That's the whole point of my post. People could run Java and.Net on the same hardware. You could deal with one company, and have both platforms. I would love to be able to run.Net web services on a server that's a little more robust.
If I could make my car 10% faster for $200, I think that'd be great.
I'm not sure what kind of car you have, but I don't think most people need their car to go any faster. Most cars i've seen go 1.5 ( or probably 2) times the speed limit. Why pay $200 for something you aren't going to be able to use. I think it's the same with these high end video cards. Sure they do better in benchmarks, but how does that actually affect game play. Can you really tell the difference between 300 FPS and 330 FPS? What I might pay $200 for is 10% more acceleration, or 10% better gas mileage.
I think that Sun should pour a bunch of money/time into Mono, to make it ready for prime time. This would allow them to have.Net on sun systems. I think that could play very well for them..Net is a great framework for developing applications, but I've always found that IIS is a little lacking for running large enterprise systems.
Re:I'm continually amazed at
on
Treating the Dead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This reminds me of Freezing Frogs. Basically they fill their cells with glucose, and are actually able to freeze themselves for the entire winter and then wake up in the spring. I remember a radio show where they were saying you could freeze them over and over again, without any adverse effects.
The problem is that if an employee of the company kills someone, and the company gets sued, then the owner of the company would be the own losing out. The reason corporations exist is because if you are the owner of the company, you can't really control everything that happens with the company. If you own a car company, you can't oversee every design aspect that goes into each car. Therefore, while you can do your best to try to stop bad things from happening, you don't have complete god-like control over the entire corporation. How would the stock market work if there was no corporations? Buying stock is buying part of a company, if companies cease to exist, then so does the stockmarket. And as for the employees of a company being unable to lose anything from their mis-deeds, you might want to read about Jeffrey Skilling.
I was under the impress that the olympics made money for the cities, even including the cost of building venues. Although I think that Atlanta was the first city to make money. From my understanding, it's quite easy to make money once you sell it as a big ad-fest.
The problem is that if you try to go without corporations, then who in their right mind would put themselves at risk of running a large corporation. Who's fault is it when something goes wrong. If I own a company, and all the risk is placed on my own personal assets, what happens when a patent lawsuit is brought up against the company and they have to liquidate all their assets? I surely wouldn't want that kind of risk, knowing I could lose everything. It gets even more complicated, when you have a publicly traded company. What happens when the company has to liquidate their assets? If the shareholders are the owners, then do they have to liquidate all their assets as well?
It's not that hard from what i've heard. I think it requires echoing something to a file in proc, which will set the next wake up time. I've been looking for something similar for my sagetv windows box. Have it turn itself off when there's nothing to record for the rest of the night and set the bios to turn itself on 5 minutes before the next show comes on.
Yes, it's just you. Or rather I should say "just get over it". They are different than standard incandescent light bulbs, but I don't think they should bother you that much. Most of the bulbs that I've seen have a 1-2 second boot up time, but that really doesn't bother me. I don't need to perform neurosurgery within the first few seconds of entering a room. Also, the colour is different, but I find that I doesn't really bother me all that much. I think that in a blind test the most people couldn't even tell the difference between the colours output by the different bulbs.
The real problem is outlined right in the blurb. That problem is: "without adequate threat assessment exercises". I don't think any of these technologies are inherently any worse than any other method, but the problem is that they don't understand the technologies well enough, and aren't testing for vulnerabilities. It's just like with PHP. Sure you can code your pages with really insecure SQL injection technologies, but there's solutions like prepared statements that make it a non-issue. What I want to know is, why are all these financial institutions jumping on the Web 2.0 bandwagon before they fully understand what they are doing? From my point of view, web 1.0 is good enough, and I don't see why everyone wants to switch so fast.
From the sounds of it, I have a digital camera that does pretty much the same thing. You take 3 pictures with some overlap and it's able to stitch them together to make a panoramic shot. It displays part of the previous shot so that you can line up the shots properly for good results.
It's very easy to see that google gets the images from many sources, because often times you'll go over by 1 KM, and be left with a blurry mess whereas it was crystal clear before.
Except if they have to store the entire disk, unencrypted, then you lose half the point of ripping it to the computer in the first place. First problem is that most DVDs would probably take up 6-8 Gigs of space. Meaning a 500 GB hard disk could only store 71 movies. That sounds like a lot, but once you start getting into TV Seasons, it doesn't store all that much stuff. Second, is that it probably doesn't remove any of the FBI Warnings, special features, or Menus. I really like to just skip all the extra stuff they put on there and start watching a movie. If I put a movie on a device such as this, then it's probably because I want fast access to it, and don't want to go searching around the shelves for it. In the same way, I don't want to have to sit through FBI Warnings, or previews, or menu screens. I just want the movie to start.
