I completely agree. I don't understand why anyone would sped exorbitant amounts of money on a "gamer" sound card (that's what creative markets to pretty much exclusively) when you can buy a decent card for recording for the same or less.
I have an M-Audio delta 44 and I love it. Sound q is excellent and the 1/4" analogue ins and outs work great for me (I have a pro-audio amp for my computer speakers). If I wanted something more basic for another computer build I'd buy the revolution 5.1 card. It supports Sensaura, EAX, DirectSound and A3D and I'd bet if you did measurements was lower noise than a Creative card.
Creative is nothing more than a brand. They leverage their name to sell cheap crap to consumers at inflated prices. Any educated buyer would NOT buy a Creative product.
If you are interested in the history of the personal computer, I enjoyed What the Dormouse said by John Markoff. Some aren't fans of John due to the whole Mitnick thing.. but his writing is decent and the subject material holds its own.
They invented the GUI, not Xerox.
I assume by Xerox you are referring to the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), which was staffed by a bunch of Stanford Research Institute people (their funding was drying up). SRI is the home of the mouse and they pioneered things such as scrollable windows and remote sessions etc. The term GUI may have been coined or attributed to Xerox, however the original development was elsewhere (SRI).
So if you plan to use genetically modified horses may I suggest crossing them with a wolverine or some other creature with better healing capacities?
This sounds like an excellent research opportunity for the Japanese to investigate horse/whale hybrids. It's the logical progression after cow/whale research.
So explain to me how legislating à la carte programming doesn't solve this issue?
If all carriers are forced to provide à la carte programming then Disney loses it's heavy weight bargaining chip. If Disney tries to charge a particular carrier more per customer, the carrier responds, "Fine, but less of our customers will subscribe."
There is no, "You must put these on the base tier." As there is no base tier, or at least the customers aren't forced to order it. Pricing becomes priced by consumer price elasticity (plus a margin of profit for the carriers). This is exactly as it should be.
One question for an American versed in sales and consumer laws: Do American laws allow selling the same service or product to different customers at different rates with little or no restrictions? I am all for bulk discounts, but in my experience if you offer one customer a bulk discount another customer purchasing the same quantity must get the same rate... different laws though.
he city already sounds like a futuristic sci fi japanese anime city
The name is aboriginal (the politically correct term in Canada being "first nations".. ).
The name Nanaimo comes from the Coast Salish name meaning "Great Mighty People", the whole", "great strong tribe" etc.
Funny thing is no one has mentioned the dessert of the same name: Nanaimo bar.
Whether the dessert actually originated there is debatable, whether it is delicious is not;).
Any of the three could be true, but it is impossible for all three to be true simultaneously.
Very true, but you are thinking like a programmer. Each argument is exclusive to itself and is not to have any bearing on other arguments.
In the contract example (trying to show contract between X and Z possibly using y as a contracting agent) it should make sense why this is allowed. The point to prove (or disprove) the existence of a contract. Depending on the facts it may be easier to prove the contract existed via one method (which should be your first argument), though if it is possible to prove it by another method then they should be reserved as a backup. You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket
This allows for seemingly ridiculous examples such as my first one. However, if you consider that example, the first argument may be the easiest. If you present that the person was not present and there is no proof to the contrary, then you have taken the easiest route (regardless of whether they were there). Of course if the person was there and they are put on the stand, then they will disprove that argument or commit perjury. For that argument to work (with the person having been there) the other legal party would have to be incompetent.. but it was formed as a ridiculous example of what is possible.
So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement. In law you can have "conflicting" statements via alternative arguments. For instance:
I was not at the scene of the crime.
alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.
in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits
It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree (i.e. you can have multiple starting points for your arguments, they don't all have to start from one premise).
Of course it should be said IANAL, and the only time i've seen alternative arguments the alternative were plausible, it's just the facts at hand might end up working better for a certain path of argument, for example:
y acted as an agent for X in the contract between X and Z
in the alternativge, y acted as an agent for Z
in the further alternative, there was a direct contract formed between X and Z
"always follow the money"
Exactly. In a case involving vicarious liability (let's say an employee/employer relationship) the employer is liable for the employees actions (the common interpretation). However both parties are equally liable, meaning you can sue either one or both. Unless it's one damn rich employee you are going to want to go after the employer.
