Well, you're right in so far as "roughly equivalent" is concerned. There's really not much of a difference day-to-day; or, rather, there is, but which way and by how much varies from item to item, so my impression at least is that it all pretty much evens out in the end.
I guess I didn't explore enough. Thanks for the correction! Maybe I can buy and use songs from the Canadian iTMS while I'm over here in the Philippines... (My home and billing address is in Canada.)
There are many, many differences between Canada and the United States -- including, in this specific case, entirely different organizations for Apple to negotiate with.
Well, the US iTunes Music Store had no problem recognizing me as a Canadian before I even got a chance to claim I was in the US. So even if you could get a Canadian credit card, there's technical issues to hurdle.
Yes, there really are databases mapping IP addresses to countries, and iTMS apparently uses them.
I hope you're not talking about the difference between buy and nominal, because it's usually less than $0.003 per dollar, but rather a fee levied by your credit card company. Still -- if they're charging you more than 16% in fees for Canadian purchases, you should really look into a better credit card.
Yeah, I know it's legal. I choke a little every time I see the phrase "illegal copying" with respect to Canadian music. It ain't illegal (yet, at least) no matter how many times the labels repeat the phrase. But I think the store will prosper anyway, as very often I'd much rather spend $0.99 on a song than fight with the various measures the labels have used to sabotage the P2P system.
Yes, my Sony P71 (or whatever, I am bad with numbers) does a series of flashes. It's really blinding, but there's usually no redeye.
I can't say "never" redeye, though.
I agree it probably wouldn't work with moving targets. The blur is going to be almost as bad as a long exposure taken for the duration from the first flash to the last flash. No matter how short a time that is, it's going to be at least as long as the second highest light exposure level on my camera (like I said, bad with numbers...).
I know Apple Pascal had a string type as well. I'm not sure if that predates Borland's, but it certainly predates the Macintosh by at least a year (call it 1983).
I suppose you're right. The real problem is very likely the standardized class content wasn't updated in 20 years. I was given that line in high school, too, late 80s or early 90s -- teachers just evaded the string type for some reason. I'd been using it for years at that point, on that very compiler...
We saw from the examples that the typing in C and Pascal failed for several reasons. It was too fine-grained, as in Pascal's useless distinction between an array of twelve characters and an array of thirteen characters. It led to many spurious error messages, which means warnings that are ignored and waste everyone's time. It was too easy to violate the type systems though union types and casts, and it had to be so, because of the preponderance of spurious errors.
Can't we give this one a rest? Has anyone run into s:array[1..20] of char being incompatible with s:='Foo'; since the 1970s?
I feel like I get slightly stupider out of empathy every time I read about that.
It's funny. I only know three people who turn predictive text off, and two of them type in foreign languages for which prediction is not available. The third has had a cell phone since texting was available.
I think it's a lot like anything else. The good ideas don't actually win people over, it's just that the people stuck on the old ideas die out sooner or later and aren't replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we do business with Americans, so it'll affect me sooner or later. :( So far we're coping, though.
Thanks for the info. I'm trying the iTMS-C from overseas right now. It's very slow, though, so it'll be a while before I know... :)
Well, you're right in so far as "roughly equivalent" is concerned. There's really not much of a difference day-to-day; or, rather, there is, but which way and by how much varies from item to item, so my impression at least is that it all pretty much evens out in the end.
Thanks for explaining! I agree now. :)
I guess I didn't explore enough. Thanks for the correction! Maybe I can buy and use songs from the Canadian iTMS while I'm over here in the Philippines... (My home and billing address is in Canada.)
Are you really saying there's no difference between a Canadian dollar, a US dollar, a Euro and a Philippine Peso?
If there's no difference, I've got some Philippine pesos. I'm willing to trade them on par for US dollars. What do you think?
So which would you rather have: 10 million US dollars or 10 million Canadian dollars?
iTunes Music Store -- Quebec. Coming in 2008.
Yes, it looks like SSL is working now. Thanks for the correction!
There are many, many differences between Canada and the United States -- including, in this specific case, entirely different organizations for Apple to negotiate with.
Well, the US iTunes Music Store had no problem recognizing me as a Canadian before I even got a chance to claim I was in the US. So even if you could get a Canadian credit card, there's technical issues to hurdle. Yes, there really are databases mapping IP addresses to countries, and iTMS apparently uses them.
I hope you're not talking about the difference between buy and nominal, because it's usually less than $0.003 per dollar, but rather a fee levied by your credit card company. Still -- if they're charging you more than 16% in fees for Canadian purchases, you should really look into a better credit card.
Fair for us, not you. :)
Yeah, I know it's legal. I choke a little every time I see the phrase "illegal copying" with respect to Canadian music. It ain't illegal (yet, at least) no matter how many times the labels repeat the phrase. But I think the store will prosper anyway, as very often I'd much rather spend $0.99 on a song than fight with the various measures the labels have used to sabotage the P2P system.
Ah, thank you. I was searching the source code on the main few pages and didn't see it.
Where are the links? I've searched three of the sites so far without finding one.
Of course, you can click Back to return and the page will suddenly work, but that's not a link.
The registar is shielded by Domains-by-proxy. There's no reason to do that for a REAL credit check site. Also, there's no SSL certificate.
Yes, my Sony P71 (or whatever, I am bad with numbers) does a series of flashes. It's really blinding, but there's usually no redeye.
I can't say "never" redeye, though.
I agree it probably wouldn't work with moving targets. The blur is going to be almost as bad as a long exposure taken for the duration from the first flash to the last flash. No matter how short a time that is, it's going to be at least as long as the second highest light exposure level on my camera (like I said, bad with numbers...).
Thanks. :) I thought about posting a serious explanation, but to use a baseball analogy it was way too good a pitch to let it by without swinging!
Pfft. Red eye? That's two flashes. With four flashes, you need to run the forked tail and horn remover, too.
I know Apple Pascal had a string type as well. I'm not sure if that predates Borland's, but it certainly predates the Macintosh by at least a year (call it 1983).
I have a link that explains why litigation will NEVER work.
I suppose you're right. The real problem is very likely the standardized class content wasn't updated in 20 years. I was given that line in high school, too, late 80s or early 90s -- teachers just evaded the string type for some reason. I'd been using it for years at that point, on that very compiler...
Where the heck do you live that you have a decent selection of radio stations?
We saw from the examples that the typing in C and Pascal failed for several reasons. It was too fine-grained, as in Pascal's useless distinction between an array of twelve characters and an array of thirteen characters. It led to many spurious error messages, which means warnings that are ignored and waste everyone's time. It was too easy to violate the type systems though union types and casts, and it had to be so, because of the preponderance of spurious errors.
Can't we give this one a rest? Has anyone run into s:array[1..20] of char being incompatible with s:='Foo'; since the 1970s?
I feel like I get slightly stupider out of empathy every time I read about that.
My immediate questions after reading your post are these: Would trust your life to Microsoft Windows?
From there, it breaks down into to trees:
If so, why? What's the difference between Linux and Windows in your eyes that suddenly makes Windows safe?
If not, what operating system WOULD you trust with your life? What makes it trustworthy where Linux and Windows are not?
It's funny. I only know three people who turn predictive text off, and two of them type in foreign languages for which prediction is not available. The third has had a cell phone since texting was available.
I think it's a lot like anything else. The good ideas don't actually win people over, it's just that the people stuck on the old ideas die out sooner or later and aren't replaced.