalling oversight. Its typical Sony this, they design something thats good on paper, but when the final product comes out it is blighted by a terrible design flaw (like Linux).
I know I treat the few publicly available codes in my field (e.g., camb) with great disrespect, bitch all the time, and generally am part of the large community that makes it far more trouble than it's worth for the poor people who worked so hard on it.
Thank you for your honesty, but it sounds like it's up to you to change that attitude now that you know better than to perpetuate it in that field.
than the original star trek. I'm no trekkie geek (in fact, I don't remember watching more than an episode or 2 of any other spin-offs since then) but as far writing and the stories, narrative, etcetera - I felt that the original star trek and TNG feel completely different and share perhaps only the same type of set and universe. That's about it. TNG was vastly superior IMO. The original star trek always struck me as a bad James Bond series set in the future.
I don't like remakes often, it indicates a lack of creativity, but then I liked the new 3:10 to Yuma (original from the 50s). Mostly remakes suck (House of Wax, most other horror movies - ugh). I think the cause is that the original is looked at with Rose colored glasses when in reality the story concept was purely a product of the times and ages badly. For example, the same way people conceptualized the future 50-60 years back was taken seriously back then but is just a bad joke to us today.
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
about the world around you. It's not as if any of this stuff will ever affect you.
Unless you want to buy a house. Or a car. Or food. Or anything, really.
I mean, computers come free anyway. Computing time was never so costly that they ever had to divvy it up by time slices or something. And IT should never have to be affected by monetary concerns. Unlimited budgets for our departments are a good thing. Or at least were until the tech bubble crashed some years back....
He'll soon rebound from this scandal with a book deal, music contract, perfume and fashion line, and will drive around with Britney while getting "accidentally" photographed without his panties.
However, I view it a different way - at a certain level, you can enter in or out of contracts and if the job calls for extra but unpaid for hours - you as an employee should be able to offer that to your boss as an added value (over another employee) without the government getting in the way. Or go to another company that doesn't demand that from you in turn.
I wouldn't say that the argument is shallow, as allowing the "sin" may retain more jobs in the country rather than exporting them out. Also, I am arguing against government intervention simply if it prohibits the free and clear contract between consenting individuals that benefit them both.
Your argument against the jack of all trades is in particular weak. In small companies, many/most people wear multiple hats because they generally can do the job good enough and to get a professional in many cases (not just computers) was cost prohibitive.
I think more jobs will be lost overseas while salaries will be cut or held stagnate over time to normalize programming/worker costs. That's one of the realities in our global economy. Rarely in our recent recent history have salaries simply and truly gone up across the board (accounting for true inflation).
I mean, I can the other side - companies will not hire enough people in some cases and work their salaried ones to the bone in some cases, until they are exhausted and not of any immediate use anymore.
But I think it would be better to strive to go to work for a better business that treats you better than have the government indiscrimantly burden everyone because of the sins of a few - this will definitely hamper small businesses if it goes through.
Let's say a little old Lady kills someone. Is it really fair to prosecute and throw her in jail where she'll die alone instead of being free and with her friends/family?
(Only because you assumed she was guilty in your example).
Maybe the stupid laws should be attacked rather than a defense based on personality/person. I don't want to see little old ladies becoming hitmen just because society deems them immune from the law.
but, ultimately, the people who bought it were willing to spend $600. Plus that $200 is insignificant in the long run, you are spending, what? $60 on that phone for 2 years? That 400 + 1440 = $1840 vs 2040. Not that big of a deal. Subtract the $100 giftcard (hey, if you don't want to buy anything with it, it makes a great birthday/christmas gift to someone who does).
I know, I hate when technology drops too, but the psychology of this is fascinating. It's similiar to gasoline - people watch the price like hawks and when its $.05 lower across town, they'll waste 20 minutes driving and another 1/4 gallon to reap "savings" that are not worth the cost in the end.
And people are getting so stressed out over this, you have to wonder if they are the same people who'd buy some new (american) car during the first 9 months only to get stressed out over the end-of-year price breaks into the thousands or the fact that that car is worth a few thousand less once they sign the papers?
Look at it this way: You got a nice product. As a bonus, out of the blue, you got a $100 gift certificate. Now that it's slightly cheaper, maybe you can get your spouse one, whatever.
I tried adding something once to an article but they kept bludgeoning me and removing it due to that it wasn't referenced. I did reference it to a reliable source but I put it in a "External Links" as I couldn't add it to the citations/sources without being a registered user for some reason. If I have to become a registered user to add a citation, and if I have to add citations to add things without them being automatically deleted (regardless of their merit), that destroys a lot of anonymity. Which may be good or bad depending on your POV.
