Going solely off appearance (and thus, not anything ever said in the show), Lisa plays a tenor sax both in the cartoon and in this live action opening.
I just bought an A950, picking it over other phones mainly for its music capabilities.
Since the Verizon outlet I bought it at was inside a Circuit City, I picked up a 256MB microSD card and a USB SD card reader for $20 a piece so I could have my music on the phone.
However, after formatting the card as FAT32 and inserting it into the phone so its directory structure was created and then filling it up with my MP3s, I was annoyed to see the phone's "MP3 Maestro" didnt recognize a single of my songs. After lots of screwing around with CBR/VBR and filenames, and then a good solid hour of research, I discovered the problem: apparently, in mid-January, Verizon started using a new firmware in these phones that only recognizes WMA files. If you use the USB cable they sell you and WM10 to transfer songs, WM10 silently converts your files into WMA files before transferring them to the phone. So, one quick run through dbPowerAmp and all the songs I wanted were in WMA format, on my mSD card, and (mostly) playing happily with "MP3 Maestro".
Now, my A950 plays my music off of my mSD card without the need to buy Verizon's hideously overpriced $30 USB cable.
Of course, if you didn't buy your phone directly from Verizon, or if you've had since before January, then I don't know...:-) I just know that, as retarded as it is for this phone's "MP3 Maestro" to only play WMA files, I'm just happy I got it to work in the end.
The one reason why itunes sells DRMed songs is because in 5-10 years, everyone who bought itunes songs will NEED to buy a ipod to listen those songs, no matter if by that time ipod is the worst and more expensive player of the galaxy. You're stuck with apple products
No, the one reason why iTMS sells DRMed songs is because that is absolutely the only way they would ever obtain a license from the record companies to sell the songs.
Bitching about iTMS selling DRMed songs to lock people into iPods is just that -- bitching. There are countless ways to convert the DRMed songs you buy from iTMS into a format that will work on anything, so if locking people in was the plan, it obviously isn't going to work in the long run.
The same company that makes the java IDE IntelliJ IDEA makes a profiler for.NET called dottrace profiler that is very good for.NET apps. It has helped me identify and fix a long list of problems in the.NET apps that I have to maintain. I would highly recommend it. You can find it yourself on the front of jetbrains.com.
(only thing I miss is clicking the scroll wheel and moving up or down to quickly scroll through documents and such)
If you didn't know, you can do this, to some extent. You click the scroll wheel and then move the mouse in the direction you want. Not quite as seemless as it is on Winderz, but functionally its basically the same.
(I tried this under Camino, not sure if it works under the other browsers).
I was losing 35% of my paycheck when I was working for McD's part time in high school.
Perhaps you were having 35% total held back from each check, but that has to do with what your employer decides to withhold rather than what your tax bracket is. If you were a high school kid working at McD's, you should have received a good sized portion of that 35% back as a refund at the end of the year.
I hardly think that it doesn't do so because it can't, but rather because it shouldn't. Personally, I feel the installer should simply tell me to quit the apps rather than quit them for me, and it appears that Apple agrees with me.
What binary configuration files are you referring to?
Every configuration file I could find that is anything different from what you'd find on any other *nix system was just a plist file, which is nothing more than an xml file.
Considering that most users don't download the update over a broadband connection, I would think that it's a good idea that they are not asked to quit programs until after the download. What if you want to do some work in the background while the download goes? If the user must quit all apps before downloading, they essentially give up their computer for the entire download+install time, rather than just the install time. I could see some kind of option to enable what you want, but I definitely don't think it should be the default behavior.
Besides I like to be in control of my music and my gear and I don't like when I can't replace the battery like the way the iPod is setup.
I think by now, anyone bitching that they "can't" replace an iPod battery is just looking for something to bitch about. Seems to me that there are more than one place to get replacement batteries for the iPod, and it even only takes about 5 mins to do the replacement yourself.
What further "insight" into the Kennedy assassination do you think you'll get from a FPS where you stack textbooks and get Kennedy in your sight?
How about the first-hand knowledge that things looked and (could have) happened like they are reported historically? I'd say it definitely gives one a greater sense of the environment and events than does reading someone else's description.
