and tell them it looked like a great game. You probably would have bought it, but as you don't have an internet connection all the time. You're not going to and you bought (insert competitor title here) instead.
No - Money means the game failed.
Ubisoft are a businees, no money coming in, means they failed.
, and Steve's attitude toward backwards compatibility would not be a hit in the corporate world.
Hmm, yes that would be bad. I mean it's not like Programs written for windows 3.11 work on 7 now is it..Oh wait...
Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0.4: Currently, Windows 7 does not work with Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0.4. You must uninstall this program before upgrading to Windows 7
Symantec Ghost Solution Suite 2.5: For Windows 7 machines, the "Clone" and "Configuration steps do not function properly; however, Symantec is aware of this issue.
Various drivers: Complete driver support is not available from all manufacturers for all hardware. Partial support is available for Dell, ATI, nVidia, HP, and other vendors. Windows 7 has plenty of built-in drivers.
Funnily enough, there have been very little hardware problems with OSX...
External is fine, just stick it under the desk, or here isa revelation for you.
Buy a larger hard drive, put it in your IMAC...put the smaller one in an eternal drive, and a new install of the OS will pull ALL of the apps and ALL of the user data off the old disk.
Note, excludes drivers for printers and the like.
So apple does give you what you want, it's a 24" imac.
When I specced up a phake mac it came to a lot more than a mini, in fact damn close to the 24" imac minus the 24" screen.
So external drive and 8800 gfx card are available same as psytar, except the mac comes with a free 24" screen...
I think most OSX users would dis-agree, as do most people when they hear something is cross platform for Windows and Mac....
I'd use it, I'd even pay for it if it did work on OsX and Windows and Linux, as I could probably get it working on Freebsd etc as well, so it would truely be useful everywhere.
Of course saying that I'd end up needing my data and only having Solaris Tru64 and AIX boxen available...
The media industry has already invented a vessel for this at the hardware level (HDMI, which everyone is stupidly demanding on their new A/V equipment).
Except the reason people want HDMI is the quality of output, they don't care about the DRM.
Going from component to HDMI is as big a jump quality wise as going from RF to Scart is/was.
Then again, all you need is a gfx card with HDMI out, which will be coming, then it doesn't matter about DRM, as they GFX card will do the HMDI handshake for you.
Who's going to persuade Canon that we need print drivers for Linux, oh and RAW mage support for their Cameras.
Whilst we're at it, this reliable Linux vendor should have a chat to Adobe about getting Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash working on Linux as well.
Then I'd like them to sort out a decent desktop, none of this lookey-likey gnome or kde, but something new and original and easy to use. Oh plsu they've got to make it close to standard so it's easy to support.
After that I'd like to see some support for bluetooth keyboards and mice, and an app to sync to my next 3 or 4 phones, or at least one that supports most phones.
When they've done that, I'd also like a suite of apps, that can sync with that mobile phone sync app, you know like ical, adress book, that kind of thing.
Throw in something like Salling Clicker for Mac or Windows, and you've nearly got a deal.
All I want then in the package to come in something as thin, stylish and quiet as the Imac.
Both are humans, I think that's what we agree on (as it doesn't depend on time). Now the question is: do we grant every human the right to life?
Well no, lets ignore the term human at the moment, as you could argue as soon as egg and sperm unite, that's a human. Lets use person, or even better viable person. Now at some point a collection of cells become a viable person. It's the rights we grant to that person, and what rights we deny before that are key
Before you go moving the 24 week target, have a look at what happens if you go too early, you become the Catholic Church, and then every sperm IS sacred.
No, because sperm cells and eggs are not human beings. They are simply cells. Things change dramatically once you bring them together. From that moment, a NEW human life starts. Diploid chomosome set, new set of genes due to potential chross-overs/mutations, and if you don't work against it (and modulo naturally ocurring deaths) it will get born and surf the Web, read slashdot and stuff. Union of egg and sperm is everybody's canonical $t_0$, so to speak.
Well they are both Potential BabiesIt's still about potential here. I guess it's very simple if we're looking at using stem cells, and clones of those cells. It would be a whole different ball game, if we started having babies/embryos/foetuses, just for their stem cells.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 20 million, would the research be worth it?