Wikipedia is pretty good as a resource in my experience, but lately they have been obsessed with being SEEN as accurate and are implementing rules that get them SEEN as accurate but I don't know if the actual result is that they become more accurate or just more orthodox and accepted by the establishment. They have been already shown in a study to be as or more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica - I think the direction they are heading actually does not lead them toward their ideal (accuracy) but more toward the mob rule/(orthodox accepted truths).
I wonder if the "first to file" part replacing "first to invent" is coming from the EU. In Europe this is the policy and I find it rather stupid.
We already "had" to make several changes in the tax code on the bequest of these intra/international organization and this smacks of the WTO influencing us.
It seems to be a policy purely to save the bureaucrats work and from having to think while suffocating business who already patent every little burp they release. I hope the western world wakes up from this patent madness before China completely surpasses us laughing all the way to the bank with their minimal IP protection. (Not anti-patent, just anti-stupidity).
Bill Gates and his friend Warren Buffett are giving almost all their money away. And they aren't anomalies, enough early industrialists were philanthropist. Incidentally, these are the people who paid the least taxes percentage-wise to their income because of good accountants, lawyers, and loopholes - Bill Gates never had to pay a dime on a big portion of his fortune because it's in stock and he only pays capital gain once he sells.
Also remember the big Tsunami years back? There was an outpouring of charity when that happened.
It's also odious to me that the government owns 100% of our income and allows us to keep 60-80% of it meanwhile they are doling out money to noncitizens/taxpayers around the world as if they are entitle to it.
"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."
As for the rest of your fear mongering prattle, he is for free trade - just not the corporate welfare protectionist trade like NAFTA represents.
And no, when your country is $9 trillion in the hole and $50 trillion of entitlements is looming on the not-too-far away horizon, foreign entitlements (foreign aid) should not be the first priority. Besides, I bet a lot of countries can do without us sending foreign aid (why shouldn't they be able to stand on their own two feet?)
Most people aren't audiophiles so the difference is either lost to them or not worth very much.
I like my music, but even dollar store headphones suffice. If someone wanted to go out and buy highend earbuds (I've seen some where the low end line starts at $350, more than the player itself), go right ahead.
I, myself, like to use a high end kitchen knives and bought 3 for that purpose - each costing over $100 each. Some people think that their Wal-mart or Dollar Store specials are good enough and for them and their use, it probably is.
Each of us have our own priorities and the absolute best of everything would be unaffordable to everyone except the extremely rich.
I haven't mispoke, perhaps I was not clear. I don't think the bandwidth used is the problem because bandwidth to the Internet backbone is relatively cheap and I'm sure the Central Office has high bandwidth Fiber Optic connecting them to the rest of the world.
But bandwidth on Cable is comparitively PHYSICALLY limited. So, considerations are weighted on conditions of the local loop.
For example, if you are 1 of 30 customers on a local loop and you download 300 gigabytes per month - you still might have a very minor impact on fellow customers. As such, since you bring an extra $60 per month to Comcast, might be good word of mouth advertising in the local area, might use other comcast cable services, it would make little sense in kicking you off since you'd still be a profitable customer.
But, if you are 1 of 500 customers on an oversold local loop, and you download 200 gigabytes per month - you could be a major impact on this line on fellow customers. Keeping you as a customer may drive off several others who find the browsing too slow. In this case -- even though you download LESS than the previous example - you would still be less desirable as a customer.
There could be other considerations too - if you do the bulk of your downloading at night when most people sleep - perhaps they factor that in as a consideration rather than someone who downloads during the day - especially in the evening when EVERYBODY else is on. It isn't unheard of - electricity is cheaper during off-peak hours as well.
and that is how much they oversell the line you are on.
If you are the only customer of 30 on a loop, there would be a lot leeway to give you bandwidth than if you were one of 500.
If they had a hard limit, they would be kicking off profitable customers in more rural areas and keeping perhaps unprofitable customers in high load areas (due them "hogging" bandwidth and chasing other customers off due to a poor experience).
Are you serious? I am extremely pro-Ubuntu but I recognize it's shortcomings.
1. The distribution has crapped out on me after "updates" - not upgrades, UPDATES, numerous times. Granted, I am not on their one LTS release (which is dated almost upon release compared to Apple, but I was on the last stable one. I could only fix it because I am familiar enough with computers. Most people would lose their data by just reinserting the install disk to fix it rather than going through the trouble. And no, I don't install Automatix (anymore) and it still happens with a relatively clean install.
