You can teach babies some limited sign language much younger than they can speak. My son (who is 20 months right now) learned pretty early on what the sign for milk was, and as a result, he spent a lot less time crying without us knowing what it was about.
My wife read Baby Signs, and it worked for us to that extent. He knew a handful of signs before he learned to talk, but now he's abandoned his sign language, since only a few people can understand it, but almost everyone around him can understand what he's saying in english.
The 6100 (6120 just means it comes with a dish) isn't a PVR. Bell doesn't have a HDPVR yet - talk is that they won't have one until late next year. (The Dish 942?)
Those hovering lawnmowers spawned a classic C=64 game by Llamasoft's Jeff Minter - Hover Bover. I just thought he was too lazy to draw in the wheels, until I saw one live.
Of course, it is very difficult to find music that isn't, because it's not (ahem) promoted, or played on radio stations.
Honestly, I don't spend much time listening to the radio stations that run on payola. Does this mean that I never hear a lot of "top" music? Maybe. Does it mean that I never hear any music? Obviously not. In addition, there is this wonderful thing called the "internets" that allows people to communicate with each other, and makes finding musical recommendations 100% possible, all without a single dollar having changed hands from a record label to a radio executive. It is supposed to be art after all, and my own taste in musical art doesn't have to jive with what some guy in a bad hairpiece thinks it should be.
If you really think people are that honest, you are very naive. I mean, a lot of people would probably say to themselves "oh, I'll donate money next week, I can't now because I need to pay for my foobar bill"
I don't think that all people are "that honest" but I do think that enough people are "that honest" to keep good artists from starving in the streets. I actually don't see it as an issue of honesty though. I see it more as a tip system - a lot of people make their living off of tips.
All I'm really saying is that there are moral* options that don't involve supporting the record labels.
The current system is broken, but rather than discuss ways to fix it, some people would prefer to say "that's the way it is, deal with it."
* - morality is obviously a personal thing, but I personally find buying music on allofmp3.com and tipping artists to be a perfectly moral activity.
It's true that the price of a CD supports millions of people working for record companies, department stores, etc. but what the inherent contradiction in your own argument is that if you want to purchase music, you're forced to purchase these other "services" that you may not want any part of.
Services like paying radio stations to play music, "promoting" albums, distribution to stores. None of those things are actually required for online distribution to work, and yet you're saying "nobody's forcing you to buy." Those services are being bundled in, and you don't have a choice to opt out of it if you want to buy music.
Oh wait - you do. Go to allofmp3.com, download the song, and send a couple of bucks to the artist via paypal.
That way, the people who were involved with the actual creation of the product get to make some money, you get your product, and the only people who lose out are the modern version of the typesetter or blacksmith.
I've never seen a kid that wanted to smoke or drink have any trouble getting smokes or booze except in very controlled circumstances (like when my 17 year old cousin got carded at a family wedding and was cut off)
Admittedly it's been 10 years since I wasn't legal to drink, but I can't believe that things have changed much (if at all) since I was in highschool.
I paid them via CC when paypal was unavailable (the last time) and no strange charges have shown up on my bill.
It was kinda fun to see a charge in Rubles show up on the statement those two times though.
I wasn't passing comment on the quality of the joke... (though if they'd maybe done something punnish with "corner" I'd have to give them a golf clap) Just puffing out my chest at my amazing precognitive powers.:)
NBC is paying the Olympics for the footage, and obviously the "exclusive" rights to broadcast in the USA.
I bet the actual coverage costs the Olympic Organizing Committee (OOC) a lot less than NBC pays them, and then you've got the rights from the rest of the world to consider. I don't really have numbers though, so take that for what it's worth.
When it becomes obvious that there is a "Host Feed" is when you see a sport that you're familiar with the coverage of. As an example, CBC in Canada covers a lot of hockey. It's safe to say that the average Canadian hockey fan can recognize CBC's style pretty easily. When the Olympics roll around, the hockey coverage is clearly not CBC style. The cuts are off, the angles aren't quite right, and they can't get replays of everything that they'd like to get replays of. It's kind of frustrating to watch actually - it's almost as bad as watching hockey on ABC or ESPN (No wonder Americans complain that they can't follow the puck - the camera work is really sub par on the US TV coverage)
But I digress...My point is - the BBC's internet broadcasts don't cost NBC a single red cent, because they're not using NBC cameras, or NBC broadcasters (obviously the little bits with Bob Costas are NBC produced) - they're using BBC/OOC resources. The policy is in place to protect the quarter of a billion dollar investment that NBC put into the Olympics rights.
