I find it amusing that people using compressed file formats are whining about a conversion that will cause a quality loss they'd be hard pressed to hear.
If you're that obsessed with the most pristine audio quality, BUY THE FRIGGING CD! Then you can convert it to any format you like (with the resulting quality loss) at your whim and not be restricted by any DRM system.
During my bicycling and bell bottom years (we're talking paleolithic era more or less), I put large rubber bands around my ankles after wrapping the bell bottoms around my leg. This effectively made them straight legs while I was on the bike and kept em outta the way.
Drawbacks: You kinds looked like a dork. But then just wearing bell bottoms... I just made sure I removed them the moment I got off the bike. That pretty much avoided the dork effect.
If the rubber band wasn't quite big enough, it worked like a torniquet, at least leaving a small canyon running around your leg if not severely lessing the blood flow. Rubber bands are cheap and available in many sizes. After a small amount of experimentation, I found suitable ones for the job.
If the hacker is untraceable, collusion could not be proven.
If the hacker IS traceable, you certainly have a better chance at proving there was collusion.
Obviously, if you were hacked and not in collusion, you should not be responsible. The only thing you should be responsible for in that case might be negligence, which would also have to be proven.
I don't know how it will all go down in the end, but IMO this is how it should work:
- You are completely responsible for the actions taken using your computer, by ANYONE.... unless
-... unless it can be PROVEN you had a trojan or something that hijacked your system.
This means you can't get off by saying your little brother did it (lame excuse), but can if you were hacked. You could possibly get off if you coluded with the hacker to perpetrate the crime, but the hacker had better be able to make damn sure he's untrackable. An exception to the exception should be made for this instance.
The UN is about as effective as a perforated condom or the League of Nations. They do very little other than waste the funds contributed by the member nations on a bloated, inefficient, inactive bureaucracy.
While I wouldn't exactly say the US has the internet under it's thumb, at least WE invented it. (No, I am NOT Al Gore...) If the UN were to be given oversight of the net, nothing would get accomplished. A matter would be brought up, some nations would vote for, some against and so no action would be taken.
With the veto powers of the Security Council members, it's actually much harder to get a resolution PASSED than round filed. In other words, it's practically impossible to do ANYTHING.
As long as you have at least 2 members on the security council with politically opposed views, this will continue to be the case.
I say we ditch the facade known as the UN, save the funds we spend on keeping them around, kick them out of NYC and work directly with all the countries of the world. I say each country becomes a state in a new United World. I say Balkanism only brings continued strife.
I say, Doctor, is it time for my medicine already?
Would be nice, but it'll never happen. Screw the puppet UN. They can have the net when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
"A CEO that manages to put 50 billion dollars away for emergences is a damn good CEO."
No, he's a damn good con artist. 50 billion in profits for any individual in their lifetime is not making a fair living, it's making a killing off of screwing over other people.
Obviously, MS products are heavily overpriced. And people are foolish enough to think they NEED them. But does that make ripping off fools ok? Who is more ethical? The greedy con artist or the simpleton fool?
You keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about, but then you spew out a bunch of cluelessness...
ATA100 and SATA and other similar technologies are RELATED to IDE, but they are not IDE as they incorporate features that the original IDE did not.
You've built a top of the line PC for $500? Prove it. I call bullshit. You're a terrible liar. And then you say it's not the fastest around, blah, blah, blah, insert lame ass excuse for your 'top of the line box' not being top of the line...
So, you can build a machine that will hold it's own with the dual G5 for 1 grand, eh? Prove it. Run the exact same benchmarks and when the Mac blows it's doors off, STFU, tard.
My hardware doesn't go bad that often. But sometimes it does. I've been building boxes for over 10 years. Unlike YOU, I actually know wtf I'm doing and talking about.
I don't need to resort to ad hominem smoke and mirrors to make a point. I'll use facts instead.
If the absolute top of the line PC goes for 2 grand, how come Falcon Northwest, Alienware and others sell their top of the line boxes for 5 grand and up? I think perhaps you have no idea what top of the line is in today's technological market?
I don't go as far as they do in equipment, nor do I pony up for custom paint, but I prefer performance systems. I'm not remotely interested in a $500 computer. It can't do what I want from it.