This should NEVER happen and has never happened on my OS X machines.
2. Problems that never get fixed if you stick to one installation (don't upgrade). I had problems interacting network-wise my Ubuntu with my OS X shares. Only Ubuntu had this problem, and I have since stopped trying completely and this may have been fixed. But I am sure their LTS release has this problem because AFAIK LTS tries not to replace package at all unless they are completely buggy. Often, you don't want to upgrade from an LTS because it is LTS, and waiting for the next one is like 3-4 years.
3. Upgrades frequently break the computer. Often automatix is the culprit, but until this is fixed, Ubuntu is not ready for primetime.
4. Video resolutions, with wide screen monitors, are a headache. This looks to be better with Gutsy Gibbon.
I run Ubuntu myself because I like certain things better. But when non-gaming relatives/friends ask for my recommendation, I tell them to get a Mac. I know in that case, I'll have 5% of the headaches providing tech support than with Windows or Ubuntu*.
There are lots of people who go into MIT but never hit it big. (I'm sure they were moderately successful.)
There are a lot of people who work hard - and the majority of 1st gen. billionaires are no exception. But reading Bill Gates history, I believe there was a definite element of luck there - right place at the right time - along with some cunning to get where they are at.
With the same skill set and drive, just with different luck, I could definitely see Gates as head of just another software company and be worth "only" $50-100 million.
I don't think he's the exception among the billionaires. I could see a lucky break at the difference between moderately sucessful multi-millionaire businessmen no one heard of and the ultra-rich - in fact it seem to be that the once in the lifetime jackpot is what propels them to ridiculous wealth.
The one exception to this I think would be Steve Jobs - that guy could probably make fortunes several times over starting from scratch.
Well, the point of the schools were not to become Computer Science grads in the traditional sense - if you mean that the mathematics of it all trumps everything - the degree is in Real Time Interactive Simulation (I know, long name) but there you were given much MORE math than a typical CS degree.
But that is besides the point - if you want to learn how to programs games - sometimes the best way is to sit down and do it - that way you encounter problems to fix, etcetera that all the theory in the world would not teach you. That is what the school emphasized.
Slashdot Mirror
Religions are not always benevolent in their own right.You seem to be putting more value on one group of people versus another. Why?
Only GOVERNMENT run security gives me free colonoscopies while I fly. Not only do I save a trip to the doctor, I ensure I stay in good health.
than the original star trek. I'm no trekkie geek (in fact, I don't remember watching more than an episode or 2 of any other spin-offs since then) but as far writing and the stories, narrative, etcetera - I felt that the original star trek and TNG feel completely different and share perhaps only the same type of set and universe. That's about it. TNG was vastly superior IMO. The original star trek always struck me as a bad James Bond series set in the future.
I don't like remakes often, it indicates a lack of creativity, but then I liked the new 3:10 to Yuma (original from the 50s). Mostly remakes suck (House of Wax, most other horror movies - ugh). I think the cause is that the original is looked at with Rose colored glasses when in reality the story concept was purely a product of the times and ages badly. For example, the same way people conceptualized the future 50-60 years back was taken seriously back then but is just a bad joke to us today.
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k
Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF
about the world around you. It's not as if any of this stuff will ever affect you.
Unless you want to buy a house. Or a car. Or food. Or anything, really.
I mean, computers come free anyway. Computing time was never so costly that they ever had to divvy it up by time slices or something. And IT should never have to be affected by monetary concerns. Unlimited budgets for our departments are a good thing. Or at least were until the tech bubble crashed some years back....
Increases in food is not consider either.
And food has been getting significantly more expensive in my area the past year, especially milk, fruits, vegetables.
He'll soon rebound from this scandal with a book deal, music contract, perfume and fashion line, and will drive around with Britney while getting "accidentally" photographed without his panties.
However, I view it a different way - at a certain level, you can enter in or out of contracts and if the job calls for extra but unpaid for hours - you as an employee should be able to offer that to your boss as an added value (over another employee) without the government getting in the way. Or go to another company that doesn't demand that from you in turn.
I wouldn't say that the argument is shallow, as allowing the "sin" may retain more jobs in the country rather than exporting them out. Also, I am arguing against government intervention simply if it prohibits the free and clear contract between consenting individuals that benefit them both.
Your argument against the jack of all trades is in particular weak. In small companies, many/most people wear multiple hats because they generally can do the job good enough and to get a professional in many cases (not just computers) was cost prohibitive.
