That's because the iPod has a 32 MB RAM buffer into which it loads the music that it's playing. (So for most of the time, when you aren't skipping around tracks, it is essentially a solid-state MP3 player.)
It doesn't have the hard disk spinning all the time. This is not only to prevent skipping but also to dramatically increase battery life.
If someone successfully manages to capture or whack outright a spammer in, say, Nigeria... no problem. Just give us your email address and we'll PayPal you the money.
Hi friend, I am Colonel Namibwe from Nigeria. I have a lucrative financial offer for you, and it involves a spammer. Please send me $100,000 through PayPal and I will make sure the spammer is put to an end, and then I can collect the $1000000 in war funds from my country and split them between us.
One interesting thing that I have found is that if you look at the monitor with your peripheral vision (i.e. centering your vision just above the monitor but paying attention to the monitor itself) it is MUCH easier to see the flickering of a monitor than if you look straight at it. I have gotten people unable to see the flickering normally to observe it in this fashion.
Pretty soon they will tax the fact one exhales CO2.
From the Beatles' song Taxman
Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for If you don't want to pay some more 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die Declare the pennies on your eyes 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me.
(hmm, I'm probably infringing on someone's copyright by posting this here; whoops!
Agreed. To make things more obvious to the moderators, try adding line breaks towards the end, and adding a smiley/winky emoticon always helps. Well, mostly.;-)
BTW, it's too bad that my last mod point just expired. Otherwise I would have helped the poor lad out.
Seriously. Let's get all of our puns out of the way now.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two rights don't make a wrong either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but then again, morality is ambiguous.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.
So these two wrongs walked into a bar...
Two Wrights righted their wrongs when writing a roughly written work.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... two rights make a wrong!
Two rights, yeah, but how about a beowolf cluster of them!?
Gah! I can't continue! It's too horrible. Really. I hate this post. Why do I even waste my time doing it.
Please do not mod this post up for its (negligible) content. (but don't mod it down either, please)
Superior Sound Quality
Current Voice over IP and chat applications just don't measure up. Skype has created proprietary software and partnered with the best acoustic scientists in the business to deliver sound quality superior to even your fixed telephone line!
Can I use other clients, e.g. Windows Messenger to connect to the Skype network?
No you can't. We have crafted Skype with a proprietary technology that is not compliant with other clients at this time.
Can I connect to a SIP server with Skype?
No you can't. We have crafted Skype with a proprietary technology that is not compatible with SIP. SIP was simply not good enough for us.
Which protocols does Skype use?
Skype uses a proprietary protocol which we have developed. We looked at many available protocols when designing Skype and none were good enough for us. We hope you agree!
Is the source code for Skype available? Can I have a copy?
No. Skype is proprietary software.
Hmm, does the word proprietary mean anything to you?;-D
I have to agree with memerath2003, the little girl is not the victim.
Did you even read my post? I said "Which is why the little girl is the victim" because the parent poster was saying the opposite.
I hate to say this over and over again, but what the girl did was not stealing. As has been pointed out many, many times before, it's called "copyright infringement" - "stealing" is a spin word put on by the RIAA and all of the other "cartels."
Also, the word is copyright, not copywrite.
Also, my user name is momerath2003, not memerath2003. The name is an allusion from a poem called Jabberwocky.
But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that taking $2000 from a girl who shared some music is morally far worse than the act of her sharing.
If you define "stealing" and "victim" by law and RIAA propaganda instead of truth and morality, then I am wrong, and the RIAA...err, the artists (yeah right)... is the victim and the little girl is the thief.
1. CitizenX downloads a song by Pop Musician.
2. Pop Musician have sold their sold their soul to Satan in return for fame and fortune.
3. Pop Musician puts their heart and "soul" into every song they create.
4. The RIAA are a licensed agent of Satan.
5. Therefore the RIAA do in fact own the copyright of most Pop music.
Thanks for responding. It's good to know that you weren't being serious (and agree with my assessment about the moderation).
As I'm sure you know well, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between trolls, misguided fools, uninformed idiots, and "lightly sarcastic" knowledgeable people. You'll pardon that I misinterpreted you.
Thank you for your assessment of my post. I'm very glad to know that you know what you're talking about (and realize the fact that vitrification is a better alternative than the others now).
About your nit-pick; you are indeed correct (if I made my other post sound otherwise, then it was unintentional) and your comparison is apt. Actually, in the process, they remove some of the lowest-level waste and leave only the higher-level waste to be turned into glass; when they dilute it with the borosilicate, it actually returns to about the same level of waste as it (combined with the low-level waste) was before.