Megan's Law is a reaction to a historically significant event. Would you play a video game where you rape and murder Megan Kanka?
What a ridiculous thing to ask. Of course not. But, perhaps if there had been a great contention as to whether a certain individual had committed the crime, and a game about it focused specifically on that individual's ability to commit the crime, rather than the gory details of the crime itself, then I could see it. You are essentially playing detective and not just replaying the horror of the crime. And that is all I see in this JFK game. It doesn't seem to me that you can get into anything gory concerning the murder; you are simply told whether your attempt would have been correct.
And this game could be more than just exploitation if only they allow some depth...
I agree 110%. I haven't even played the game, but it's gameplay description doesn't sound very entertaining to me. However, I don't think that takes away from its historical value (seeing for yourself exactly how things went down is definitely historically valuable), and those that are focused on how "offensive" it is to them seem to be blind to its potential historical value.
You've played it, then? Good to know we're all commenting on something we know about first-hand.
If recreating an event down to its particular details doesn't give you any further insight into that event, perhaps you need some work on your critical thinking skills.
Those are representations of the anonymous. This is a representation of a very specific figure who's relatives will have serious emotional attachment.
Because those that lost loved ones in WWII have no serious emotional attachment to those loved ones. So what if the computer generated image of a soldier being killed doesn't show someone's specific name above it? What if it has the same emotional effect on someone despite being "anonymous"? I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard at all to find a (small) group of people that are offended by games that depict WWII.
I don't understand how you don't understand the distinction.
The distinction: one computer generated image of a person being murdered has the name of a famous person above it, and the other does not.
On that note, why are you arguing from the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?
My point was that neither are wrong. They are both computer generated attempts at entertainment with historically-derived action that are offending some people because of their content. I understand that this game could be something very offensive to certain people. I also understand that it could be something very educational and even entertaining to many other people. So why should these people be deprived of an educational and entertaining experience because someone else doesn't share their same sense of taste?
Those that are so offended by this can choose to ignore it and their lives will be no worse off for doing so. And those that this has a positive impact on can be better off for having played it.
Because reenactments help explain what happened. This isn't historical, it's glorifying Lee Harvey Oswald.
And this game doesn't help explain what happened? I suppose we shouldn't teach the world how Jews in WWII were slaughtered, because that would be glorifying Adolf Hitler.
If you can't tell that this is tasteless, then you have no sense of morality.
What a wonderfully broad and far-reaching statement. Anyone that doesn't share your particular tastes obviously has no sense of morality!
And I even thought for a minute you might be more than just a simple troll. Silly me...
So, what about all the WWII games that recreate the murders of thousands of people? Are those okay because the people being murdered aren't famous people?
1) disrespectful to the family of the victim. Are reenactments of historical events disrespectful to those involved? How is this form of reenactment any more disrespectful than a TV show that does all the work of the recreation for you?
2) morbid So? Plenty of historically important events can easily be called morbid. As such, recreations of said events are bound to be morbid.
3) a cheap ploy to get attention for a mediocre effort. I don't know that I'd call it "a cheap ploy", or even "mediocre". Personally, I wish there were more "games" that let people recreate historical events for themselves, and scored them on how accurately they recreated the event. Imagine that...learning history while playing a game. Personally I like the idea of using games for something more than just passing the time.
Kerry's shown some integrity and spirit in his concession. Unfortunately, he - and the DNC - showed none when they were running his campaign. For some reason though that ignoring the issues and focusing on FUD was a good idea.
If you think for a second that Bush and the RNC showed any more integrity or spirit in their campaign than did Kerry and the DNC, then I'd love to get a lead on the illicit drugs you must be smoking.
Anyone with any objectiveness about them could see both sides were equally evil in this campaign--they just did it in slightly different ways. Personally, I felt Bush himself was a little less evil, and thus voted for him. At the same time, I wasn't fooled into believing that his campaign was any less vile or underhanded than Kerry's.
Slashdot Mirror
Going solely off appearance (and thus, not anything ever said in the show), Lisa plays a tenor sax both in the cartoon and in this live action opening.
I just bought an A950, picking it over other phones mainly for its music capabilities.
:-) I just know that, as retarded as it is for this phone's "MP3 Maestro" to only play WMA files, I'm just happy I got it to work in the end.