I think more jobs will be lost overseas while salaries will be cut or held stagnate over time to normalize programming/worker costs. That's one of the realities in our global economy. Rarely in our recent recent history have salaries simply and truly gone up across the board (accounting for true inflation).
I mean, I can the other side - companies will not hire enough people in some cases and work their salaried ones to the bone in some cases, until they are exhausted and not of any immediate use anymore.
But I think it would be better to strive to go to work for a better business that treats you better than have the government indiscrimantly burden everyone because of the sins of a few - this will definitely hamper small businesses if it goes through.
Let's say a little old Lady kills someone. Is it really fair to prosecute and throw her in jail where she'll die alone instead of being free and with her friends/family?
(Only because you assumed she was guilty in your example).
Maybe the stupid laws should be attacked rather than a defense based on personality/person. I don't want to see little old ladies becoming hitmen just because society deems them immune from the law.
but, ultimately, the people who bought it were willing to spend $600. Plus that $200 is insignificant in the long run, you are spending, what? $60 on that phone for 2 years? That 400 + 1440 = $1840 vs 2040. Not that big of a deal. Subtract the $100 giftcard (hey, if you don't want to buy anything with it, it makes a great birthday/christmas gift to someone who does).
I know, I hate when technology drops too, but the psychology of this is fascinating. It's similiar to gasoline - people watch the price like hawks and when its $.05 lower across town, they'll waste 20 minutes driving and another 1/4 gallon to reap "savings" that are not worth the cost in the end.
And people are getting so stressed out over this, you have to wonder if they are the same people who'd buy some new (american) car during the first 9 months only to get stressed out over the end-of-year price breaks into the thousands or the fact that that car is worth a few thousand less once they sign the papers?
Look at it this way: You got a nice product. As a bonus, out of the blue, you got a $100 gift certificate. Now that it's slightly cheaper, maybe you can get your spouse one, whatever.
The citation list, not the page, was protected. I could not add ANYTHING to that list.
I tried adding something once to an article but they kept bludgeoning me and removing it due to that it wasn't referenced. I did reference it to a reliable source but I put it in a "External Links" as I couldn't add it to the citations/sources without being a registered user for some reason. If I have to become a registered user to add a citation, and if I have to add citations to add things without them being automatically deleted (regardless of their merit), that destroys a lot of anonymity. Which may be good or bad depending on your POV.
Wikipedia is pretty good as a resource in my experience, but lately they have been obsessed with being SEEN as accurate and are implementing rules that get them SEEN as accurate but I don't know if the actual result is that they become more accurate or just more orthodox and accepted by the establishment. They have been already shown in a study to be as or more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica - I think the direction they are heading actually does not lead them toward their ideal (accuracy) but more toward the mob rule/(orthodox accepted truths).
I wonder if the "first to file" part replacing "first to invent" is coming from the EU. In Europe this is the policy and I find it rather stupid.
We already "had" to make several changes in the tax code on the bequest of these intra/international organization and this smacks of the WTO influencing us.
It seems to be a policy purely to save the bureaucrats work and from having to think while suffocating business who already patent every little burp they release. I hope the western world wakes up from this patent madness before China completely surpasses us laughing all the way to the bank with their minimal IP protection. (Not anti-patent, just anti-stupidity).
Bill Gates and his friend Warren Buffett are giving almost all their money away. And they aren't anomalies, enough early industrialists were philanthropist. Incidentally, these are the people who paid the least taxes percentage-wise to their income because of good accountants, lawyers, and loopholes - Bill Gates never had to pay a dime on a big portion of his fortune because it's in stock and he only pays capital gain once he sells.
Also remember the big Tsunami years back? There was an outpouring of charity when that happened.
It's also odious to me that the government owns 100% of our income and allows us to keep 60-80% of it meanwhile they are doling out money to noncitizens/taxpayers around the world as if they are entitle to it.
He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."
As for the rest of your fear mongering prattle, he is for free trade - just not the corporate welfare protectionist trade like NAFTA represents.
And no, when your country is $9 trillion in the hole and $50 trillion of entitlements is looming on the not-too-far away horizon, foreign entitlements (foreign aid) should not be the first priority. Besides, I bet a lot of countries can do without us sending foreign aid (why shouldn't they be able to stand on their own two feet?)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
Most people aren't audiophiles so the difference is either lost to them or not worth very much.
I like my music, but even dollar store headphones suffice. If someone wanted to go out and buy highend earbuds (I've seen some where the low end line starts at $350, more than the player itself), go right ahead.
