[word in question] 1 : [widely-used definition everyone is familiar with] 2 : [something else]
If we take the second meaning, then yes, [original argument] IS in fact [statement of truthiness]. It's the [supporting justification] and [further reinforcement] which defines them as [paraphrase of second definition].
[mildly humorous non-sequitur analogy]
[suggestion to RTFM]
[obligatory Wikipedia link]
Re:Infastructure + Content = Power Grab
on
Net Neutrality or Not?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe the government should sieze control over...
Wow, there's just no way that statement could end badly!
He's not complaining or whining, he's refuting a claim that "everything works the same,"...
No, he's not. He's trying to refute a claim that "The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows." Now, last time I checked, we all have access to the same Internet. Just because Microsoft locks half the available media up in proprietary DRM doesn't mean the Mac is any less capable of getting to the server that hosts it.
Re:Not THAT surprising...
on
Region-free PS3
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I've got an ever better idea - people are likely to lose or misplace the disc if you only have to insert it every month or so, so why not just require the disc to be inserted every time the game starts up? The game could perform some kind of check to ensure that the disc is in the drive and authentic, by using some kind of "bad sector" identification that would prevent those nasty pirates from copying the disks bit-for-bit.
Sure, drive emulation is an option here, but I'm sure if you maintained a list of emulator programs, let's call it a "black list", you could check to see if any were running and then refuse to run if that is the case?
My God I may have just single-handedly solved the whole piracy problem!
I may be missing something, but isn't what you're talking about already possible, and perhaps even better implemented, with Google and del.icio.us? Just throw multiple tags at something - if you want those 20 'funny' links to be further subdivided into 'visit daily', etc - just throw another tag at them. Then, if you want to see all your 'funny visit daily' links, just search for 'funny' AND 'visit daily'.
This has the added benefit of specialization - you don't have to create "visit daily" subfolders for every single top-level folder you have. One of the biggest problems with heirarchical classifcation systems is the "which goes first" puzzle - do you classify things under X>Y or Y>X if you have equally many values for X as you do for Y?
So, it may just be a matter of education people on the best usage of tags rather than trying to invent something new.
Of course, "at this moment" doesn't have any real meaning since you're describing something outside of our light cone, and simultinaeity doesn't really exist;)
Lower XBox sales mean higher profits at end of financial year for Microsoft.
Uh, no. Simple math here - if you sell less, you bring in less money. If you bring in less money, you get LOWER profits.
It will take quite a while till the games start paying back the loss generated by each unit sold.
What on earth are you talking about? The loss comes at the time of MANUFACTURING, if they SELL it, they get back a portion of that loss. While it's true that it might not cover the entire cost of the unit, it is better than not covering any part of the cost of the unit at all!
Currently the more XBoxes are sold, the more Microsoft loses, at least short-term.
No! No no no! Stop parroting a ridiculous meme whose concept you don't even understand!
Bigger sales = bigger losses.
NO! Quit repeating yourself! There is no universe that exists where taking in LESS money means you make MORE money.
Buying an X-Box 360 will not cause Microsoft to lose money! They already put the money down when they built the thing! NOT buying it will cause them to lose what money they did invest in building it!
just like the rest of us one handed Buck Rogers watching 12 year olds.
Please tell me you meant "just like the rest of us one-handed, Buck-Rogers-watching 12-year-olds" and just forgot the hyphens...otherwise that might leave you open to misinterpretation;)
This must be why I'm hearing LeAnn Rimes every 15 minutes on my local radio station telling me how, "Before everything else, you heard me on radio first!" I figured it the radio industry freaking out and trying to remind people how relevant they still are. Ironically, the ad was on a talk radio station.
Make it required for insurance purposes. I'm sure the federal government would have no problem "suggesting" to the insurance companies that they require this as a condition of receiving coverage. Especially if it means they can then charge extra "monitoring fees" that cover nothing and are just an excuse to wring more money out of you.
binsearch.info kicks ass and is free, unlike newzbin
Newzbin is free too, for basic access. But yeah, I understand, it's tough to afford the exorbitant 25p per week that newzbin asks for premium access.
It's all well and good to say that Google's pro-open source, but when they fail to actually deliver the cool apps to an open platform, what does that say, exactly?
That they're not totally open-source. The leap from that statement to "Google is evil" is over a pretty wide chasm.
The Internet at least has the potential of offering more in-depth news coverage. While it's true the major news outlets have chosen not to use it in this way, the potential is there, and being used by sites that aren't related to the major network and cable news networks.
Wait, so you're saying that despite TV now offering hundreds of 24-hour channels, it doesn't have the potential of offering more in-depth news coverage too? Sure it does, but, just like you said, the major news outlets have chosen not to use it in this way. If they didn't do it for TV, why would they do it for the Internet?
Slashdot Mirror
From [name of online dictionary service]
[word in question]
1 : [widely-used definition everyone is familiar with]
2 : [something else]
If we take the second meaning, then yes, [original argument] IS in fact [statement of truthiness]. It's the [supporting justification] and [further reinforcement] which defines them as [paraphrase of second definition].
[mildly humorous non-sequitur analogy]
[suggestion to RTFM]
[obligatory Wikipedia link]
Wow, there's just no way that statement could end badly!
What do we want? We want you to die, Mr. Bond....