Anecdotes are nice aren't they. I like yours too. However, I think more people have similar usage patterns to me more than you. I check email, do some programming, browse the web, edit some photos, write up documents, manage my finanaces, and play a few simple games. None of those require high powered computers. And while I see the need for having very powerful computers for tasks such as HD video editing, I think that 90% of the general computing population could do without that much computing power, because nothing they do requires that much power. So while I see why you may need to upgrade every 6 months, I don't see why the average computer user would have to upgrade more than once every 4-5 years. I admit, I stretched my last computer a bit, because I didn't have much money for a new one.
However, animals such as dogs can produce vitamin C, but humans can not. However, humans do need vitamin C to live. How do you explain that situation. Low vitamin D results in something that will kill you slowly, like cancer, but low vitamin C will kill you much faster.
I kept my last computer for 7 years. It was a PII-266. I did do a couple upgrades on it, RAM, video card, hard disk, but only minimally, and the only reason I got a new one was because I had some RAM chips die, and buying SDRAM was almost as much as buying a new computer, so I figure it was time to upgrade. Now I have an AMD64 3200+. This computer should last me another 7 years, unless my needs change drastically. Which I suspect they won't. I don't many games, I have a console for that, and I don't really see why people see the need to purchase a new computer every 2 years.
Looks to me like Macbooks have rounded corners too. In fact, I think the thinkpads are the only ones with the really square edges. Although I can't really pinpoint the problem, I have to say that I find Dell notebooks to be really ugly, especially compared to the most appealing Apple notebooks.
If you're just going to get a burned CD, why not download the music and burn it yourself? I don't see how having to leave the house to pick up the CD is any more convenient.
Exactly. I listen to some bands that I think I will still be listening to in 50 years (and I plan to still be alive then). But they aren't what I'd call popular bands. I can't think of any popular bands that People listen to for more than 1 year after the release of their last album.
But if music stores like HMV, Music World, and Sam the Record Man (Sorry, don't know any US Chains) can manage to sell music and stay relevant across the entire country, why can't big box retailers employ the same methods? I don't think they should let a market with so much cashflow slip through their fingers because it doesn't fit the same sales model as most of their other products do.
I wonder where the concept of album has gone. A lot of albums you see are just a bunch of songs that don't even go that well together, and just seem mashed together. I wish more bands would put out more albums worth listening to as albums, such as The Wall. Also, I wonder if there's any bands that we're still going to be listening to in 40 years, like we're still listening to Pink Floyd, The Beatles, CCR, and the Rolling Stones. Can anybody name a popular band in the last 5 years that they think they are going to be listening to in 10 years time? what about 50 years?
I've been hearing a lot of sensationalist stories lately about the death of music. Mostly because CD sales are falling. Maybe the large production companies will go away, but people have been making music long before the music producers, and they will be making music long after they are gone. Music isn't going anywhere. I've started listening to a lot of independant music lately, and it's a lot better than most of the mass produced big label bands. Granted I still like many big label bands, but I don't think I'd be starved for quality music if there was no big labels.
But if big box retailers are selling so much music, surely they can hire some people who are able to keep up with the scene and recommend what's hot and what's not. However, I think there's some other issues with the big box model. Big box stores like to buy millions of (insert item here), ship it across the entire country, and sell it to everybody. The problem with music, is that tastes vary across the country. What's selling in Los Angeles this week may not sell at all in New York, Miami, or Colorado. It also means a lot of liability when the album isn't as popular as expected. It's easy to offload some laundry detergent by slashing prices, a lot of people aren't very particular about which brand they get, but with music, if people don't want to listen to it, then slashing prices won't help at all.
At 1.29 (last I heard) for the DRM free version, it's even more worth it to just buy the CD if you want DRM free music. Personally, a file transfered over the internet isn't worth that much to me. I don't know why people pay so much for music from iTunes when the CDs are only marginally more expensive. For my downloaded music I use eMusic. They don't have everything, so I still buy some CDs. However, eMusic's price of about $0.30 for a song is much more to my liking. I've always said it should be a quarter a song, even when iTunes first came out. Because when you cut out the entire distribution chain, as well as the physical media, the cost of the songs should be really low. And since from what I hear the artists don't make any more from iTunes (sometimes less) than they do from CD sales, I can only assume that it's lining the pockets of the production companies, who frankly, don't really deserve any more money.