That's a very important argument, however, this type of argument has been studied in philosophy extensively under the name of Utilitarianism: do just what maximises good to most people. The drawback of such a philosophy is that it lends itself to sacrificing minorities for the benefit of the rest. So I argue that human rights must never become object of a utilitarian argument.
What would you do with a plague carrier then? One person with ebola for example, in a light aircraft, heading towards New York or London. They are a minority, me, I'd shoot them down, but I'd be interested in seeing how your philosophy would deal with them.
I'd also want some research done into pain, reaction and the like, of the stem cells, to indeed see if there was any capacity for suffering or any suffering going on.
I think the stem cells themselves are not problematic (as they don't contain all the elements of a human being anymore). So they aren't humans. However the process of getting there is unethical. It's the killing of spurious embryos that is the problem.
Are they using spurios embryos? They're not farming these embroys are they, we're not talking matrix still fields here. Just body parts for scientific use.
Other than that, they are just organic matter, same as a menstrual cycles, or sperm, livers, kidneys and hearts.
Yes, just organic matter.
I'm still amazed that the people arguing against this aren't arguing against heart/liver/kidney transplants as being traumatic to hearts/livers/kidneys.
Yeah, that is pseudo-science, so no comment.
I guess the key here is the farming of embryos, or the cloning of stem cells. To my understanding the initial stem cells are coming from non viable humans, and then being cloned. I've yet to hear of anything to the contrary.
Most places it's 24 weeks, before that, it's a womens period (menstrual cycles), with the same rights, and in most cases the same viability, without serious medical intervention, and even with that, a low chance of anything resembling a normal worthwhile life.
Before you go moving the 24 week target, have a look at what happens if you go too early, you become the Catholic Church, and then every sperm IS sacred.
I guess what you have to ask yourself, is this.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 20 million, would the research be worth it?
Most people would say yes.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 2 million, would the research be worth it?
Again, yes.
It's when we get down to
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to a disease, which would cure 201 people, would the research be worth it?
Then it's a more difficult question.
In my view, it's still a yes.
However, I'd also want some research done into pain, reaction and the like, of the stem cells, to indeed see if there was any capacity for suffering or any suffering going on.
Other than that, they are just organic matter, same as a menstrual cycles, or sperm, livers, kidneys and hearts.
I'm still amazed that the people arguing against this aren't arguing against heart/liver/kidney transplants as being traumatic to hearts/livers/kidneys.
On the other hadn we don't get 30 minute programs stretched to an hour to fit the commercials in.
We do get programs that are interesting, but perhaps not commercially viable.
And if you think that something that's not commerically can't be worth anything, not least of all, think of Linux, it wasn't for a long while commercially viable, but was interesting.
Really, so are you saying that the IWF uses a purely automated procedure?
that was not my understanding.
So, lets assume you're right. And they are 95% accurate.
So that's about 10 million pages they'll have wrongly flagged then, or 1 million child porn pages they'll miss.
Let's assume you're wrong, (which is more likely) and that they investigate reports sent to them.
The viewing and possesion of that porn is against UK law, and just because they have set themselves up as an organisation, doesn't mean that they are above the law in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's easy.
Don't buy the next ubisoft game. Write them
UBISOFT
1st Floor, Chertsey Gate East,
London Street,
Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 8AP
and tell them it looked like a great game. You probably would have bought it, but as you don't have an internet connection all the time. You're not going to and you bought (insert competitor title here) instead.
No - Money means the game failed.
Ubisoft are a businees, no money coming in, means they failed.
Vote with your pocket.
, and Steve's attitude toward backwards compatibility would not be a hit in the corporate world.
Hmm, yes that would be bad. I mean it's not like Programs written for windows 3.11 work on 7 now is it..Oh wait...
Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0.4:
Currently, Windows 7 does not work with Symantec Endpoint Protection 11.0.4. You must uninstall this program before upgrading to Windows 7
Symantec Ghost Solution Suite 2.5:
For Windows 7 machines, the "Clone" and "Configuration steps do not function properly; however, Symantec is aware of this issue.
Various drivers:
Complete driver support is not available from all manufacturers for all hardware. Partial support is available for Dell, ATI, nVidia, HP, and other vendors. Windows 7 has plenty of built-in drivers.
Funnily enough, there have been very little hardware problems with OSX...
Why do you need an extra internal hard drive?
External is fine, just stick it under the desk, or here isa revelation for you.