No, he's not. He's trying to refute a claim that "The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows." Now, last time I checked, we all have access to the same Internet. Just because Microsoft locks half the available media up in proprietary DRM doesn't mean the Mac is any less capable of getting to the server that hosts it.
Cellular Peptide Cake
I've got an ever better idea - people are likely to lose or misplace the disc if you only have to insert it every month or so, so why not just require the disc to be inserted every time the game starts up? The game could perform some kind of check to ensure that the disc is in the drive and authentic, by using some kind of "bad sector" identification that would prevent those nasty pirates from copying the disks bit-for-bit.
Sure, drive emulation is an option here, but I'm sure if you maintained a list of emulator programs, let's call it a "black list", you could check to see if any were running and then refuse to run if that is the case?
My God I may have just single-handedly solved the whole piracy problem!
Alex Trebek: [ shakes head ] Let's just go with Foreign Flicks for $800. [ Connery buzzes in. ]
Sean Connery: Ursula Andress.
Alex Trebek: What?
Sean Connery: Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice.
Alex Trebek: That's Foreign Flicks, Mr. Connery. Foreign Flicks. Mr. Reeves, why don't you pick?
Keanu Reeves: I shall take Balloons for $800, if you please.
Alex Trebek: That's not a category.
Keanu Reeves: My mistake. I shall choose Balloons for $600.
Alex Trebek: I tell you what, let's do Colors That End in Urple. For $800. This color ends in "urple". [ Swank buzzes in. ] Hilary Swank.
Hilary Swank: What is light urple?
Alex Trebek: [ shakes head ] Wow. [ Reeves buzzes in. ] Keanu Reeves.
Keanu Reeves: I will venture a guess. Who is Jaleel White?
Alex Trebek: What?
Keanu Reeves: Is that not the gentlemen who played Urple, the humorous fellow with the glasses who loves cheese?
Alex Trebek: That's Urkel! [ Connery buzzes in. ] Oh good, Mr. Connery wants to say something.
Sean Connery: I thought of some more foreign ladies I snogged.
You keep using that word - "it's" - I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hmmmmm....
Instead the presents are left outside your front door for you to step on! ;)
OK. $699 and she's yours.
You're searching the microsoft.com site, not doing a MSN web search. Of course it's going to return results that favor Microsoft products.
Try search.msn.com next time.
I may be missing something, but isn't what you're talking about already possible, and perhaps even better implemented, with Google and del.icio.us? Just throw multiple tags at something - if you want those 20 'funny' links to be further subdivided into 'visit daily', etc - just throw another tag at them. Then, if you want to see all your 'funny visit daily' links, just search for 'funny' AND 'visit daily'.
This has the added benefit of specialization - you don't have to create "visit daily" subfolders for every single top-level folder you have. One of the biggest problems with heirarchical classifcation systems is the "which goes first" puzzle - do you classify things under X>Y or Y>X if you have equally many values for X as you do for Y?
So, it may just be a matter of education people on the best usage of tags rather than trying to invent something new.
Of course, "at this moment" doesn't have any real meaning since you're describing something outside of our light cone, and simultinaeity doesn't really exist ;)
That "ironical" isn't a word?
Lower XBox sales mean higher profits at end of financial year for Microsoft.
Uh, no. Simple math here - if you sell less, you bring in less money. If you bring in less money, you get LOWER profits.
It will take quite a while till the games start paying back the loss generated by each unit sold.
What on earth are you talking about? The loss comes at the time of MANUFACTURING, if they SELL it, they get back a portion of that loss. While it's true that it might not cover the entire cost of the unit, it is better than not covering any part of the cost of the unit at all!
Currently the more XBoxes are sold, the more Microsoft loses, at least short-term.
No! No no no! Stop parroting a ridiculous meme whose concept you don't even understand!
Bigger sales = bigger losses.
NO! Quit repeating yourself! There is no universe that exists where taking in LESS money means you make MORE money.
Buying an X-Box 360 will not cause Microsoft to lose money! They already put the money down when they built the thing! NOT buying it will cause them to lose what money they did invest in building it!
Please tell me you meant "just like the rest of us one-handed, Buck-Rogers-watching 12-year-olds" and just forgot the hyphens...otherwise that might leave you open to misinterpretation ;)
This must be why I'm hearing LeAnn Rimes every 15 minutes on my local radio station telling me how, "Before everything else, you heard me on radio first!" I figured it the radio industry freaking out and trying to remind people how relevant they still are. Ironically, the ad was on a talk radio station.
Make it required for insurance purposes. I'm sure the federal government would have no problem "suggesting" to the insurance companies that they require this as a condition of receiving coverage. Especially if it means they can then charge extra "monitoring fees" that cover nothing and are just an excuse to wring more money out of you.
A more apt comparison would be the number of 10-letter words in both languages. Any clues on that front?
binsearch.info kicks ass and is free, unlike newzbin Newzbin is free too, for basic access. But yeah, I understand, it's tough to afford the exorbitant 25p per week that newzbin asks for premium access.
That they're not totally open-source. The leap from that statement to "Google is evil" is over a pretty wide chasm.
Plus: No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Your grandmother.
Wait, so you're saying that despite TV now offering hundreds of 24-hour channels, it doesn't have the potential of offering more in-depth news coverage too? Sure it does, but, just like you said, the major news outlets have chosen not to use it in this way. If they didn't do it for TV, why would they do it for the Internet?
What strangers? The links come from people that have you on their buddy list.