Since the Verizon outlet I bought it at was inside a Circuit City, I picked up a 256MB microSD card and a USB SD card reader for $20 a piece so I could have my music on the phone.
However, after formatting the card as FAT32 and inserting it into the phone so its directory structure was created and then filling it up with my MP3s, I was annoyed to see the phone's "MP3 Maestro" didnt recognize a single of my songs. After lots of screwing around with CBR/VBR and filenames, and then a good solid hour of research, I discovered the problem: apparently, in mid-January, Verizon started using a new firmware in these phones that only recognizes WMA files. If you use the USB cable they sell you and WM10 to transfer songs, WM10 silently converts your files into WMA files before transferring them to the phone. So, one quick run through dbPowerAmp and all the songs I wanted were in WMA format, on my mSD card, and (mostly) playing happily with "MP3 Maestro".
Now, my A950 plays my music off of my mSD card without the need to buy Verizon's hideously overpriced $30 USB cable.
Of course, if you didn't buy your phone directly from Verizon, or if you've had since before January, then I don't know...
The one reason why itunes sells DRMed songs is because in 5-10 years, everyone who bought itunes songs will NEED to buy a ipod to listen those songs, no matter if by that time ipod is the worst and more expensive player of the galaxy. You're stuck with apple products
No, the one reason why iTMS sells DRMed songs is because that is absolutely the only way they would ever obtain a license from the record companies to sell the songs.
Bitching about iTMS selling DRMed songs to lock people into iPods is just that -- bitching. There are countless ways to convert the DRMed songs you buy from iTMS into a format that will work on anything, so if locking people in was the plan, it obviously isn't going to work in the long run.
The same company that makes the java IDE IntelliJ IDEA makes a profiler for .NET called dottrace profiler that is very good for .NET apps. It has helped me identify and fix a long list of problems in the .NET apps that I have to maintain. I would highly recommend it. You can find it yourself on the front of jetbrains.com.
Computers with physical access are susceptible to "unintended root-level access".
I mean, really, what will Lucas pull out of his ass next?
Xenon != Xeon
Your Mileage May Vary.
...just add some newlines with :1,$ s/>\r if you use the vi editor.
And they say vi is hard to use.
(only thing I miss is clicking the scroll wheel and moving up or down to quickly scroll through documents and such)
If you didn't know, you can do this, to some extent. You click the scroll wheel and then move the mouse in the direction you want. Not quite as seemless as it is on Winderz, but functionally its basically the same.
(I tried this under Camino, not sure if it works under the other browsers).
I was losing 35% of my paycheck when I was working for McD's part time in high school.
Perhaps you were having 35% total held back from each check, but that has to do with what your employer decides to withhold rather than what your tax bracket is. If you were a high school kid working at McD's, you should have received a good sized portion of that 35% back as a refund at the end of the year.
Why can't the updater just quit iCal by itself?
I hardly think that it doesn't do so because it can't, but rather because it shouldn't. Personally, I feel the installer should simply tell me to quit the apps rather than quit them for me, and it appears that Apple agrees with me.
What binary configuration files are you referring to?
Every configuration file I could find that is anything different from what you'd find on any other *nix system was just a plist file, which is nothing more than an xml file.
Considering that most users don't download the update over a broadband connection, I would think that it's a good idea that they are not asked to quit programs until after the download. What if you want to do some work in the background while the download goes? If the user must quit all apps before downloading, they essentially give up their computer for the entire download+install time, rather than just the install time. I could see some kind of option to enable what you want, but I definitely don't think it should be the default behavior.
Here's a story about it, from well over a year ago.
Besides I like to be in control of my music and my gear and I don't like when I can't replace the battery like the way the iPod is setup.
I think by now, anyone bitching that they "can't" replace an iPod battery is just looking for something to bitch about. Seems to me that there are more than one place to get replacement batteries for the iPod, and it even only takes about 5 mins to do the replacement yourself.
What further "insight" into the Kennedy assassination do you think you'll get from a FPS where you stack textbooks and get Kennedy in your sight?
How about the first-hand knowledge that things looked and (could have) happened like they are reported historically? I'd say it definitely gives one a greater sense of the environment and events than does reading someone else's description.