What area in what city? Seriously. I live in Canada, and every city has broadband. At least 1 MBit if not 6 0r 8. Tiny little rural towns are another thing altogether, but I don't think there's a town with more than 10,000 people that doesn't have real broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the whole point of my post. People could run Java and .Net on the same hardware. You could deal with one company, and have both platforms. I would love to be able to run .Net web services on a server that's a little more robust.
I think that Sun should pour a bunch of money/time into Mono, to make it ready for prime time. This would allow them to have .Net on sun systems. I think that could play very well for them. .Net is a great framework for developing applications, but I've always found that IIS is a little lacking for running large enterprise systems.
This reminds me of Freezing Frogs. Basically they fill their cells with glucose, and are actually able to freeze themselves for the entire winter and then wake up in the spring. I remember a radio show where they were saying you could freeze them over and over again, without any adverse effects.
The problem is that if an employee of the company kills someone, and the company gets sued, then the owner of the company would be the own losing out. The reason corporations exist is because if you are the owner of the company, you can't really control everything that happens with the company. If you own a car company, you can't oversee every design aspect that goes into each car. Therefore, while you can do your best to try to stop bad things from happening, you don't have complete god-like control over the entire corporation. How would the stock market work if there was no corporations? Buying stock is buying part of a company, if companies cease to exist, then so does the stockmarket. And as for the employees of a company being unable to lose anything from their mis-deeds, you might want to read about Jeffrey Skilling.
I was under the impress that the olympics made money for the cities, even including the cost of building venues. Although I think that Atlanta was the first city to make money. From my understanding, it's quite easy to make money once you sell it as a big ad-fest.
The problem is that if you try to go without corporations, then who in their right mind would put themselves at risk of running a large corporation. Who's fault is it when something goes wrong. If I own a company, and all the risk is placed on my own personal assets, what happens when a patent lawsuit is brought up against the company and they have to liquidate all their assets? I surely wouldn't want that kind of risk, knowing I could lose everything. It gets even more complicated, when you have a publicly traded company. What happens when the company has to liquidate their assets? If the shareholders are the owners, then do they have to liquidate all their assets as well?
It's not that hard from what i've heard. I think it requires echoing something to a file in proc, which will set the next wake up time. I've been looking for something similar for my sagetv windows box. Have it turn itself off when there's nothing to record for the rest of the night and set the bios to turn itself on 5 minutes before the next show comes on.
Aren't you supposed to leave your Myth box on, so that it can record your shows?
Yes, it's just you. Or rather I should say "just get over it". They are different than standard incandescent light bulbs, but I don't think they should bother you that much. Most of the bulbs that I've seen have a 1-2 second boot up time, but that really doesn't bother me. I don't need to perform neurosurgery within the first few seconds of entering a room. Also, the colour is different, but I find that I doesn't really bother me all that much. I think that in a blind test the most people couldn't even tell the difference between the colours output by the different bulbs.
The real problem is outlined right in the blurb. That problem is: "without adequate threat assessment exercises". I don't think any of these technologies are inherently any worse than any other method, but the problem is that they don't understand the technologies well enough, and aren't testing for vulnerabilities. It's just like with PHP. Sure you can code your pages with really insecure SQL injection technologies, but there's solutions like prepared statements that make it a non-issue. What I want to know is, why are all these financial institutions jumping on the Web 2.0 bandwagon before they fully understand what they are doing? From my point of view, web 1.0 is good enough, and I don't see why everyone wants to switch so fast.
From the sounds of it, I have a digital camera that does pretty much the same thing. You take 3 pictures with some overlap and it's able to stitch them together to make a panoramic shot. It displays part of the previous shot so that you can line up the shots properly for good results.
It's very easy to see that google gets the images from many sources, because often times you'll go over by 1 KM, and be left with a blurry mess whereas it was crystal clear before.
Except if they have to store the entire disk, unencrypted, then you lose half the point of ripping it to the computer in the first place. First problem is that most DVDs would probably take up 6-8 Gigs of space. Meaning a 500 GB hard disk could only store 71 movies. That sounds like a lot, but once you start getting into TV Seasons, it doesn't store all that much stuff. Second, is that it probably doesn't remove any of the FBI Warnings, special features, or Menus. I really like to just skip all the extra stuff they put on there and start watching a movie. If I put a movie on a device such as this, then it's probably because I want fast access to it, and don't want to go searching around the shelves for it. In the same way, I don't want to have to sit through FBI Warnings, or previews, or menu screens. I just want the movie to start.