My father, the physics teacher, always said he thought the stuff should be shot into the sun - which is great until a rocket explodes on the launchpad or in the atmosphere. And with so much of the waste around, there'd be ample opportunity for that to happen.
One would think you would be more worried about the ridiculous energy requirements in order to push so much massive material into space. Some random figures tell me that it's at least $2000 per pound just to get the stuff into orbit. It's inconceivable to punch thousands of tons of any material into the sun.
We repeat: Pay no attention to the radioactive waste. Move along...
Look, it's obvious that you know nothing about how nuclear waste is (or even what it is).
For an example of how nuclear waste is processed, let us take the Savannah River Site (an excellent example of how nuclear reactors can help the environment through lots of government funding). There, they had several reactors built during the Cold War in order to create weapons-grade plutonium and tritium. In the process, a lot of waste was created.
There has been built a huge building (called a canyon) designed for waste processing. First, the waste is chemically processed and diluted with borosilicate glass (the same glass that Pyrex is made of). Next, it is melted, stirred up, and poured into huge double-layered steel drums with double-welded tops. The melted glass solidifies into one solid chunk. After it cools, a giant, shielded truck (basically) moves the tanks into a building with fairly shallow holes in the ground - but this is only until Congress and whomever decide to allow shipping these to designated sites.
The sites that Congress will (hopefully eventually) pick are designed not to be very near any water sources. They are planning remote locations and far away places.
So, what if one of these containers breaks when it's buried? Well, nothing. Since all of the waste is a solid piece of glass, it won't pour out.
Well, what if some of the glass breaks off into, say, a stream? Since the glass is much denser than water, it will sink. Since it is completely solid, no radioactive particles will be mixed with and contaminating the water.
Um, but it's still radioactive, right? Basically, the worst it can do to the water is make H2O into DHO or D2O (by adding neutrons to the hydrogens). This isn't important at all, since what we call H2O already has some deuterium isotopes in it.
In other words, before you decide to make a "scathing" post that you plan on getting modded "Insightful," it might be a Good Thing to check up on your facts beforehand.
If they actually cared about piracy instead of making the Internet useless for distributing music for anybody but them, they'd be going after the pirate CD PRESSING PLANTS in Asia, not individual P2P users in the US. If you hadn't heard, pirate CDs and DVDs are sold openly all over Asia, with the artists making not a cent. You'd think the 0wn3d politicians of the *AA organizations would be trying to do something about it instead of attacking individuals.
This has been gone over before.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly easy for the RIAA's lawyers to trundle overseas and sue these people for selling software. The DMCA, for now, has basically stayed in America; as far as I know, none of the poor, Asian countries have either laws against this type of piracy or a justice system that allows them to easily take them to court.
Oh, and I suppose, say, Microsoft, will be the one deciding who is an "unpleasant person"? Thanks, but I for one do not want Microsoft, the RIAA, MPAA, or whoever to arbitrarily decide whether my computer deserves monitoring.
And don't try to say, "Well, they'll need a subpoena." See how well that worked with the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
The audiophiles aren't reviewing/testing the AAC codec. They're reviewing/testing uncompressed audio through the iPod's hardware.
Oh, yes indeed. Because emotion is such an important part of playing chess.
That's because the iPod has a 32 MB RAM buffer into which it loads the music that it's playing. (So for most of the time, when you aren't skipping around tracks, it is essentially a solid-state MP3 player.)
It doesn't have the hard disk spinning all the time. This is not only to prevent skipping but also to dramatically increase battery life.
Hi friend, I am Colonel Namibwe from Nigeria. I have a lucrative financial offer for you, and it involves a spammer.
Please send me $100,000 through PayPal and I will make sure the spammer is put to an end, and then I can collect the $1000000 in war funds from my country and split them between us.
Thank you very much,
Colonel Alojimbda Namibwe
Or at least, they can adapt to the technology.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense.
One interesting thing that I have found is that if you look at the monitor with your peripheral vision (i.e. centering your vision just above the monitor but paying attention to the monitor itself) it is MUCH easier to see the flickering of a monitor than if you look straight at it. I have gotten people unable to see the flickering normally to observe it in this fashion.
Does anyone know the cause of this?
Pretty soon they will tax the fact one exhales CO2.
From the Beatles' song Taxman
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.
(hmm, I'm probably infringing on someone's copyright by posting this here; whoops!
Agreed. To make things more obvious to the moderators, try adding line breaks towards the end, and adding a smiley/winky emoticon always helps. Well, mostly. ;-)
BTW, it's too bad that my last mod point just expired. Otherwise I would have helped the poor lad out.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two rights don't make a wrong either.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but then again, morality is ambiguous.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.