Buy a larger hard drive, put it in your IMAC...put the smaller one in an eternal drive, and a new install of the OS will pull ALL of the apps and ALL of the user data off the old disk.
Note, excludes drivers for printers and the like.
So apple does give you what you want, it's a 24" imac.
When I specced up a phake mac it came to a lot more than a mini, in fact damn close to the 24" imac minus the 24" screen.
So external drive and 8800 gfx card are available same as psytar, except the mac comes with a free 24" screen...
I get signal with a P990i, a P800 a HTC Tytn, and a Nokia 6230i.
The signal on the Iphone goes from No signal to Full and back again regularly, none of the other phones exhibit this problem.
A mac?
Booting into Windows via Boot camp is that much faster...
[quote] Truecrypt is cross-platform [/quote]
I think most OSX users would dis-agree, as do most people when they hear something is cross platform for Windows and Mac....
I'd use it, I'd even pay for it if it did work on OsX and Windows and Linux, as I could probably get it working on Freebsd etc as well, so it would truely be useful everywhere.
Of course saying that I'd end up needing my data and only having Solaris Tru64 and AIX boxen available...
er no he's not.
He might miss out on yet another wunderkind keyboard that replays the old dvorak faster than qwerty myth, and says it's faster.
But replaying something again, doesn't make it change.
Duck Obi wan, duck!
Except the reason people want HDMI is the quality of output, they don't care about the DRM.
Going from component to HDMI is as big a jump quality wise as going from RF to Scart is/was.
Then again, all you need is a gfx card with HDMI out, which will be coming, then it doesn't matter about DRM, as they GFX card will do the HMDI handshake for you.
Who's going to persuade Canon that we need print drivers for Linux, oh and RAW mage support for their Cameras.
Whilst we're at it, this reliable Linux vendor should have a chat to Adobe about getting Photoshop, Dreamweaver and Flash working on Linux as well.
Then I'd like them to sort out a decent desktop, none of this lookey-likey gnome or kde, but something new and original and easy to use. Oh plsu they've got to make it close to standard so it's easy to support.
After that I'd like to see some support for bluetooth keyboards and mice, and an app to sync to my next 3 or 4 phones, or at least one that supports most phones.
When they've done that, I'd also like a suite of apps, that can sync with that mobile phone sync app, you know like ical, adress book, that kind of thing.
Throw in something like Salling Clicker for Mac or Windows, and you've nearly got a deal.
All I want then in the package to come in something as thin, stylish and quiet as the Imac.
Jobs a good un.
No the really old ones are lamps, no really as in with mazda written on the top....
No they are not, the new ones will be lcd, the old, lamps.
No cathodes, no rays, no tubes, no sharks, no lasers, just lamps mirrors and hopefully no smoke..
Actually, I go to lots of pub quizzes that have one or more rounds that include buzzer use.
Beat the intro being one obvious one.
[sarcasm]
./
No now all you need to do is find an article where a journalist claims this is so, post it to
and find people who think it's wrong.
Really, so I can take something compiled for a 2.4 kernel and it will run on a box still running a 1.0 kernel?
Are you sure?
You mean it's more likely to be a kid.
Notice the lack of anything else.
Kids are kids.
In the Uk, when I was 17, (the legal age to drive here), it was escorts, and Vauxhall Chevettes, then it was Mini's and Novas.
Back in your dads day, it would have been big block Chevy's and the like.
Lighten up, kids will be kids, and you've got to give natural selection it's chance.
Is it, since when did an embryo become a baby?
Both are humans, I think that's what we agree on (as it doesn't depend on time). Now the question is: do we grant every human the right to life?
Well no, lets ignore the term human at the moment, as you could argue as soon as egg and sperm unite, that's a human. Lets use person, or even better viable person. Now at some point a collection of cells become a viable person. It's the rights we grant to that person, and what rights we deny before that are key
Before you go moving the 24 week target, have a look at what happens if you go too early, you become the Catholic Church, and then every sperm IS sacred.
No, because sperm cells and eggs are not human beings. They are simply cells. Things change dramatically once you bring them together. From that moment, a NEW human life starts. Diploid chomosome set, new set of genes due to potential chross-overs/mutations, and if you don't work against it (and modulo naturally ocurring deaths) it will get born and surf the Web, read slashdot and stuff. Union of egg and sperm is everybody's canonical $t_0$, so to speak.
