Hollywood just wants to find a way into the market, even if they have to take a loss.
No, even at $1.50 they'll make a nice profit. In China, the pirate versions, same packaging, same production costs (often same factories, but that's another story) cost about 75 cents. The pirates certainly aren't selling at a loss. The only difference is how much is kicked back to the copyright owners; so they could give back up to 75 cents and still make a profit.
Cite one reference of any environmental organization that promotes the extinction of the human race.
Tom Clancy wrote a whole book about it; Rainbow Six. I'd like to believe that it was tongue-in-cheek, but his vilification of the entire environmental movement as a bunch of genocidal maniacs was too long, and humorless, to be anything but an expression of his beliefs. But he's the guy who installed his secret agent hero as president so he could tell us how a real man would run the place. Hopefully it was somewhat balanced out by the Day AFtrer Tomorrwo movie that took the opposite extreme.
> the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.
Regardless of what he calls it, that sounds pretty evil to me.
The alternative, unchecked growth, will lead to the planet becoming one huge poisonous slum. I really doubt he advocates extermination. If we just limited the number of offspring that would be quite sufficient. I myself have one daughter and that's enough.
there is a small but significant subset of environmentalists
It is debateable whether many of these protesters are environmentalists in any real sense. They use the language of the environmental movement, but many are only concerned with the impact on their own property values. And those who are under attack on valid environmental grounds can respond by characterising the whole movement as "Just a bunch of yuppie NIMBYists".
I personally live about two miles from a coal-fired power plant. Mindful of the negative PR from the increasing smog they're partially responsible for, they built a "pilot" wind turbine nearby. Just one. And the amount of PR they squeeze out of this is amazing. However, here in Hong Kong ther just isn't anywhere suitable for these in any number. They would have to be sited on mountain ridges, and to build and connect them to the grid they'd have to bulldoze the forested parks. Wind turbines are great for steppes, wheat fields, rocky deserts, but not for the last remnants of the southern Chinese forests.
Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it. Haven't I proven I have a brain in my head at this point? Why can't you just say "oops, I was wrong".
I did. At least twice. But wrong in a way that made my point stronger.
Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it.
My response wasn't directed only at you, but the silent multitude who had been following the thread. If you just wanted to make your statement, and sit back and wait for adualtion, you could have started your own thread.
If the new fuel had a lower Isp, then more energy would be required
However, Windows does not prevent you from downloading any media software you want and using it.
The point is that those providing the media know that EVERYONE has WMP. so why not use Windows Media formats? Why not use Windows Media DRM? Ten years ago, when someone said they would "send me a file", I could get WordPerfect, WordStar, IBM Displaywrite, etc, etc. Now the ONLY format you get is MS Word. And though standardising is simpler in many ways, it would be even better if it were an open standard. With visual and audio media there are already several viable open standards; MS aims to marginalise these. You can download any media player you want, but good luck finding media to play on them if this goes on.
while this antimatter doohickey only needs propellant equal to 5% the mass of the spacecraft.
Really? Aside from the actual antimatter, I thought the shielding might be rather heavy, if you wanted to carry passengers at least. But anyway, not to belabour my point, but that was that an explosion should be no more powerful then that of a chemical rocket; not much more so as the poster I originally responded to seemed to think. Your clarification makes it much less powerful.
it's an impossible project to perform in space. Consider how huge particle accelerators are. The whole point is to make an incredibly concentrated fuel here, and use it to make a much lighter, faster spaceship. If you first have to launch megatonnes into orbit, forget it. Maybe in a couple of centuries this could be manufactured on the Moon.
As for the risk; yes it could explode, but as TFA says, the blast would be similar to a chemical rocket, but less poisonous, You'd expect that as any kind of rocket would need approximately the same total energy for a trip that an explosion, all the energy being released at once, would be similar in size.
Why would you think you would have to upgrade your computer to run Office 2007?
Just on general principle: every other upgrade has been enormously more demanding. I also assumed you would need to be running Longhorn, perhaps an unwarranted assumption.
Everything he says or does is a melodrama, with him as the long-suffering hero. That's why I find his work unreadable
I've known a lot of writers, and you can't judge the writing by the person. Some of the greatest jerks are very good writers, many very nice people are terrible writers. But the very best writers are usually secure enough not to need to be assholes. Harlan is obviously terribly insecure, he's done a lot, but was capable of much more, and he knows it.
