Why do people buy stuff like this or the Atari version? A $50 PS1 plays much better games, much less an XBOX or PS2. The nostalgia aspect only is good for a few hours. After that, you're never going to play it again.
I never had an Intellivision, but my cousin did, so I played quite a bit. In the early 90s or so, a friend of mine was going through his attic and found his Intellivision, so we plugged it in and played Major League Baseball. The game was atrocious--there are no fly balls, so you can't catch the ball to make an out, but they did have home runs. The outfielders moved in unison. After playing for a few minutes, we went back to playing Baseball Stars for the Super Nintendo.
The nostalgia value is neat, such as hearing the Intellivision say "Yer Out" but it wears out quickly. And anyone who didn't play the game growing up (People under 28 years old or so) will not care about this ancient history.
If Sen. Byrd and Pres. Clinton aren't convincing enough. How about Hans Blix from January 2003?
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
The point I am trying to make is not that Iraq had WMD. It's that everyone thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush and Blair. The point of the inspections was not to find WMD. It was assumed (by everybody) that they had WMD. The inspections were to confirm disarmament.
Young jazz players
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Slightly OT question: could a child really ever be good at jazz? I would think a crufty old man who has been to hell and back would be better...
Tony Williams was drumming for Miles Davis at age 17. Jason Marsalis was a recording jazz drummer at 14.
Simply the wrong time, the point of the states wanting longer inspections was that more pressure would clearly get iraq from staying away from/getting rid of WMDs.
So its 1998. Iraq has WMDs (as Clinton says). Iraq wants to get rid of them. What do they do?
A) Go to the UN inspectors, state they have gotten rid of all the WMD and show proof of this. Result: an end to sanctions.
B) throw all the inspectors out of Iraq. Disarm themselves. Then refuse to tell the UN or the inspectors how they disarmed themselves. Continue this behavior while the US and UK mass 300,000 soldiers on your border.
If you were the leader of a country, which choice would you make?
Correct. Everybody thought there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. Check out this list of non-Republicans who stated that Iraq had WMDs. Excerpts:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability"--Sen. Robert Byrd in 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow"--President Clinton in 1998.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs"--Jacques Chirac in 2002.
Therefore, if you think Bush was lying about WMDs, well, so were President Clinton and Jacques Chirac.
I believe he meant the marginal cost of distribution. I.e. a recording studio may spend $1M on the production of an album. But the cost of making 100,000 copies of an album to send to record stores is trivially different from the cost of making 100,100 copies of an album.
Sharing has different connotations. As explained in a parenting magazine, children often have difficulty with the concept of sharing. When you "share" your toys, you are letting someone else have your toys to play with. You get it back. But when you "share" a bowl of fruit with your friends, you divvy up the fruit and you don't get the fruit back. Therefore, children are reluctant to allow other children to "share" their toys because they know that when others "share" their food, they don't return it.
In the peer to peer context, sharing means something else entirely. It means that you are free to take a copy of what you want. In return, you are requested to let others take a copy of what they want from you.
Is the answer to the first question different if instead of losing my copy, it was destroyed? Let's say I have 2,000 CDs consuming a lot of space in a tiny apartment. So, I convert them to mp3 format. How can I legally get rid of the original copies without also having to get rid of the mp3s I've made from them? Or in order for me to legally use my mp3s, do I have to retain the originals? Would I have to send the originals back to the record companies?
It seems to me that the RIAA position is that you can copy it FOR YOURSELF ONLY. But that means that you can sell your 2000 CD collection, pocket the money, and still keep your copies.
It's not a license!!!! If you buy a poem, you can do anything you want to it. But you can't distribute it. That is the RIAA position. Whether or not the position is correct is to be determined.
Dumbass! The John Denver fan asked him if it was a "license" or just a physical copy, he indicated it was a license and then proceeded to contradict himself!
He never said it was a license. He only said you can copy an 8-track to audio cassette, DAT, CD, etc.
I've never understood the "license" argument. RIAA and MPAA have never said a DVD or CD is a license and it was proven again. Their position is that, when you buy a CD, you can do anything you want to the CD, EXCEPT distribute it (or otherwise violate copyrights).
Do you honestly think that no one at/. has heard about that lawsuit? Slashdot has covered it here and here (and probably many other places). The Lindows.com site also has information on the law suit.
Of course this was back when you could turn around a movie with NetFlix in about 4 days.
My Netflix turnaround is 3-4 days. If I mail back a DVD before the Saturday morning mail pickup (nice to live.5 mile from a post office), I can have a new DVD in my mailbox by Tuesday. If I mail it from work on Monday morning, I will have a DVD in my mailbox by Wed or Thu.