So these two wrongs walked into a bar...
Two Wrights righted their wrongs when writing a roughly written work.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... two rights make a wrong!
Two rights, yeah, but how about a beowolf cluster of them!?
Gah! I can't continue! It's too horrible. Really. I hate this post. Why do I even waste my time doing it.
Please do not mod this post up for its (negligible) content. (but don't mod it down either, please)
Come on, you slacker trolls!
(ethighy-ftifh psot!)
Yes, I have karma to burn. :-)
VOIP!!
Arrowed!
Did you even read my post? I said "Which is why the little girl is the victim" because the parent poster was saying the opposite.
I hate to say this over and over again, but what the girl did was not stealing. As has been pointed out many, many times before, it's called "copyright infringement" - "stealing" is a spin word put on by the RIAA and all of the other "cartels."
Also, the word is copyright, not copywrite.
Also, my user name is momerath2003, not memerath2003. The name is an allusion from a poem called Jabberwocky.
But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that taking $2000 from a girl who shared some music is morally far worse than the act of her sharing.
If you define "stealing" and "victim" by law and RIAA propaganda instead of truth and morality, then I am wrong, and the RIAA...err, the artists (yeah right)... is the victim and the little girl is the thief.
Exactly. Which is why the little girl is the victim and the RIAA is not.
Or are you saying that suing a 12-year-old and taking $2000 isn't stealing?
6. ???
7. Profit!
As I'm sure you know well, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between trolls, misguided fools, uninformed idiots, and "lightly sarcastic" knowledgeable people. You'll pardon that I misinterpreted you.
Thank you for your assessment of my post. I'm very glad to know that you know what you're talking about (and realize the fact that vitrification is a better alternative than the others now).
About your nit-pick; you are indeed correct (if I made my other post sound otherwise, then it was unintentional) and your comparison is apt. Actually, in the process, they remove some of the lowest-level waste and leave only the higher-level waste to be turned into glass; when they dilute it with the borosilicate, it actually returns to about the same level of waste as it (combined with the low-level waste) was before.
Thank you very much for responding!
One would think you would be more worried about the ridiculous energy requirements in order to push so much massive material into space. Some random figures tell me that it's at least $2000 per pound just to get the stuff into orbit. It's inconceivable to punch thousands of tons of any material into the sun.
Look, it's obvious that you know nothing about how nuclear waste is (or even what it is).
For an example of how nuclear waste is processed, let us take the Savannah River Site (an excellent example of how nuclear reactors can help the environment through lots of government funding). There, they had several reactors built during the Cold War in order to create weapons-grade plutonium and tritium. In the process, a lot of waste was created.
There has been built a huge building (called a canyon) designed for waste processing. First, the waste is chemically processed and diluted with borosilicate glass (the same glass that Pyrex is made of). Next, it is melted, stirred up, and poured into huge double-layered steel drums with double-welded tops. The melted glass solidifies into one solid chunk. After it cools, a giant, shielded truck (basically) moves the tanks into a building with fairly shallow holes in the ground - but this is only until Congress and whomever decide to allow shipping these to designated sites.
The sites that Congress will (hopefully eventually) pick are designed not to be very near any water sources. They are planning remote locations and far away places.
So, what if one of these containers breaks when it's buried?
Well, nothing. Since all of the waste is a solid piece of glass, it won't pour out.
Well, what if some of the glass breaks off into, say, a stream?
Since the glass is much denser than water, it will sink. Since it is completely solid, no radioactive particles will be mixed with and contaminating the water.
Um, but it's still radioactive, right?
Basically, the worst it can do to the water is make H2O into DHO or D2O (by adding neutrons to the hydrogens). This isn't important at all, since what we call H2O already has some deuterium isotopes in it.
In other words, before you decide to make a "scathing" post that you plan on getting modded "Insightful," it might be a Good Thing to check up on your facts beforehand.
This has been gone over before.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly easy for the RIAA's lawyers to trundle overseas and sue these people for selling software. The DMCA, for now, has basically stayed in America; as far as I know, none of the poor, Asian countries have either laws against this type of piracy or a justice system that allows them to easily take them to court.
"Lucky" for us Americans, we do!
And don't try to say, "Well, they'll need a subpoena." See how well that worked with the RIAA.
What does 2 stand for? Reply hazy, try again later?
Hmm... maybe you should stop using a dial-up modem.
;-D
I can't run 12-year old software on it
Why would you want to run a twelve-year-old on your computer, you dirty baster?