Well they are both Potential BabiesIt's still about potential here. I guess it's very simple if we're looking at using stem cells, and clones of those cells. It would be a whole different ball game, if we started having babies/embryos/foetuses, just for their stem cells.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 20 million, would the research be worth it?
That's a very important argument, however, this type of argument has been studied in philosophy extensively under the name of Utilitarianism: do just what maximises good to most people. The drawback of such a philosophy is that it lends itself to sacrificing minorities for the benefit of the rest. So I argue that human rights must never become object of a utilitarian argument.
What would you do with a plague carrier then? One person with ebola for example, in a light aircraft, heading towards New York or London. They are a minority, me, I'd shoot them down, but I'd be interested in seeing how your philosophy would deal with them.
I'd also want some research done into pain, reaction and the like, of the stem cells, to indeed see if there was any capacity for suffering or any suffering going on.
I think the stem cells themselves are not problematic (as they don't contain all the elements of a human being anymore). So they aren't humans. However the process of getting there is unethical. It's the killing of spurious embryos that is the problem.
Are they using spurios embryos? They're not farming these embroys are they, we're not talking matrix still fields here. Just body parts for scientific use.
Other than that, they are just organic matter, same as a menstrual cycles, or sperm, livers, kidneys and hearts.
Yes, just organic matter.
I'm still amazed that the people arguing against this aren't arguing against heart/liver/kidney transplants as being traumatic to hearts/livers/kidneys.
Yeah, that is pseudo-science, so no comment.
I guess the key here is the farming of embryos, or the cloning of stem cells. To my understanding the initial stem cells are coming from non viable humans, and then being cloned. I've yet to hear of anything to the contrary.
Is it, since when did an embryo become a baby?
Most places it's 24 weeks, before that, it's a womens period (menstrual cycles), with the same rights, and in most cases the same viability, without serious medical intervention, and even with that, a low chance of anything resembling a normal worthwhile life.
Before you go moving the 24 week target, have a look at what happens if you go too early, you become the Catholic Church, and then every sperm IS sacred.
I guess what you have to ask yourself, is this.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 20 million, would the research be worth it?
Most people would say yes.
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to aids, which would cure 2 million, would the research be worth it?
Again, yes.
It's when we get down to
If doing research on 200 stem cell clones resulted in the cure to a disease, which would cure 201 people, would the research be worth it?
Then it's a more difficult question.
In my view, it's still a yes.
However, I'd also want some research done into pain, reaction and the like, of the stem cells, to indeed see if there was any capacity for suffering or any suffering going on.
Other than that, they are just organic matter, same as a menstrual cycles, or sperm, livers, kidneys and hearts.
I'm still amazed that the people arguing against this aren't arguing against heart/liver/kidney transplants as being traumatic to hearts/livers/kidneys.
Or if you don't want to pay the license fee, don't get a telly, read a book.
People in this day and age still choose to not have a tv.
You don't have to have one, it's not a right, it's not a need.
On the other hadn we don't get 30 minute programs stretched to an hour to fit the commercials in.
We do get programs that are interesting, but perhaps not commercially viable.
And if you think that something that's not commerically can't be worth anything, not least of all, think of Linux, it wasn't for a long while commercially viable, but was interesting.
more importantly, when are we going to get the works of shakespeare?
Well you could compare SP2 at 237MB, with 10.3.5 at 86MB.
However, then there's a java update at 27mb, isync 1.5 at 6mb..etc etc.
Bottom line is, patching either OS X or XP on a dial up will suck, however MS will at least let you order a CD, I've not seen apple offering that.
Really, so are you saying that the IWF uses a purely automated procedure?
that was not my understanding.
So, lets assume you're right. And they are 95% accurate.
So that's about 10 million pages they'll have wrongly flagged then, or 1 million child porn pages they'll miss.
Let's assume you're wrong, (which is more likely) and that they investigate reports sent to them.
The viewing and possesion of that porn is against UK law, and just because they have set themselves up as an organisation, doesn't mean that they are above the law in any way.
So who looks at the site and decides it is illegal to view, and who arrests them?
They do offer a $200 ipod.
They being creative, and the ipod being the Zen.
Or did you mean that you just wanted Apple to do you a special deal?
But the post I was replying to, was talking about not allowing people to bring them to work, not about connecting them to corporate networks.
One I would support, one I think unreasonable.