I, myself, like to use a high end kitchen knives and bought 3 for that purpose - each costing over $100 each. Some people think that their Wal-mart or Dollar Store specials are good enough and for them and their use, it probably is.
Each of us have our own priorities and the absolute best of everything would be unaffordable to everyone except the extremely rich.
I haven't mispoke, perhaps I was not clear. I don't think the bandwidth used is the problem because bandwidth to the Internet backbone is relatively cheap and I'm sure the Central Office has high bandwidth Fiber Optic connecting them to the rest of the world.
But bandwidth on Cable is comparitively PHYSICALLY limited. So, considerations are weighted on conditions of the local loop.
For example, if you are 1 of 30 customers on a local loop and you download 300 gigabytes per month - you still might have a very minor impact on fellow customers. As such, since you bring an extra $60 per month to Comcast, might be good word of mouth advertising in the local area, might use other comcast cable services, it would make little sense in kicking you off since you'd still be a profitable customer.
But, if you are 1 of 500 customers on an oversold local loop, and you download 200 gigabytes per month - you could be a major impact on this line on fellow customers. Keeping you as a customer may drive off several others who find the browsing too slow. In this case -- even though you download LESS than the previous example - you would still be less desirable as a customer.
There could be other considerations too - if you do the bulk of your downloading at night when most people sleep - perhaps they factor that in as a consideration rather than someone who downloads during the day - especially in the evening when EVERYBODY else is on. It isn't unheard of - electricity is cheaper during off-peak hours as well.
and that is how much they oversell the line you are on.
If you are the only customer of 30 on a loop, there would be a lot leeway to give you bandwidth than if you were one of 500.
If they had a hard limit, they would be kicking off profitable customers in more rural areas and keeping perhaps unprofitable customers in high load areas (due them "hogging" bandwidth and chasing other customers off due to a poor experience).
Are you serious? I am extremely pro-Ubuntu but I recognize it's shortcomings.
1. The distribution has crapped out on me after "updates" - not upgrades, UPDATES, numerous times. Granted, I am not on their one LTS release (which is dated almost upon release compared to Apple, but I was on the last stable one. I could only fix it because I am familiar enough with computers. Most people would lose their data by just reinserting the install disk to fix it rather than going through the trouble. And no, I don't install Automatix (anymore) and it still happens with a relatively clean install.
This should NEVER happen and has never happened on my OS X machines.
2. Problems that never get fixed if you stick to one installation (don't upgrade). I had problems interacting network-wise my Ubuntu with my OS X shares. Only Ubuntu had this problem, and I have since stopped trying completely and this may have been fixed. But I am sure their LTS release has this problem because AFAIK LTS tries not to replace package at all unless they are completely buggy. Often, you don't want to upgrade from an LTS because it is LTS, and waiting for the next one is like 3-4 years.
3. Upgrades frequently break the computer. Often automatix is the culprit, but until this is fixed, Ubuntu is not ready for primetime.
4. Video resolutions, with wide screen monitors, are a headache. This looks to be better with Gutsy Gibbon.
I run Ubuntu myself because I like certain things better. But when non-gaming relatives/friends ask for my recommendation, I tell them to get a Mac. I know in that case, I'll have 5% of the headaches providing tech support than with Windows or Ubuntu*.
There are lots of people who go into MIT but never hit it big. (I'm sure they were moderately successful.)
There are a lot of people who work hard - and the majority of 1st gen. billionaires are no exception. But reading Bill Gates history, I believe there was a definite element of luck there - right place at the right time - along with some cunning to get where they are at.
With the same skill set and drive, just with different luck, I could definitely see Gates as head of just another software company and be worth "only" $50-100 million.
I don't think he's the exception among the billionaires. I could see a lucky break at the difference between moderately sucessful multi-millionaire businessmen no one heard of and the ultra-rich - in fact it seem to be that the once in the lifetime jackpot is what propels them to ridiculous wealth.
The one exception to this I think would be Steve Jobs - that guy could probably make fortunes several times over starting from scratch.
Well, the point of the schools were not to become Computer Science grads in the traditional sense - if you mean that the mathematics of it all trumps everything - the degree is in Real Time Interactive Simulation (I know, long name) but there you were given much MORE math than a typical CS degree.
But that is besides the point - if you want to learn how to programs games - sometimes the best way is to sit down and do it - that way you encounter problems to fix, etcetera that all the theory in the world would not teach you. That is what the school emphasized.