Testers are discovering "brand new features" that have been there since Office 95, because they can finally _find_ the settings
Well, my SOP when trying to work out how to do something "simple" in Word, is to try F1 help. That usually fails. Then I search Usenet, if that fails I post a message in the appropriate groups. The UI is totally fucked for sure. The confliciting desires to throw in every feature possible and to make it "user-friendly" by burying the settings for these features make it like flying a jet on autopilot. It follows the programmed course, but if you want to change the direction, unless you know exactly what you're doing you'll go down in a tailspin.
Here's a fact: Lions hunt in packs. Tigers hunt alone.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt there is any way you can tell that from looking at their skeletons, or even a dead body.
Bones from several specimens were found together, apparently contemporaneous; and no other animals. The supposition is they were together and killed suddenly, perhaps a flood. They wouldn't be socialising unless they had a good reason -- if they were lone hunters or scavengers they would keep well apart and guard theie territories, except in mating. So if they were together, it's at least possible it was because they needed a pack to take down their mega-prey.
Office 2007 is absolultely killer software. It is really the first time since Office 95, where it is a must-upgrade.
Must-upgrade the computer, RAM, monitor, video card.
I really would like to know what are the killer features that are so irresistible to you and the article writer. There really isn't much you can't do, in terms of least effort to get words on paper and make it look presentable, that you you couldn't do with Winword 2, or WordPerfect 6, 10 or so years ago. If a feature is important, you learn where it is and/or create a shortcut for it. (I was doing that in WordStar almost 20 years ago.) I know one answer will be "collaborative tools". I've yet to meet anyone who uses these in real life. It requires a unifirm level of competence in a whole group, and you just don't get that. Usually it will be the boss who just sends back files via fax with remarks scribbled on them. But most users are still pushing out one or two page memos, same as their great-grandparents did on Underwood typewriters over a century ago.
but in my 7 years of sound design for videogames my primary tools have all been on Windows and PCs.
I work in print publishing. I personally use a PC, but am in a tiny minority amongst the Mac users. Actually, if my boss hadn't been such a cheap bastard back when I started I'd probably be using a Mac too, but I got comfortable with my old-school DOS software and find it hard to change. But I do lust after OSX and may "switch" sometime.
You don't show brand names unless they're paying for it (and you must hide those brands from all camera angles), but you want to encourage a feeling of familiarity for the viewer, so you end up with stuff like a half-turned Coke(TM) can that has a malformed "ribbon device" to avoid the trademark police.
I'm sure this is a common policy, just to avoid hassle, but it has little basis in law. How on earth could Coca-cola complain about a character drinking a can of coke? The trademark is firmly attached to the actual product they sell. There is no passing off implied. So there is no trademark issue.
Some of the shows with more ballsy management just use whatever real products make sense. For instance, in the Sopranos a couple of years ago, Tony was in a death struggle with a guy and sprayed him in the face with a can of Raid, with the label prominently visible. Then he smashed his head on the floor and dismembered him in the bath. Is there any possibility that the company would have allowed that if they had the power to deny it? And in the movies, consider Supersize Me. McDonalds products and trademarks used in every scene, most certainly without permission. Shows avoid trademarked goods more because they don't want conflict with paid product placement and advertising.
Have you ever seen any of the threads which pop up on some forums...
I learnt the futility of trying to explain simple mathematics. In a peripherally related subject, I was sucked into an interminable thread on whether "The Millennium" began in 2000 or 2001. The "2000" camp basically just followed the odometer argument; the moment the round number appears on the calendar. A significant event (as significant as any numerical symmmetry), but not a "millennium". And closer to home, the inevitable 800-post threads that occur here every time an article with the word "evolution" appears demonstrate that most people do not evaluate evidence but look for those that support their beliefs and try to discredit the rest.
This ain't yer pappy's military no more, full of convicts and no-loads.
Has it changed so much since the Gulf War, as recounted in Jarhead? And though I realise it's fiction, the makers of Buffalo Soldiers did clainm that it was all based on true events.
So the thing that you so emphatically show your disdain for is in fact a timeless trade:
Land Development.
