PlayFair/iTunes allows burning of the same playlist to a CD up to 10 times without modification, and rearranging tracks or tacking on a 1-second silent track counts as modifying and entitles you to another 10 burns. There is no reasonable way you should ever run up against that limit in anything resembling normal use, it seems to me.
Yeah, I noticed it when I wrote the first one, but when for the pretty one-liner over the correct version, which I didn't feel like figuring out. Kudos to you for realizing it:p
It looks like it might not work behind a firewall or NAT, judging from the fact that their troubleshooting page would have you disable XP's firewall on XP...
Furthermore, even once I jumped through all those hoops, the vide still refused to stream, with quicktime pretending to be playing (said "Ready", and play button was in play mode), but displaying nothing but a QT logo.
I think there are all too many people who would be casual game players, but who can't get into anything, because while they're trying to figure out what's going on, people like this dude NAIL them. I know I'm one of them.
Don't tell us that we'll get better if we work at it - WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO. We want to be able to sit down and play with people at comparable skill levels and enjoy the game *now*, without having to devote our lives to learning to become uber-1337 at it.
There's one essential difference. *Anyone* can look at the Linux source, white and black hats, so, although it might make it easier for the black hats to find holes, the white hats can also find them and, more importantly, *close* them. With the leaked Windows source, the white hats won't look at out of fear of legal repercussions, and, even if they were to do so and find a potential hole, they can't do shit about it if MS doesn't feel like dealing with them, whereas if they find a hole in the Linux kernel, they cab submit a patch, and, even if their patch isn't accepted, anyone else can then go and write one, one of which will be accepted. I can patch MS's code all I want, but it could never get accepted into the actual OS.
Not now they don't, and even if Napster disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, you'd probably still be able to play your Napster WMAs. But what about if you want to authorize a new computer to play them? What about if you upgrade your OS and Napster's software mysteriously breaks?
Re:As long as we're talking about screws
on
Which Screw Goes Where?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow... You fail high school algebra.... 7 threads, 5 heads, 42 lengths = 7 * 5 * 42 combos = 1470 combinations. Very reasonable.
Think of it this way - for each of the 7 thread types, there are 5 different heads - 5*7 combos, and each has 42 lengths - 5*7*42 total combos.
I have to wonder if I've been trolled, the parent is so horrible wrong...
select the menu iten labeled 'Options...'" That's not at a semantic level like the grandparent is talking about, that's a GUI level. That action at a semantic level would read more like "Open the options window" - describing really what you're trying to do, not *how* go about doing it. The menu item you click on is irrelevant, what's important is that you want to get at the options window. And that's something that can really only be implemented application-level, not by a third-party program peeking into what you're doing.
Ten lines of perl could defeat any of the present schemes with ease...
Yes, but, for now at least, there are still plenty of addresses from people who don't spam-guard, enough that writing those 10 lines of perl isn't even really worth it.
Also, if you have your address spam-guarded, it's effectively a message to the spammers that, "I'm not one of the.01% of people who responds to this crap, and anything you send me will just hit my spam-filter anyways, so don't even try."
And they don't, because it's just not worth it for both those reasons.
I took a quick look around the site, and didn't see anything about battery life, which makes me all the more skeptical...
The pictures make it look comparably-sized to the iPod, so assuming they haven't come up with some miracle battery technology, and factoring in the drain of a wireless connection, I can't see that thing having a large battery life, which means you'll end up having to plug it in anyways pretty frequently... so where's the benefit of wireless again?
Although addressing issues like that will delay the time at which we will have to deal with the shortage, it doesn't solve the problem.
IPv6 isn't just about having enough IPs for all the computers in the world. It's about having enough IPs for all the *anything* in the world - your toaster, your house-cleaning robot, whatever. Even things like RFID tags could potentially be given their own subset of the IPv6 address space - it's that huge.
Using the IPv4 space more efficiently might deal with the problem for a while, but it will not allow the expansion IPv6 would.
Because the "Internet Center" and "Media Center" and so on all have one redeeming quality that general-purpose computers will likely always struggle with - They will Just Work.
With generality comes complexity, and people don't like complexity, not one bit.
Computers are pretty good about Just Working, but especially with Windows boxes, you have to worry about things just randomly blowing up, viri, whatever. A specialized "Media Center" can be built from the ground up to do one thing, and to do it well and consistently, much more so than Joe User can configure their PC to do the same things.
Around 50% of explorer crashes on XP are due to misconfiguration or user error.
No matter what the user does, short of hacking the executable or its memory space or something similarly drastic, user error should never be able to outright *crash* a program.
My grandparent's link is to a source download, so where's the problem? Are they only offering part of the source, or the base source that they then patched and didn't release their patches, or what?
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit.
PlayFair/iTunes allows burning of the same playlist to a CD up to 10 times without modification, and rearranging tracks or tacking on a 1-second silent track counts as modifying and entitles you to another 10 burns. There is no reasonable way you should ever run up against that limit in anything resembling normal use, it seems to me.
you are dumb
Yeah, I noticed it when I wrote the first one, but when for the pretty one-liner over the correct version, which I didn't feel like figuring out. Kudos to you for realizing it :p
It looks like it might not work behind a firewall or NAT, judging from the fact that their troubleshooting page would have you disable XP's firewall on XP...