The last thing you would want to do is run a civil suit against someone with no money. You'd end up with a dry judgment which is a waste of time (time and money on your behalf for no gain).
as programmers regard mismatched parenthesis. It's just uncomfortable to look at...
Lemme guess your profession: lisp programmer.
Personally I get a little more uncomfortable with mismatched braces. Goofing up parenthesis is too easy when they equate to half of the characters in your code.
I haven't used it myself, however Aptana Studio has been recommended to me. It's based off Eclipse and does CSS, JS, HTML, PHP, RoR it has a JSON editor and has a bunch of Ajax libraries built in.
Re:What about his fellow travelers?
on
Kimchi in Space
·
· Score: 1
From the Hákarl Wikipedia page:
Chef Anthony Bourdain, who has travelled extensively throughout the world sampling local cuisine for his Travel Channel show No Reservations, has described shark orramatur as "the single worst, most disgusting and terrible tasting thing" he has ever eaten.
I think I'll opt out on the fermented/rotted shark. Thanks.
it would only be of interest at the low-margin bottom-feeding end of the market
And that is probably overstating it. The "low margin bottom-feeders" won't even have a direct interest in the technology (i.e. the integration of the graphics and processor), just that the overall cost has decreased for performance at that level.
Personally I would like to see an integrated gpu/cpu designed for multimedia/htpc uses. A single low-power chip solution that would allow for a set-top box smaller than the apple tv with a lot more oomph (both processor and graphics wise) would get me pretty excited.
From what I read (though it was mainly business perspective), NeXT was not deemed as a superior purchase or worth more. BeOS was definitely not a used ford as you put it. If you look from a technical standpoint, both BeOS and NeXT were technically superior to OS8 and Microsoft's offerings at the time.
but I think 54 mil is completely ludicrous and $100,000 is a bit greedy.
Punitive damages really don't have much to do with greed on the part of the plaintiff , but rather punishment on the defense side. If the judge thinks Best Buy was negligent and should be punished, then the amount has to be significant enough for them to "hurt" and want to avoid it in the future.
Best Buy is a big company. My guess is it'd take more than a million dollars to make them flinch.
BeOS's CEO wanted $400 million for the company though, and Apple was only prepared to offer $100 million. So, Apple ended up buying out NeXT instead..
and ended up paying more than $400 million for it once negotiations were through. It's funny, they gave up on acquiring BeOS due to price, but then paid even more for NeXT.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. I don't understand why anyone would sped exorbitant amounts of money on a "gamer" sound card (that's what creative markets to pretty much exclusively) when you can buy a decent card for recording for the same or less.
I have an M-Audio delta 44 and I love it. Sound q is excellent and the 1/4" analogue ins and outs work great for me (I have a pro-audio amp for my computer speakers). If I wanted something more basic for another computer build I'd buy the revolution 5.1 card. It supports Sensaura, EAX, DirectSound and A3D and I'd bet if you did measurements was lower noise than a Creative card.
Creative is nothing more than a brand. They leverage their name to sell cheap crap to consumers at inflated prices. Any educated buyer would NOT buy a Creative product.
wut dat u sez?
I can has werd chekerz?
If you are interested in the history of the personal computer, I enjoyed What the Dormouse said by John Markoff. Some aren't fans of John due to the whole Mitnick thing.. but his writing is decent and the subject material holds its own.
I assume by Xerox you are referring to the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), which was staffed by a bunch of Stanford Research Institute people (their funding was drying up). SRI is the home of the mouse and they pioneered things such as scrollable windows and remote sessions etc. The term GUI may have been coined or attributed to Xerox, however the original development was elsewhere (SRI).
This sounds like an excellent research opportunity for the Japanese to investigate horse/whale hybrids. It's the logical progression after cow/whale research.
Thanks for the great reply. Very informative.
So explain to me how legislating à la carte programming doesn't solve this issue?
If all carriers are forced to provide à la carte programming then Disney loses it's heavy weight bargaining chip. If Disney tries to charge a particular carrier more per customer, the carrier responds, "Fine, but less of our customers will subscribe."
There is no, "You must put these on the base tier." As there is no base tier, or at least the customers aren't forced to order it. Pricing becomes priced by consumer price elasticity (plus a margin of profit for the carriers). This is exactly as it should be.