If NBC is worried that people won't watch their coverage if they know the results already, then there's an obvious solution to the problem. Show the freaking event live. People who want to wait for the prime time suspense will actively avoid news of results. You see it with World Cup/Champions Cup/Euro Soccer coverage in North America. When a commentator on TSN (Canadian sports network) mentioned the score of a game that they were airing on tape delay, a lot of people were quite upset. That score was widely available on the internet, but people who wanted to watch the game "live" didn't seek it out.
Uh....Not to burst your bubble, but the Olympics typically has a "host broadcaster" that provides feeds to all the other networks around the world.
That's all irrelevant in this case though, because if BBC wants to provide internet feeds to the world, that's their cost. There's not a single penny out of NBC's pocket, other than the grossly overbid "exclusive" contract.
Clearly they think that showing events 12 hours later than the actually occurred will generate higher ratings, or they wouldn't do it. I still say they should broadcast stuff live for all the insomniacs out there - rebroadcast it during prime time if you want, and you don't even have to acknowledge that it's previously recorded, but they're just stupid about it.
When I was in grade 12 (ten years ago now) I took a typing class, because I enjoyed playing with computers, and I thought it would be a handy class to take.
Halfway through the term, the class focus changed from typing to "how to format a business letter" type secretarial stuff. I knew this coming in, and I planned to drop the class when we hit that point.
I did drop it, despite the fact that I was pulling down an awesome mark in it, because for my purpose, the class was done. My teacher was disappointed (as was my mom, a former secretary.)
I think it makes me weird that I went to school to learn things, instead of "to get good grades" or "because I had to" or "to get a better job"
Didn't hurt that I was the ONLY guy in the entire class either. Lots of misogynistic guys sign up for "womens lit" but nobody thinks to sign up for typing:)
You're trying to tell me that killing a bison is equivalent to picking berries for quantites of food?
In the long run, a gatherer might be able to out-produce a hunter, but if you need a couple of hundred pounds of food at one shot, you'll be picking berries for a loooooong time before you match a well placed spear.
Wait, why are we arguing about this? Oh yeah, ATMs. The point is, hunting/gathering instincts explain a lot of differences between the sexes. At least that's what I saw a comedian say once.
Cavemen would hunt, while the women would gather. Hunting produces large amounts of food at once, but it then has to be stored, while gatherers produce a more steady stream of lesser quantities.
As far as I know, it's a one man show. But to answer your question, no, I'm not an employee.
It's just my favorite piece of shareware ever. 33 MB download? I didn't really notice, being on broadband has spoiled me I guess.
Seriously though - after categorizing well over 2000 digital photos with my collection of 100+ categories, I can now pull up all pictures of my brother at a birthday party with a couple of clicks of my mouse - or pictures of trees in Alberta. Or dogs and cats playing together. Or card games played at family Christmas gatherings.
If you want to organize your photos in a useful way, IMatch is unmatched by anything that's out there.
It's not free (as in beer, or as in speech) but IMatch rules, and you can output your catalog in xml if you want when you decide to move to a different piece of software. Storing it in a database while it's in use makes sense from a performance standpoint, so no plain text storage there, but extracting to plain text is possible.
One of the best pieces of software out there, bar none. I bought it before a single day was up with my free trial, and haven't looked back. If Adobe Album got you excited with it's promise, make sure you have a spare pair of pants when you try out IMatch (Ok, that was crass and uncalled for.)
Seriously though, I can't speak highly enough about it.
I did try out about a dozen different photo cataloging programs (including picasa) before deciding on IMatch. None of the others were even close.
I don't work for the guy who writes it or anything, I just love the software.
I tried Picasa out, and was underwhelmed by it's functionality.
I wound up buying iMatch for categorizing/organizing my photos. It's an awesome tool. If you're a windows user on Slashdot, and want to organize your photos, it's probably the software for you.
I literally tried dozens of programs over the span of a week or so, and found fault with each one - until I found iMatch. I was so impressed with it's abilities, I bought it less than a day into my 30 day trial.
Slashdot Mirror
You can teach babies some limited sign language much younger than they can speak. My son (who is 20 months right now) learned pretty early on what the sign for milk was, and as a result, he spent a lot less time crying without us knowing what it was about.
My wife read Baby Signs, and it worked for us to that extent. He knew a handful of signs before he learned to talk, but now he's abandoned his sign language, since only a few people can understand it, but almost everyone around him can understand what he's saying in english.
