Re:Heres the post everyone should read first
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 1
C'mon troll, why not just answer the question?
Here's what you said:
OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS
Faster at loading, faster at rendering, faster UI.
On Windows with IE5 or IE6.
Re:Heres the post everyone should read first
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why do I want to run two browsers on my machine when it's already abundantly clear that the one that's already on there now (IE) is faster and more supported by web developers than your POS browser?
Re:Its impossible to have the speed of IE
on
Mozilla RC3 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If it is not an issue to run the record companies out of business because they can't keep up with technology, why is it an issue for record stores to be run out of business by the record companies?
I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but why should anyone be concerned about the elimination of an outdated business model? If they can't adapt, they should wither and die.
I knew I should have mentioned the classical music caveat in there.
I should also throw out the possibility that seeing a baseball game live is far better than watching on tv because the mind-numbing boredom of the game itself can be disregarded and more important things can be contemplated and acted upon. Like beer buying, hot dog eating, and girl ogling.
Sounds like an optimal product placing of Linux. Windows is certainly a presence here, but it's much more vulnerable in this market than it is in the Desktop market.
Why would you want to go to a place to listen to music where you are surrounded by hundreds (if not thousands) of sweaty, screaming fans when you can enjoy the music in the privacy of your own home or car or headphones without all those annoying distractions?
1. You're assuming that you would buy a 12-song CD. I think this is a mistaken assumption. You would purchase only those songs that you felt were worth the cost of purchase. Therefore instead of paying $13.98 for 3 good songs and 11 bad ones, you'd pay $2.97 for only those 3 good songs. Sure, you don't get the nice packaging, but that is another debate for another day.
2. You don't value music very highly. This is something that one has to determine on their own. If you feel that $.99 is too much to pay for 3.5 minutes of entertainment that can be repeated as many times as you like, then that is your opinion. There are certainly music sharing sites that you can download the media for free and avoid financing the musician at all.
I don't know how to respond except to say that I disagree with you.
But if you take into account that you only have to pay for it once and spread the cost over all users of the purchased song, the cost is really quite minimal.
Why run away to Vanuatu if there's nothing wrong with what you're doing?
Because it is clearly an illegal operation and they are simply taking it offshore to make it more difficult to sue. I gotta side with the plaintiffs here, it really does seem to be a shell game.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon troll, why not just answer the question?
Here's what you said:
OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS
Faster at loading, faster at rendering, faster UI.
On Windows with IE5 or IE6.
Why do I want to run two browsers on my machine when it's already abundantly clear that the one that's already on there now (IE) is faster and more supported by web developers than your POS browser?
Nah, just stick a
SetThreadPriority(hMainThread, THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL);
Somewhere in the startup code. That'll get rid of those pesky timeslices.
Well, yes. That's what RELEASE CANDIDATES are.
Sheesh.
If it's 3pm and traffic is a mess, somehow I don't see constructing new roads happening in the next 2 hours.
According to II Peter 3:8, a thousand years is as a day to God.
So then one century would be 1 tenth of a day, i.e. 2.4 hours.
No, God would have to speed up his perception of time about 32 times to even get the timing down to a "few minutes".
Otherwise you're just going to keep downloading the music and not pay the artist anything.
No, hey, I understand!
I don't know much about mp3.
Don't know much of that O G G.
Don't know much about encoding.
Don't know much about music pirating.
What I do know is Napster's gone,
But I know some servers that songs are on.
What a pirate's life it will be!
Will it also become less interesting like MOO:BAA?
Micromanagement can kill a game.
If it is not an issue to run the record companies out of business because they can't keep up with technology, why is it an issue for record stores to be run out of business by the record companies?
And let them cut out the record stores
I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, but why should anyone be concerned about the elimination of an outdated business model? If they can't adapt, they should wither and die.
:-)
I knew I should have mentioned the classical music caveat in there.
I should also throw out the possibility that seeing a baseball game live is far better than watching on tv because the mind-numbing boredom of the game itself can be disregarded and more important things can be contemplated and acted upon. Like beer buying, hot dog eating, and girl ogling.
It's like bands that have worked hard for years to make it big and then be called "Overnight Successes".
Sounds like an optimal product placing of Linux. Windows is certainly a presence here, but it's much more vulnerable in this market than it is in the Desktop market.
How do you know you like those songs, though?
Answer: 30 second samplers.
live is better
Why would you want to go to a place to listen to music where you are surrounded by hundreds (if not thousands) of sweaty, screaming fans when you can enjoy the music in the privacy of your own home or car or headphones without all those annoying distractions?
Sisyphus? Is that you?
No matter how you slice it, digital is always going to be a lossy format.
1. You're assuming that you would buy a 12-song CD. I think this is a mistaken assumption. You would purchase only those songs that you felt were worth the cost of purchase. Therefore instead of paying $13.98 for 3 good songs and 11 bad ones, you'd pay $2.97 for only those 3 good songs. Sure, you don't get the nice packaging, but that is another debate for another day.
2. You don't value music very highly. This is something that one has to determine on their own. If you feel that $.99 is too much to pay for 3.5 minutes of entertainment that can be repeated as many times as you like, then that is your opinion. There are certainly music sharing sites that you can download the media for free and avoid financing the musician at all.
I don't know how to respond except to say that I disagree with you.
It's a price break if she's got 3 good songs and 12 crappy songs.
But if you take into account that you only have to pay for it once and spread the cost over all users of the purchased song, the cost is really quite minimal.
Diamonds - DeBeers
Jade - ZaSake?
I believe they took them out dinner and observed them eating with a knife and fork.
Millions of years of tool using, and they can barely feed themselves in a civilized manner. Products of bad breeding, I say.
Why run away to Vanuatu if there's nothing wrong with what you're doing?
Because it is clearly an illegal operation and they are simply taking it offshore to make it more difficult to sue. I gotta side with the plaintiffs here, it really does seem to be a shell game.
Being on the Internet does not make one immune to copyright laws!