I don't understand why people want this. It can be out of date for an often-updated site like Slashdot or Fark, and to do anything (i.e., post or read comments) you have to go to the website anyway. I've tried RSS and it's absolutely useless.
The developers have changed Americas Army recently to include realistic "death drops." It is actually VERY creapy to watch someone shot in the head snap back and collapse and then roll down a hill. It really makes you not want to play anymore.
Almost every time I am supposed to see a banner ad, I see instead a copy of the SCO web site.
Why on earth would you do that!? First of all, you're not saving much bandwidth, and probably even prolonging your download time because you're getting from several servers. Second, why not just see nothing? Use 0.0.0.0 and the browser just plain won't look for anything.
And please, at least study the Salem witch trials before using them in an analogy. It was not about power; it was about mass hysteria and groupthing, largely fueled by the fear of superstition in a hostile New World, harsh living condidions and a strict fundamentalist religious mindset.
No, it was a political/economic situation between families of different classes. Blame was put upon certain people to make them look crazy and to justify getting rid of them. The accusers knowingly exaggerated their "findings". Look it up.
Did not know that. In older versions, the image would display until the whole page finished loading, then the image would disappear. That's why I switched to HOSTS for everything I could, as well as userContent.css for ad subdirectories for sites I regularly visit.
With adblock you still have to download the ads, so you're not really boycotting anyone (or saving yourself any bandwidth). With the HOSTS file you never even ping the ad server, you just skip it.
Microsoft Update could do the same thing, but they only give away bug fixes: features cost money.
Have you ever looked at Windows Update? It offers upgrades for all sorts of MS products like Media Player, IE, Movie Maker, etc. They sometimes even offer new drivers for your hardware. It's not just bug fixes.
I'm in the process of "reripping" my entire CD collection at the moment.
I highly recommend encoding all the files losslessly with FLAC and putting them on DVDR (if you can) with a copy of the FLAC source code just in case. You'll save a lot of time in the future as you can easily transcode between FLAC and any format, plus your tags will already be done.
I should've said "compress to FLAC and archive it on a DVDR or CDR". Yes, a WAV would be just as useful for making copies, but FLAC is easier to deal with because it takes up half the space and supports tags.
Rip the CD once to FLAC (a lossless codec) and you're all set. You can make unlimited copies (burning CDs, MP3s, etc) from those files and just toss the store-bought disc in your closet.
And all it takes is one pirate to rip the CD and put it on Kazaa.
I don't know how else you'd get a copy of Soundgarden's "Screaming Life/Fopp" EP
I found a vinyl copy for ~$5 many years back at a tiny used CD store. Found a lot of interesting vinyl there, actually. I recommend used CD stores as well.
Re:State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, I'm definitely not. Shrek is maybe comparable to the original Toy Story (which came out 6 years prior) in animation. I think people are drawn into Shrek by the gimmicky story and characters (Eddie Murphy doing an animal?) and overlook the animation.
State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't know where anyone gets off comparing Shrek's animation to other movies, especially Pixar movies. The animation has nowhere near the level of detail as other animated movies. The textures are very basic and the facial expressions lack subtlety. Ice Age was simplistic but it had its own style; Shrek just looks like it was a half-assed effort.
Mod this as a troll if you want, but I really wanted to like Shrek and it just couldn't compare to anything else on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like a good candidate for a prepaid service like Virgin Mobile where you don't have a contract and just pay for what you actually use.
I don't understand why people want this. It can be out of date for an often-updated site like Slashdot or Fark, and to do anything (i.e., post or read comments) you have to go to the website anyway. I've tried RSS and it's absolutely useless.
The link in the submission was already reg-free.
Now I can listen to my MP3s on my stereo without having a 100 foot cable snaking around the room.
By the way, just use hymn to unlock your files.
Did not know that. In older versions, the image would display until the whole page finished loading, then the image would disappear. That's why I switched to HOSTS for everything I could, as well as userContent.css for ad subdirectories for sites I regularly visit.
With adblock you still have to download the ads, so you're not really boycotting anyone (or saving yourself any bandwidth). With the HOSTS file you never even ping the ad server, you just skip it.
Sony's music doesn't play in Winamp, it's made for their portable player.
I thought of Bristol, Connecticut, the home of ESPN. Had to look it up, and apparently it's in England.
I should've said "compress to FLAC and archive it on a DVDR or CDR". Yes, a WAV would be just as useful for making copies, but FLAC is easier to deal with because it takes up half the space and supports tags.
And all it takes is one pirate to rip the CD and put it on Kazaa.
It's "colonel." But at least you didn't say "kernel."
I got my 11.5g clay chips from 5stardeal.com and they are great.
It was an April Fool's joke.
No, I'm definitely not. Shrek is maybe comparable to the original Toy Story (which came out 6 years prior) in animation. I think people are drawn into Shrek by the gimmicky story and characters (Eddie Murphy doing an animal?) and overlook the animation.
Mod this as a troll if you want, but I really wanted to like Shrek and it just couldn't compare to anything else on the market.