People are buying up previously unused spaces, and adding some or no value to them - in hopes that their value will exceed the purchase price plus carrying costs at some point in the future.
So being a "timeless trade" makes it okay. Like armed robbery, white slavery, "protection", etc. And the term "development" is misleading. A parked site is not developed like land; land is usually developed by providing access and services. Nothing in a parked domain is useful except the name itself. Youi'll notice hte other "timelsss trades" I mentioned are illegal. Though domain speculation shouldn't itself be illegal, it should certainly not be encouraged.
Slashdot Mirror
No, even at $1.50 they'll make a nice profit. In China, the pirate versions, same packaging, same production costs (often same factories, but that's another story) cost about 75 cents. The pirates certainly aren't selling at a loss. The only difference is how much is kicked back to the copyright owners; so they could give back up to 75 cents and still make a profit.
Hardly random. President Hu was visiting the US.
Tom Clancy wrote a whole book about it; Rainbow Six. I'd like to believe that it was tongue-in-cheek, but his vilification of the entire environmental movement as a bunch of genocidal maniacs was too long, and humorless, to be anything but an expression of his beliefs. But he's the guy who installed his secret agent hero as president so he could tell us how a real man would run the place. Hopefully it was somewhat balanced out by the Day AFtrer Tomorrwo movie that took the opposite extreme.
Regardless of what he calls it, that sounds pretty evil to me.
The alternative, unchecked growth, will lead to the planet becoming one huge poisonous slum. I really doubt he advocates extermination. If we just limited the number of offspring that would be quite sufficient. I myself have one daughter and that's enough.
It is debateable whether many of these protesters are environmentalists in any real sense. They use the language of the environmental movement, but many are only concerned with the impact on their own property values. And those who are under attack on valid environmental grounds can respond by characterising the whole movement as "Just a bunch of yuppie NIMBYists".
I personally live about two miles from a coal-fired power plant. Mindful of the negative PR from the increasing smog they're partially responsible for, they built a "pilot" wind turbine nearby. Just one. And the amount of PR they squeeze out of this is amazing. However, here in Hong Kong ther just isn't anywhere suitable for these in any number. They would have to be sited on mountain ridges, and to build and connect them to the grid they'd have to bulldoze the forested parks. Wind turbines are great for steppes, wheat fields, rocky deserts, but not for the last remnants of the southern Chinese forests.
I did. At least twice. But wrong in a way that made my point stronger.
Dude, you say this like I didn't already know it.
My response wasn't directed only at you, but the silent multitude who had been following the thread. If you just wanted to make your statement, and sit back and wait for adualtion, you could have started your own thread.
If the new fuel had a lower Isp, then more energy would be required
My turn to say "Duh".
The point is that those providing the media know that EVERYONE has WMP. so why not use Windows Media formats? Why not use Windows Media DRM? Ten years ago, when someone said they would "send me a file", I could get WordPerfect, WordStar, IBM Displaywrite, etc, etc. Now the ONLY format you get is MS Word. And though standardising is simpler in many ways, it would be even better if it were an open standard. With visual and audio media there are already several viable open standards; MS aims to marginalise these. You can download any media player you want, but good luck finding media to play on them if this goes on.
Really? Aside from the actual antimatter, I thought the shielding might be rather heavy, if you wanted to carry passengers at least. But anyway, not to belabour my point, but that was that an explosion should be no more powerful then that of a chemical rocket; not much more so as the poster I originally responded to seemed to think. Your clarification makes it much less powerful.
Okay. I was however just using an order-of-magnitude approximation. And with less energy total, it makes the consequences of disaster less, not more.
it's an impossible project to perform in space. Consider how huge particle accelerators are. The whole point is to make an incredibly concentrated fuel here, and use it to make a much lighter, faster spaceship. If you first have to launch megatonnes into orbit, forget it. Maybe in a couple of centuries this could be manufactured on the Moon.
As for the risk; yes it could explode, but as TFA says, the blast would be similar to a chemical rocket, but less poisonous, You'd expect that as any kind of rocket would need approximately the same total energy for a trip that an explosion, all the energy being released at once, would be similar in size.
Just on general principle: every other upgrade has been enormously more demanding. I also assumed you would need to be running Longhorn, perhaps an unwarranted assumption.