The 6100 (6120 just means it comes with a dish) isn't a PVR. Bell doesn't have a HDPVR yet - talk is that they won't have one until late next year. (The Dish 942?)
Those hovering lawnmowers spawned a classic C=64 game by Llamasoft's Jeff Minter - Hover Bover. I just thought he was too lazy to draw in the wheels, until I saw one live.
Of course, it is very difficult to find music that isn't, because it's not (ahem) promoted, or played on radio stations.
Honestly, I don't spend much time listening to the radio stations that run on payola. Does this mean that I never hear a lot of "top" music? Maybe. Does it mean that I never hear any music? Obviously not. In addition, there is this wonderful thing called the "internets" that allows people to communicate with each other, and makes finding musical recommendations 100% possible, all without a single dollar having changed hands from a record label to a radio executive. It is supposed to be art after all, and my own taste in musical art doesn't have to jive with what some guy in a bad hairpiece thinks it should be.
If you really think people are that honest, you are very naive. I mean, a lot of people would probably say to themselves "oh, I'll donate money next week, I can't now because I need to pay for my foobar bill"
I don't think that all people are "that honest" but I do think that enough people are "that honest" to keep good artists from starving in the streets. I actually don't see it as an issue of honesty though. I see it more as a tip system - a lot of people make their living off of tips.
All I'm really saying is that there are moral* options that don't involve supporting the record labels.
The current system is broken, but rather than discuss ways to fix it, some people would prefer to say "that's the way it is, deal with it."
* - morality is obviously a personal thing, but I personally find buying music on allofmp3.com and tipping artists to be a perfectly moral activity.
It's true that the price of a CD supports millions of people working for record companies, department stores, etc. but what the inherent contradiction in your own argument is that if you want to purchase music, you're forced to purchase these other "services" that you may not want any part of.
Services like paying radio stations to play music, "promoting" albums, distribution to stores. None of those things are actually required for online distribution to work, and yet you're saying "nobody's forcing you to buy." Those services are being bundled in, and you don't have a choice to opt out of it if you want to buy music.
Oh wait - you do. Go to allofmp3.com, download the song, and send a couple of bucks to the artist via paypal.
That way, the people who were involved with the actual creation of the product get to make some money, you get your product, and the only people who lose out are the modern version of the typesetter or blacksmith.
You're kidding, right?
I've never seen a kid that wanted to smoke or drink have any trouble getting smokes or booze except in very controlled circumstances (like when my 17 year old cousin got carded at a family wedding and was cut off)
Admittedly it's been 10 years since I wasn't legal to drink, but I can't believe that things have changed much (if at all) since I was in highschool.
$50 store credit, no less.
I'm not a lawyer either, but...
I was under the impression that you could bring stuff like that into the country, provided it was for personal use.
I don't care though, I live in Canada, and it is legal to download music from there for us Canucks. At least until they change the law again.
I paid them via CC when paypal was unavailable (the last time) and no strange charges have shown up on my bill. It was kinda fun to see a charge in Rubles show up on the statement those two times though.
None needed.
My goal was to collect all the holodeck joke comments in one place, so as to clean up the rest of the discussion for people who don't like jokes :)
Ah well, can't win em' all.
I wasn't passing comment on the quality of the joke... (though if they'd maybe done something punnish with "corner" I'd have to give them a golf clap) Just puffing out my chest at my amazing precognitive powers. :)
+1 Precognitive
Holodeck jokes in 5...4...3...2...1...
The irony is that his stilted speech patterns probably make it much easier to digitally reconstruct dialog.
NBC is paying the Olympics for the footage, and obviously the "exclusive" rights to broadcast in the USA.
I bet the actual coverage costs the Olympic Organizing Committee (OOC) a lot less than NBC pays them, and then you've got the rights from the rest of the world to consider. I don't really have numbers though, so take that for what it's worth.
When it becomes obvious that there is a "Host Feed" is when you see a sport that you're familiar with the coverage of. As an example, CBC in Canada covers a lot of hockey. It's safe to say that the average Canadian hockey fan can recognize CBC's style pretty easily. When the Olympics roll around, the hockey coverage is clearly not CBC style. The cuts are off, the angles aren't quite right, and they can't get replays of everything that they'd like to get replays of. It's kind of frustrating to watch actually - it's almost as bad as watching hockey on ABC or ESPN (No wonder Americans complain that they can't follow the puck - the camera work is really sub par on the US TV coverage)
But I digress...My point is - the BBC's internet broadcasts don't cost NBC a single red cent, because they're not using NBC cameras, or NBC broadcasters (obviously the little bits with Bob Costas are NBC produced) - they're using BBC/OOC resources. The policy is in place to protect the quarter of a billion dollar investment that NBC put into the Olympics rights.