Renting on the spur of the moment does have its advantages. But there are also disadvantages too. For me, the primary disadvantage was planning to see a movie, renting it, then not having time to see it and having to return it unseen.
With Netflix, I keep my queue filled. If me and my wife have free time, we have three movies (give or take mail delays) to choose from and don't have to leave the house. If we don't have time to watch that day, we can keep the movie for as long as we want, until finally returning it. But if we have a free weekend, we can watch all 3 movies, and merely return them by dropping it off in the mailbox at my office. Very convenient.
Plus, Netflix has one huge advantage--selection. Your local Blockbuster doesn't have a shot of having the same selection as Netflix. Not a big deal if you only like mainstream movies. But if you are a fan of independent movies, or older movies, or foreign movies, or music concerts--Netflix is for you.
I've Windows updated my machine several times since I switched to Eudora. It's never brought back Outlook Express.
But I do understand where you're coming from. I have to install both Real Player and Quicktime in order to play all types of video you can see on the web, and the defaults keep switching among those two, WMP, and Winamp.
In the era of 80 GB hard drives for $90 or less, is it really that important to delete the email client and other pieces? I was having a bunch of problems with Outlook Express and finally just switched to Eudora. I now use Eudora as my sole email program. The fact that Outlook Express is still installed on my system causes no problems for me.
Replay's show sharing feature was allegedly for sharing between Replay boxes only. Except that they didn't protect it at all and made the protocol trivial to spoof.
I've never understood the big deal with sharing shows. I can understand Big media going after MP3 traders or DVD hackers. I may not agree with it, but Big Media charges people to obtain the music/movies and trading and DeCSS obviously goes around that. But why should NBC care if Friends is being traded on the Internet? Aren't they broadcasting it for free to anyone with an antenna and TV? Isn't it trivially easy (and legal) to set a VHS machine to tape the show anyway?
The article doesn't go into great details. The problem is with getting very broad patents. I recall reading an article about a guy who, in the very early 90s or late 80s patented the idea of transmitting music from one place to another. Did that patent really lead to the development of the Internet, broadband, and MP3s? Of course not.
The example used in the story is using a normal television as a videophone device. If the "inventor" genuinely came up with ideas necessary for the development of such a technology, then he should be rewarded. But if the "inventor" thought to himself one day, "it would be cool to talk to my pal during the football game," and that's all he claimed in the patent, then he doesn't deserve anything.
I'm the same age, but, as soon as the teachers stopped *requiring* cursive (sometime in High School), I went back to printing. By the time I graduated college, I had forgotten how to write cursive.
But if you can afford an HDTV receiver then you can afford to just receive HDTV over cable or satellite.
But you can't get always get HDTV over cable or satellite. I don't have HDTV, but apparently, my marketplace has HDTV for each of the broadcast networks except CBS. However, only ABC is available in HDTV over cable and there are no broadcast networks available in HDTV over DirecTV. If you want to watch sports in HDTV, the big events are locked to the major networks and you can't get them via cable or satellite.
Slashdot Mirror
AMEN! All Music Guide is an incredible site and a great way to get "into" a certain artist.
I never had an Intellivision, but my cousin did, so I played quite a bit. In the early 90s or so, a friend of mine was going through his attic and found his Intellivision, so we plugged it in and played Major League Baseball. The game was atrocious--there are no fly balls, so you can't catch the ball to make an out, but they did have home runs. The outfielders moved in unison. After playing for a few minutes, we went back to playing Baseball Stars for the Super Nintendo.
The nostalgia value is neat, such as hearing the Intellivision say "Yer Out" but it wears out quickly. And anyone who didn't play the game growing up (People under 28 years old or so) will not care about this ancient history.
The point I am trying to make is not that Iraq had WMD. It's that everyone thought Iraq had WMD, not just Bush and Blair. The point of the inspections was not to find WMD. It was assumed (by everybody) that they had WMD. The inspections were to confirm disarmament.
Tony Williams was drumming for Miles Davis at age 17. Jason Marsalis was a recording jazz drummer at 14.
Simply the wrong time, the point of the states wanting longer inspections was that more pressure would clearly get iraq from staying away from/getting rid of WMDs.
So its 1998. Iraq has WMDs (as Clinton says). Iraq wants to get rid of them. What do they do?
A) Go to the UN inspectors, state they have gotten rid of all the WMD and show proof of this. Result: an end to sanctions.