Furthermore, even once I jumped through all those hoops, the vide still refused to stream, with quicktime pretending to be playing (said "Ready", and play button was in play mode), but displaying nothing but a QT logo.
Because Yahoo offers FPSes and other action games. Really.
Single player is of a finite length. Multiplayer increases replay value HUGELY.
As for finding a server of my skill level, that's what I'm asking for. In my experience, most game browsers make doing so waaaaay too hard.
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP.
I think there are all too many people who would be casual game players, but who can't get into anything, because while they're trying to figure out what's going on, people like this dude NAIL them. I know I'm one of them.
Don't tell us that we'll get better if we work at it - WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO. We want to be able to sit down and play with people at comparable skill levels and enjoy the game *now*, without having to devote our lives to learning to become uber-1337 at it.
A Calcutta Orangutang.
No.t ;
*sigh*
There's one essential difference. *Anyone* can look at the Linux source, white and black hats, so, although it might make it easier for the black hats to find holes, the white hats can also find them and, more importantly, *close* them. With the leaked Windows source, the white hats won't look at out of fear of legal repercussions, and, even if they were to do so and find a potential hole, they can't do shit about it if MS doesn't feel like dealing with them, whereas if they find a hole in the Linux kernel, they cab submit a patch, and, even if their patch isn't accepted, anyone else can then go and write one, one of which will be accepted. I can patch MS's code all I want, but it could never get accepted into the actual OS.
Nah, he's just been spending too much time on ebay recently.
Not now they don't, and even if Napster disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, you'd probably still be able to play your Napster WMAs. But what about if you want to authorize a new computer to play them? What about if you upgrade your OS and Napster's software mysteriously breaks?
Wow ... You fail high school algebra ....
7 threads, 5 heads, 42 lengths =
7 * 5 * 42 combos =
1470 combinations. Very reasonable.
Think of it this way - for each of the 7 thread types, there are 5 different heads - 5*7 combos, and each has 42 lengths - 5*7*42 total combos.
I have to wonder if I've been trolled, the parent is so horrible wrong...
All they have to do is make a better search engine.
And that's "very easy"?????
Google isn't perfect by any means, and sure, you could do better, but it's damn good, and besting it sure as hell wouldn't be "very easy."
select the menu iten labeled 'Options...'"
That's not at a semantic level like the grandparent is talking about, that's a GUI level. That action at a semantic level would read more like "Open the options window" - describing really what you're trying to do, not *how* go about doing it.
The menu item you click on is irrelevant, what's important is that you want to get at the options window. And that's something that can really only be implemented application-level, not by a third-party program peeking into what you're doing.
Ten lines of perl could defeat any of the present schemes with ease...
.01% of people who responds to this crap, and anything you send me will just hit my spam-filter anyways, so don't even try."
Yes, but, for now at least, there are still plenty of addresses from people who don't spam-guard, enough that writing those 10 lines of perl isn't even really worth it.
Also, if you have your address spam-guarded, it's effectively a message to the spammers that, "I'm not one of the
And they don't, because it's just not worth it for both those reasons.
I took a quick look around the site, and didn't see anything about battery life, which makes me all the more skeptical...
... so where's the benefit of wireless again?
The pictures make it look comparably-sized to the iPod, so assuming they haven't come up with some miracle battery technology, and factoring in the drain of a wireless connection, I can't see that thing having a large battery life, which means you'll end up having to plug it in anyways pretty frequently
My god man, what are you doing? The flamewar that a comment like that could spark would have the potential to bring down all of slashdot!
Although addressing issues like that will delay the time at which we will have to deal with the shortage, it doesn't solve the problem.
IPv6 isn't just about having enough IPs for all the computers in the world. It's about having enough IPs for all the *anything* in the world - your toaster, your house-cleaning robot, whatever. Even things like RFID tags could potentially be given their own subset of the IPv6 address space - it's that huge.
Using the IPv4 space more efficiently might deal with the problem for a while, but it will not allow the expansion IPv6 would.
Because the "Internet Center" and "Media Center" and so on all have one redeeming quality that general-purpose computers will likely always struggle with - They will Just Work.
With generality comes complexity, and people don't like complexity, not one bit.
Computers are pretty good about Just Working, but especially with Windows boxes, you have to worry about things just randomly blowing up, viri, whatever. A specialized "Media Center" can be built from the ground up to do one thing, and to do it well and consistently, much more so than Joe User can configure their PC to do the same things.
No, I will not fix your computer.
'nuff said.
Around 50% of explorer crashes on XP are due to misconfiguration or user error.
No matter what the user does, short of hacking the executable or its memory space or something similarly drastic, user error should never be able to outright *crash* a program.
My grandparent's link is to a source download, so where's the problem? Are they only offering part of the source, or the base source that they then patched and didn't release their patches, or what?