I've known a lot of writers, and you can't judge the writing by the person. Some of the greatest jerks are very good writers, many very nice people are terrible writers. But the very best writers are usually secure enough not to need to be assholes. Harlan is obviously terribly insecure, he's done a lot, but was capable of much more, and he knows it.
Well, my SOP when trying to work out how to do something "simple" in Word, is to try F1 help. That usually fails. Then I search Usenet, if that fails I post a message in the appropriate groups. The UI is totally fucked for sure. The confliciting desires to throw in every feature possible and to make it "user-friendly" by burying the settings for these features make it like flying a jet on autopilot. It follows the programmed course, but if you want to change the direction, unless you know exactly what you're doing you'll go down in a tailspin.
Bones from several specimens were found together, apparently contemporaneous; and no other animals. The supposition is they were together and killed suddenly, perhaps a flood. They wouldn't be socialising unless they had a good reason -- if they were lone hunters or scavengers they would keep well apart and guard theie territories, except in mating. So if they were together, it's at least possible it was because they needed a pack to take down their mega-prey.
Must-upgrade the computer, RAM, monitor, video card.
I really would like to know what are the killer features that are so irresistible to you and the article writer. There really isn't much you can't do, in terms of least effort to get words on paper and make it look presentable, that you you couldn't do with Winword 2, or WordPerfect 6, 10 or so years ago. If a feature is important, you learn where it is and/or create a shortcut for it. (I was doing that in WordStar almost 20 years ago.) I know one answer will be "collaborative tools". I've yet to meet anyone who uses these in real life. It requires a unifirm level of competence in a whole group, and you just don't get that. Usually it will be the boss who just sends back files via fax with remarks scribbled on them. But most users are still pushing out one or two page memos, same as their great-grandparents did on Underwood typewriters over a century ago.
The next generation will patch dnsapi.dll.
I work in print publishing. I personally use a PC, but am in a tiny minority amongst the Mac users. Actually, if my boss hadn't been such a cheap bastard back when I started I'd probably be using a Mac too, but I got comfortable with my old-school DOS software and find it hard to change. But I do lust after OSX and may "switch" sometime.
I'm sure this is a common policy, just to avoid hassle, but it has little basis in law. How on earth could Coca-cola complain about a character drinking a can of coke? The trademark is firmly attached to the actual product they sell. There is no passing off implied. So there is no trademark issue.
Some of the shows with more ballsy management just use whatever real products make sense. For instance, in the Sopranos a couple of years ago, Tony was in a death struggle with a guy and sprayed him in the face with a can of Raid, with the label prominently visible. Then he smashed his head on the floor and dismembered him in the bath. Is there any possibility that the company would have allowed that if they had the power to deny it? And in the movies, consider Supersize Me. McDonalds products and trademarks used in every scene, most certainly without permission. Shows avoid trademarked goods more because they don't want conflict with paid product placement and advertising.
He's not dead, you know.
I learnt the futility of trying to explain simple mathematics. In a peripherally related subject, I was sucked into an interminable thread on whether "The Millennium" began in 2000 or 2001. The "2000" camp basically just followed the odometer argument; the moment the round number appears on the calendar. A significant event (as significant as any numerical symmmetry), but not a "millennium". And closer to home, the inevitable 800-post threads that occur here every time an article with the word "evolution" appears demonstrate that most people do not evaluate evidence but look for those that support their beliefs and try to discredit the rest.
If Slashdot was a wiki even if I couldn't contribute to the math, at least I could correct the spelling of "Millennium".
Has it changed so much since the Gulf War, as recounted in Jarhead? And though I realise it's fiction, the makers of Buffalo Soldiers did clainm that it was all based on true events.
You've just demonstrated the value of "typo" domains.
So being a "timeless trade" makes it okay. Like armed robbery, white slavery, "protection", etc. And the term "development" is misleading. A parked site is not developed like land; land is usually developed by providing access and services. Nothing in a parked domain is useful except the name itself. Youi'll notice hte other "timelsss trades" I mentioned are illegal. Though domain speculation shouldn't itself be illegal, it should certainly not be encouraged.
Lucas would have come after you if you'd ever tried to use these. Everything Star Wars related is (TM) and (R) to the hilt.