B) throw all the inspectors out of Iraq. Disarm themselves. Then refuse to tell the UN or the inspectors how they disarmed themselves. Continue this behavior while the US and UK mass 300,000 soldiers on your border.
If you were the leader of a country, which choice would you make?
And also the same "time" not being given to Saddam to imprison and kill children, rape women, and terrorize his own people.
- "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability"--Sen. Robert Byrd in 2002
- "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow"--President Clinton in 1998.
- "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs"--Jacques Chirac in 2002.
Therefore, if you think Bush was lying about WMDs, well, so were President Clinton and Jacques Chirac.So that's why all the Linux distros are barebones, without any of those "obsolete packages", right?
I believe he meant the marginal cost of distribution. I.e. a recording studio may spend $1M on the production of an album. But the cost of making 100,000 copies of an album to send to record stores is trivially different from the cost of making 100,100 copies of an album.
In the peer to peer context, sharing means something else entirely. It means that you are free to take a copy of what you want. In return, you are requested to let others take a copy of what they want from you.
It seems to me that the RIAA position is that you can copy it FOR YOURSELF ONLY. But that means that you can sell your 2000 CD collection, pocket the money, and still keep your copies.
Of course, you're right that it is not "stealing" in the traditional sense. But he's also right that "sharing" is also a misnomer.
It's not a license!!!! If you buy a poem, you can do anything you want to it. But you can't distribute it. That is the RIAA position. Whether or not the position is correct is to be determined.
He never said it was a license. He only said you can copy an 8-track to audio cassette, DAT, CD, etc.
I've never understood the "license" argument. RIAA and MPAA have never said a DVD or CD is a license and it was proven again. Their position is that, when you buy a CD, you can do anything you want to the CD, EXCEPT distribute it (or otherwise violate copyrights).
Do you honestly think that no one at /. has heard about that lawsuit? Slashdot has covered it here and here (and probably many other places). The Lindows.com site also has information on the law suit.
My Netflix turnaround is 3-4 days. If I mail back a DVD before the Saturday morning mail pickup (nice to live .5 mile from a post office), I can have a new DVD in my mailbox by Tuesday. If I mail it from work on Monday morning, I will have a DVD in my mailbox by Wed or Thu.
With Netflix, I keep my queue filled. If me and my wife have free time, we have three movies (give or take mail delays) to choose from and don't have to leave the house. If we don't have time to watch that day, we can keep the movie for as long as we want, until finally returning it. But if we have a free weekend, we can watch all 3 movies, and merely return them by dropping it off in the mailbox at my office. Very convenient.
Plus, Netflix has one huge advantage--selection. Your local Blockbuster doesn't have a shot of having the same selection as Netflix. Not a big deal if you only like mainstream movies. But if you are a fan of independent movies, or older movies, or foreign movies, or music concerts--Netflix is for you.
But I do understand where you're coming from. I have to install both Real Player and Quicktime in order to play all types of video you can see on the web, and the defaults keep switching among those two, WMP, and Winamp.
In the era of 80 GB hard drives for $90 or less, is it really that important to delete the email client and other pieces? I was having a bunch of problems with Outlook Express and finally just switched to Eudora. I now use Eudora as my sole email program. The fact that Outlook Express is still installed on my system causes no problems for me.
I've never understood the big deal with sharing shows. I can understand Big media going after MP3 traders or DVD hackers. I may not agree with it, but Big Media charges people to obtain the music/movies and trading and DeCSS obviously goes around that. But why should NBC care if Friends is being traded on the Internet? Aren't they broadcasting it for free to anyone with an antenna and TV? Isn't it trivially easy (and legal) to set a VHS machine to tape the show anyway?
The example used in the story is using a normal television as a videophone device. If the "inventor" genuinely came up with ideas necessary for the development of such a technology, then he should be rewarded. But if the "inventor" thought to himself one day, "it would be cool to talk to my pal during the football game," and that's all he claimed in the patent, then he doesn't deserve anything.
I'm the same age, but, as soon as the teachers stopped *requiring* cursive (sometime in High School), I went back to printing. By the time I graduated college, I had forgotten how to write cursive.
Yeah, but it's not rocket science.
But you can't get always get HDTV over cable or satellite. I don't have HDTV, but apparently, my marketplace has HDTV for each of the broadcast networks except CBS. However, only ABC is available in HDTV over cable and there are no broadcast networks available in HDTV over DirecTV. If you want to watch sports in HDTV, the big events are locked to the major networks and you can't get them via cable or satellite.
If you looked at the article, you would see the lowest price is about $3100.