One question for an American versed in sales and consumer laws: Do American laws allow selling the same service or product to different customers at different rates with little or no restrictions? I am all for bulk discounts, but in my experience if you offer one customer a bulk discount another customer purchasing the same quantity must get the same rate... different laws though.
The name is aboriginal (the politically correct term in Canada being "first nations".. ). The name Nanaimo comes from the Coast Salish name meaning "Great Mighty People", the whole", "great strong tribe" etc.
Funny thing is no one has mentioned the dessert of the same name: Nanaimo bar.
Whether the dessert actually originated there is debatable, whether it is delicious is not
Very true, but you are thinking like a programmer. Each argument is exclusive to itself and is not to have any bearing on other arguments.
In the contract example (trying to show contract between X and Z possibly using y as a contracting agent) it should make sense why this is allowed. The point to prove (or disprove) the existence of a contract. Depending on the facts it may be easier to prove the contract existed via one method (which should be your first argument), though if it is possible to prove it by another method then they should be reserved as a backup. You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket
This allows for seemingly ridiculous examples such as my first one. However, if you consider that example, the first argument may be the easiest. If you present that the person was not present and there is no proof to the contrary, then you have taken the easiest route (regardless of whether they were there). Of course if the person was there and they are put on the stand, then they will disprove that argument or commit perjury. For that argument to work (with the person having been there) the other legal party would have to be incompetent.. but it was formed as a ridiculous example of what is possible.
Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement. In law you can have "conflicting" statements via alternative arguments. For instance:
- I was not at the scene of the crime.
- alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.
- in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits
It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree (i.e. you can have multiple starting points for your arguments, they don't all have to start from one premise).Of course it should be said IANAL, and the only time i've seen alternative arguments the alternative were plausible, it's just the facts at hand might end up working better for a certain path of argument, for example:
Exactly. In a case involving vicarious liability (let's say an employee/employer relationship) the employer is liable for the employees actions (the common interpretation). However both parties are equally liable, meaning you can sue either one or both. Unless it's one damn rich employee you are going to want to go after the employer.
The last thing you would want to do is run a civil suit against someone with no money. You'd end up with a dry judgment which is a waste of time (time and money on your behalf for no gain).
Lemme guess your profession: lisp programmer.
Personally I get a little more uncomfortable with mismatched braces. Goofing up parenthesis is too easy when they equate to half of the characters in your code.
I haven't used it myself, however Aptana Studio has been recommended to me. It's based off Eclipse and does CSS, JS, HTML, PHP, RoR it has a JSON editor and has a bunch of Ajax libraries built in.
Chef Anthony Bourdain, who has travelled extensively throughout the world sampling local cuisine for his Travel Channel show No Reservations, has described shark orramatur as "the single worst, most disgusting and terrible tasting thing" he has ever eaten.
I think I'll opt out on the fermented/rotted shark. Thanks.
And that is probably overstating it. The "low margin bottom-feeders" won't even have a direct interest in the technology (i.e. the integration of the graphics and processor), just that the overall cost has decreased for performance at that level.
Personally I would like to see an integrated gpu/cpu designed for multimedia/htpc uses. A single low-power chip solution that would allow for a set-top box smaller than the apple tv with a lot more oomph (both processor and graphics wise) would get me pretty excited.
Emacs has a command for that.
Except for the boobie traps of course..
plz send me teh codes. I need them for a schol project. thnx.
do you aslo have teh codes for discrete logs? I need teh codes for that too. plzthnx.
From what I read (though it was mainly business perspective), NeXT was not deemed as a superior purchase or worth more. BeOS was definitely not a used ford as you put it. If you look from a technical standpoint, both BeOS and NeXT were technically superior to OS8 and Microsoft's offerings at the time.
So is that countably or uncountably infinite?
Punitive damages really don't have much to do with greed on the part of the plaintiff , but rather punishment on the defense side. If the judge thinks Best Buy was negligent and should be punished, then the amount has to be significant enough for them to "hurt" and want to avoid it in the future.
Best Buy is a big company. My guess is it'd take more than a million dollars to make them flinch.
and ended up paying more than $400 million for it once negotiations were through. It's funny, they gave up on acquiring BeOS due to price, but then paid even more for NeXT.
Wow, so like a 200% chance it gets used for fraud?
Need to what? You totally left me hanging there.
Isn't he going about this the complicated way?
I mean any competent unix user can fork some child processes on their own. If he has trouble with that maybe he should outsource the entire job.