Megan's Law is a reaction to a historically significant event. Would you play a video game where you rape and murder Megan Kanka?
What a ridiculous thing to ask. Of course not. But, perhaps if there had been a great contention as to whether a certain individual had committed the crime, and a game about it focused specifically on that individual's ability to commit the crime, rather than the gory details of the crime itself, then I could see it. You are essentially playing detective and not just replaying the horror of the crime. And that is all I see in this JFK game. It doesn't seem to me that you can get into anything gory concerning the murder; you are simply told whether your attempt would have been correct.
And this game could be more than just exploitation if only they allow some depth...
I agree 110%. I haven't even played the game, but it's gameplay description doesn't sound very entertaining to me. However, I don't think that takes away from its historical value (seeing for yourself exactly how things went down is definitely historically valuable), and those that are focused on how "offensive" it is to them seem to be blind to its potential historical value.
And this game doesn't help explain what happened?
No.
You've played it, then? Good to know we're all commenting on something we know about first-hand.
If recreating an event down to its particular details doesn't give you any further insight into that event, perhaps you need some work on your critical thinking skills.
Those are representations of the anonymous. This is a representation of a very specific figure who's relatives will have serious emotional attachment.
Because those that lost loved ones in WWII have no serious emotional attachment to those loved ones. So what if the computer generated image of a soldier being killed doesn't show someone's specific name above it? What if it has the same emotional effect on someone despite being "anonymous"? I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard at all to find a (small) group of people that are offended by games that depict WWII.
I don't understand how you don't understand the distinction.
The distinction: one computer generated image of a person being murdered has the name of a famous person above it, and the other does not.
On that note, why are you arguing from the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?
My point was that neither are wrong. They are both computer generated attempts at entertainment with historically-derived action that are offending some people because of their content. I understand that this game could be something very offensive to certain people. I also understand that it could be something very educational and even entertaining to many other people. So why should these people be deprived of an educational and entertaining experience because someone else doesn't share their same sense of taste?
Those that are so offended by this can choose to ignore it and their lives will be no worse off for doing so. And those that this has a positive impact on can be better off for having played it.
Because reenactments help explain what happened. This isn't historical, it's glorifying Lee Harvey Oswald.
And this game doesn't help explain what happened? I suppose we shouldn't teach the world how Jews in WWII were slaughtered, because that would be glorifying Adolf Hitler.
If you can't tell that this is tasteless, then you have no sense of morality.
What a wonderfully broad and far-reaching statement. Anyone that doesn't share your particular tastes obviously has no sense of morality!
And I even thought for a minute you might be more than just a simple troll. Silly me...
So, what about all the WWII games that recreate the murders of thousands of people? Are those okay because the people being murdered aren't famous people?
All the WWII games, as others have pointed out? Are those just as distasteful?
To paraphrase another post that shares my sentiment, "is a historical simulation only wrong if someone FAMOUS gets hurt"?
1) disrespectful to the family of the victim.
Are reenactments of historical events disrespectful to those involved? How is this form of reenactment any more disrespectful than a TV show that does all the work of the recreation for you?
2) morbid
So? Plenty of historically important events can easily be called morbid. As such, recreations of said events are bound to be morbid.
3) a cheap ploy to get attention for a mediocre effort.
I don't know that I'd call it "a cheap ploy", or even "mediocre". Personally, I wish there were more "games" that let people recreate historical events for themselves, and scored them on how accurately they recreated the event. Imagine that...learning history while playing a game. Personally I like the idea of using games for something more than just passing the time.
Kerry's shown some integrity and spirit in his concession. Unfortunately, he - and the DNC - showed none when they were running his campaign. For some reason though that ignoring the issues and focusing on FUD was a good idea.
If you think for a second that Bush and the RNC showed any more integrity or spirit in their campaign than did Kerry and the DNC, then I'd love to get a lead on the illicit drugs you must be smoking.
Anyone with any objectiveness about them could see both sides were equally evil in this campaign--they just did it in slightly different ways. Personally, I felt Bush himself was a little less evil, and thus voted for him. At the same time, I wasn't fooled into believing that his campaign was any less vile or underhanded than Kerry's.