I was looking around and couldn't really find anything. From the FAQ on the website, aimfight is written by programmers working for aol, so they have access to that info.
But in a year, a $900 PC will be worth 150 and your $900 mini will be worth say $500. So if the PC user's system is obsolete, it cost them $750 for a year of computing, while your mini supposedly will still be fast enough, and in another year, when it's worth 400 or 300, it will have only cost you 600 for two years of computing.
Btw. when did mini's cost 900?
Lot's of things, like judicial review (marbury v madison), are not explicitly "granted" in the constituition. But that's the beauty of the 9th and 10th Ammendments. Anything no explicitly granted to government is retained by the people.
Pretty much all those resulting feelings are from the ridiculous views they'd been taught on sex from the beginning. Granted, some of those urges (protecting property) are probably inate, the violent response could easily be toned down through a more ambivalent view of sexuality.
I don't think this can ever really take off unless cable companies change their business model to accomodate a la carte selections. As the article intimates, more refined selections of channels would be easier. I just don't really see that happening here.
Otherwise, I think it's very short sighted to think that CRTs are going to be around much longer no matter how well they work. How many black and white tv's do you have around? Should you keep them because they still work? Sure, a huge 21" CRT still looks better than an LCD, but how long is that going to last?
I think you answerd you're own question. B&W tv screens is a poor analogy, since they don't look better than a color tv. Maybe when CRT's look as good as LCD's (according to these die-hard CRT fans), then they'll switch, but when the CRT works better for them, why should they be forced to "upgrade" to something that's less useful?
As an aside, I don't really think you can blame MS , but then again, I don't think CRT is dead quite yet either.
Of course it is nonsensical to suggest removing them all. I was wondering why they're there in the first place.
which is why lists are compiled and removed.
This is my original question. Are they really? I never hear anything about RIAA asking google to remove "copyrighted torrents" but looking on google with filetype:torrent, it seems like they may have-- there aren't too many hits.
In the case of Google, they are unknowingly doing so, and if you point out their mistake, will quickly remove such offending links from their database to avoid getting sued.
Will they really? I know there are plenty of legitimate reasons for indexing *.torrent but wouldn't you say most of them are for copyrighted material? Do you really go to google to find the torrent for a linux distro? I'd think you wouldn't for that, but rather for the torrent for illegal sites that have gone down.
What ever happened to the days when everything NASA was super high quality?
I remember hearing about processors being tested for years in various conditions to ensure [their] stability... now everything on this shuttle is falling apart.
Did they have the capabilities we have now to find all these things that are wrong? Is some of the reason the delay has stayed the same is that while our capability to make high quality stuff has increased, our ability to find defects has increased?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about tim is, once you lose it, it is gone forever.
I was looking around and couldn't really find anything. From the FAQ on the website, aimfight is written by programmers working for aol, so they have access to that info.
But in a year, a $900 PC will be worth 150 and your $900 mini will be worth say $500. So if the PC user's system is obsolete, it cost them $750 for a year of computing, while your mini supposedly will still be fast enough, and in another year, when it's worth 400 or 300, it will have only cost you 600 for two years of computing. Btw. when did mini's cost 900?
Lot's of things, like judicial review (marbury v madison), are not explicitly "granted" in the constituition. But that's the beauty of the 9th and 10th Ammendments. Anything no explicitly granted to government is retained by the people.
Pretty much all those resulting feelings are from the ridiculous views they'd been taught on sex from the beginning. Granted, some of those urges (protecting property) are probably inate, the violent response could easily be toned down through a more ambivalent view of sexuality.
I hope you did that in your head.
In a perfect world you would have gotten modded +5, Informative and the other guy would have gotten -1, Redundant. Just imagine..
Modded funny?! Think of the Bothans, you insensitive clod!
I'm so glad I have your gmail username and password :)
Unless he wants to run windows xp on his intel mac
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
:)
Do you also prefer the (non-existent) "e" in "non"?
IPTV, I as I understand it, is not just for your computer. Eventually it'll be something to replace your cable box.
I don't think this can ever really take off unless cable companies change their business model to accomodate a la carte selections. As the article intimates, more refined selections of channels would be easier. I just don't really see that happening here.
Of course it'll be a considerably degraded signal..
Otherwise, I think it's very short sighted to think that CRTs are going to be around much longer no matter how well they work. How many black and white tv's do you have around? Should you keep them because they still work? Sure, a huge 21" CRT still looks better than an LCD, but how long is that going to last?
I think you answerd you're own question. B&W tv screens is a poor analogy, since they don't look better than a color tv. Maybe when CRT's look as good as LCD's (according to these die-hard CRT fans), then they'll switch, but when the CRT works better for them, why should they be forced to "upgrade" to something that's less useful?
As an aside, I don't really think you can blame MS , but then again, I don't think CRT is dead quite yet either.
Man that thing is ugly!
you're calling people who buy an 80 dollar keyboard cheapskates?!
oooh, that's nice. I may have to get a new video card. I can't wait til Holiday 2005 ;)
Here's a link for the lazy.
Of course it is nonsensical to suggest removing them all. I was wondering why they're there in the first place.
which is why lists are compiled and removed.
This is my original question. Are they really? I never hear anything about RIAA asking google to remove "copyrighted torrents" but looking on google with filetype:torrent, it seems like they may have-- there aren't too many hits.
In the case of Google, they are unknowingly doing so, and if you point out their mistake, will quickly remove such offending links from their database to avoid getting sued.
Will they really? I know there are plenty of legitimate reasons for indexing *.torrent but wouldn't you say most of them are for copyrighted material? Do you really go to google to find the torrent for a linux distro? I'd think you wouldn't for that, but rather for the torrent for illegal sites that have gone down.
That's why I run Windows.. anything illegal happens and "my machine was compromised."
If you saw it on Monday, why did you submit it?
What ever happened to the days when everything NASA was super high quality?
I remember hearing about processors being tested for years in various conditions to ensure [their] stability... now everything on this shuttle is falling apart.
Did they have the capabilities we have now to find all these things that are wrong? Is some of the reason the delay has stayed the same is that while our capability to make high quality stuff has increased, our ability to find defects has increased?
What are the possibilities we could have Thinkpads running on PPC chips?
Being a tortoise. It's true.