If NBC is worried that people won't watch their coverage if they know the results already, then there's an obvious solution to the problem. Show the freaking event live. People who want to wait for the prime time suspense will actively avoid news of results. You see it with World Cup/Champions Cup/Euro Soccer coverage in North America. When a commentator on TSN (Canadian sports network) mentioned the score of a game that they were airing on tape delay, a lot of people were quite upset. That score was widely available on the internet, but people who wanted to watch the game "live" didn't seek it out.
Boy I'm wordy.
Uh....Not to burst your bubble, but the Olympics typically has a "host broadcaster" that provides feeds to all the other networks around the world.
That's all irrelevant in this case though, because if BBC wants to provide internet feeds to the world, that's their cost. There's not a single penny out of NBC's pocket, other than the grossly overbid "exclusive" contract.
Clearly they think that showing events 12 hours later than the actually occurred will generate higher ratings, or they wouldn't do it. I still say they should broadcast stuff live for all the insomniacs out there - rebroadcast it during prime time if you want, and you don't even have to acknowledge that it's previously recorded, but they're just stupid about it.
Yeah, I miss the days when text would come down slower than you could read. :)
The jump to 2400 baud didn't seem like as big of a deal somehow.
When I was in grade 12 (ten years ago now) I took a typing class, because I enjoyed playing with computers, and I thought it would be a handy class to take.
:)
Halfway through the term, the class focus changed from typing to "how to format a business letter" type secretarial stuff. I knew this coming in, and I planned to drop the class when we hit that point.
I did drop it, despite the fact that I was pulling down an awesome mark in it, because for my purpose, the class was done. My teacher was disappointed (as was my mom, a former secretary.)
I think it makes me weird that I went to school to learn things, instead of "to get good grades" or "because I had to" or "to get a better job"
Didn't hurt that I was the ONLY guy in the entire class either. Lots of misogynistic guys sign up for "womens lit" but nobody thinks to sign up for typing
You're trying to tell me that killing a bison is equivalent to picking berries for quantites of food?
In the long run, a gatherer might be able to out-produce a hunter, but if you need a couple of hundred pounds of food at one shot, you'll be picking berries for a loooooong time before you match a well placed spear.
Wait, why are we arguing about this? Oh yeah, ATMs. The point is, hunting/gathering instincts explain a lot of differences between the sexes. At least that's what I saw a comedian say once.
Hunter, meet gatherer...
Cavemen would hunt, while the women would gather. Hunting produces large amounts of food at once, but it then has to be stored, while gatherers produce a more steady stream of lesser quantities.
At least that's what Age of Empires taught me.
This might seem silly, but have you looked into an FM transmitter card?
As far as I know, it's a one man show. But to answer your question, no, I'm not an employee.
It's just my favorite piece of shareware ever. 33 MB download? I didn't really notice, being on broadband has spoiled me I guess.
Seriously though - after categorizing well over 2000 digital photos with my collection of 100+ categories, I can now pull up all pictures of my brother at a birthday party with a couple of clicks of my mouse - or pictures of trees in Alberta. Or dogs and cats playing together. Or card games played at family Christmas gatherings.
If you want to organize your photos in a useful way, IMatch is unmatched by anything that's out there.
It's not free (as in beer, or as in speech) but IMatch rules, and you can output your catalog in xml if you want when you decide to move to a different piece of software. Storing it in a database while it's in use makes sense from a performance standpoint, so no plain text storage there, but extracting to plain text is possible.
One of the best pieces of software out there, bar none. I bought it before a single day was up with my free trial, and haven't looked back. If Adobe Album got you excited with it's promise, make sure you have a spare pair of pants when you try out IMatch (Ok, that was crass and uncalled for.)
Seriously though, I can't speak highly enough about it.
I did try out about a dozen different photo cataloging programs (including picasa) before deciding on IMatch. None of the others were even close.
I don't work for the guy who writes it or anything, I just love the software.
I tried Picasa out, and was underwhelmed by it's functionality.
I wound up buying iMatch for categorizing/organizing my photos. It's an awesome tool. If you're a windows user on Slashdot, and want to organize your photos, it's probably the software for you.
I literally tried dozens of programs over the span of a week or so, and found fault with each one - until I found iMatch. I was so impressed with it's abilities, I bought it less than a day into my 30 day trial.