Anecdotes are nice aren't they. I like yours too. However, I think more people have similar usage patterns to me more than you. I check email, do some programming, browse the web, edit some photos, write up documents, manage my finanaces, and play a few simple games. None of those require high powered computers. And while I see the need for having very powerful computers for tasks such as HD video editing, I think that 90% of the general computing population could do without that much computing power, because nothing they do requires that much power. So while I see why you may need to upgrade every 6 months, I don't see why the average computer user would have to upgrade more than once every 4-5 years. I admit, I stretched my last computer a bit, because I didn't have much money for a new one.
However, animals such as dogs can produce vitamin C, but humans can not. However, humans do need vitamin C to live. How do you explain that situation. Low vitamin D results in something that will kill you slowly, like cancer, but low vitamin C will kill you much faster.
I kept my last computer for 7 years. It was a PII-266. I did do a couple upgrades on it, RAM, video card, hard disk, but only minimally, and the only reason I got a new one was because I had some RAM chips die, and buying SDRAM was almost as much as buying a new computer, so I figure it was time to upgrade. Now I have an AMD64 3200+. This computer should last me another 7 years, unless my needs change drastically. Which I suspect they won't. I don't many games, I have a console for that, and I don't really see why people see the need to purchase a new computer every 2 years.
Looks to me like Macbooks have rounded corners too. In fact, I think the thinkpads are the only ones with the really square edges. Although I can't really pinpoint the problem, I have to say that I find Dell notebooks to be really ugly, especially compared to the most appealing Apple notebooks.
If you're just going to get a burned CD, why not download the music and burn it yourself? I don't see how having to leave the house to pick up the CD is any more convenient.
Exactly. I listen to some bands that I think I will still be listening to in 50 years (and I plan to still be alive then). But they aren't what I'd call popular bands. I can't think of any popular bands that People listen to for more than 1 year after the release of their last album.
But if music stores like HMV, Music World, and Sam the Record Man (Sorry, don't know any US Chains) can manage to sell music and stay relevant across the entire country, why can't big box retailers employ the same methods? I don't think they should let a market with so much cashflow slip through their fingers because it doesn't fit the same sales model as most of their other products do.
I wonder where the concept of album has gone. A lot of albums you see are just a bunch of songs that don't even go that well together, and just seem mashed together. I wish more bands would put out more albums worth listening to as albums, such as The Wall. Also, I wonder if there's any bands that we're still going to be listening to in 40 years, like we're still listening to Pink Floyd, The Beatles, CCR, and the Rolling Stones. Can anybody name a popular band in the last 5 years that they think they are going to be listening to in 10 years time? what about 50 years?
I've been hearing a lot of sensationalist stories lately about the death of music. Mostly because CD sales are falling. Maybe the large production companies will go away, but people have been making music long before the music producers, and they will be making music long after they are gone. Music isn't going anywhere. I've started listening to a lot of independant music lately, and it's a lot better than most of the mass produced big label bands. Granted I still like many big label bands, but I don't think I'd be starved for quality music if there was no big labels.
But if big box retailers are selling so much music, surely they can hire some people who are able to keep up with the scene and recommend what's hot and what's not. However, I think there's some other issues with the big box model. Big box stores like to buy millions of (insert item here), ship it across the entire country, and sell it to everybody. The problem with music, is that tastes vary across the country. What's selling in Los Angeles this week may not sell at all in New York, Miami, or Colorado. It also means a lot of liability when the album isn't as popular as expected. It's easy to offload some laundry detergent by slashing prices, a lot of people aren't very particular about which brand they get, but with music, if people don't want to listen to it, then slashing prices won't help at all.
At 1.29 (last I heard) for the DRM free version, it's even more worth it to just buy the CD if you want DRM free music. Personally, a file transfered over the internet isn't worth that much to me. I don't know why people pay so much for music from iTunes when the CDs are only marginally more expensive. For my downloaded music I use eMusic. They don't have everything, so I still buy some CDs. However, eMusic's price of about $0.30 for a song is much more to my liking. I've always said it should be a quarter a song, even when iTunes first came out. Because when you cut out the entire distribution chain, as well as the physical media, the cost of the songs should be really low. And since from what I hear the artists don't make any more from iTunes (sometimes less) than they do from CD sales, I can only assume that it's lining the pockets of the production companies, who frankly, don't really deserve any more money.
What area in what city? Seriously. I live in Canada, and every city has broadband. At least 1 MBit if not 6 0r 8. Tiny little rural towns are another thing altogether, but I don't think there's a town with more than 10,000 people that doesn't have real broadband.