I've built many PCs personally and have had problems most often with RAM. It usually waits 3-6 months before going bad, though. i've had bad mobos and bad CPUs as well. Video cards do me well, only had one die after 3 months. Power supplies have gotten better over the years, haven't had probs with those in a while. Hard drives don't seem to last like they used to, but that's not specific to PCs really, since Macs use the same drives (not IDE, btw, but ATA100, SATA and other modern ATA based busess). One of the problems most PC user have when comparing Macs and PCs is they compare what Macs were 5 or 10 years ago. They think of the old OS, the slower boxes that are 15 years old in some Junior High. They are apparently not aware that Macs are using the same memory types, drives and video cards that PCs use. The major differences lie in the motherboard and CPU.
For Macs, if it's a heavy use machine, I buy an aftermarket mouse, if not, the stock mouse is quite useful and comfortable. I certainly don't feel FORCED to replace it any more than I would feel FORCED to buy a nice wireless mouse for a Compaq or Dell.
You can believe PCs are cheaper all you want while you use your home brewed slug. I'm quite happy to spend more than $500 on a system when I use them so much. But if that works for you, great.
Putting up a Hyundai and comparing it to a BMW is rather stupid. At least compare it to a Mercedes, Acura, Infinity or something in it's class.
it wasn't SCO trying to sneak in some of it's code so it could point to it and say... "See? We TOLD you the kernel had our code in it!"
But seriously, it's a credit to the ppl working on the project that this attempt was caught. I am not toooooo worried that other attempt at malice have gone unseen as just too many people are looking over the code all the time. Any maliciousness would have to be buried under several layers of valid and useful code (not sluggish crap or slop, either).
After hearing of security holes in every OS AFTER the fact, it's nice to see one caught before it even happened. And a non-accidental one at that. Kudos to the team!
You also left out the motherboard in your list, although you referenced it in the drive listing.
A 15" LCD does not have the view size or resolution capabilities of a 17" CRT.
Any mac user can easily buy a multi button mouse if they want, WITH scroll wheel. One isn't required to use it, though as Macs use multiple modifier keys quite effectively. It's a matter of preference.
With the eMac, there's no digging though a stack of receipts (uh oh, lost the ONE I need!). You just take it to any Apple Authorized Service center. One stop shopping.
No hassle to compile the parts lists, build the box, install the OS, dealing with multiple vendors for warranty. All good to go and one stop shopping if you have a problem. This is why build it yourself boxes are not a valid comparison. You'll have to configure a Dell, Compaq or similar reputable brand (no Joe's Fly By Night boxes need apply) to get anyone to take your comparison seriously.
Yes, you can put alot of effort into it and build something cheaper. But you have to put the effort into it. And you usually get something with less performance. Every PC I've ever built cost me over $2000 to make and I was salvaging CD drives and floppies from older systems. I can easily buy a nice mac for two grand, and have. I use all platforms, that's why I know Macs are price competitive against comparable models.
This sounds like a build your own system, which is not a valid comparison.
Factor in your time to pick all the parts, build the box, return the part or two that doesn't work, and reinstall those. Also factor in OS install time.
Then factor in managing support with 15 different vendors.
Oh, and your lame excuse for rationalizing downsizing the montior doesn't fly. More viewspace = better. LCD or no.
Macs aren't the most expensive option. When are people going to get this through their heads?
Just because you can by a Joe's Fly By Night PC that is stripped to the bone and you can't buy a 'so underconfigged it's worthless' Mac doesn't mean Macs are more expensive. When you compare comparably equipped PC to Macs, the Macs in many cases are cheaper and in some are just a tiny bit more expensive. VERY competitive. They just don't serve the $400 market.
Add to that that Macs last longer than comparable PCs, require less support and you have an extremely competitive ROI vs a PC.
Macs aren't for baby's. Macs come with a full unix development environment. I don't see ANY PCs coming with squat for development. Seems to me that the PCs are for the babys, after all, isn't that where all the games are?
I only said local talent was an option. I also never said it was a good idea to hire anyone just because they are local and cheap. However, there is often local talent that IS good and cheap, but that doesn't mean you can easily fill your entire roster that way. You can always go to the nearest metropolitan center and canvas for talent there as well.
I also recommend NOT having engineers do the casting. Let them write code, not storylines. Let them fix bugs, not the audio. Let them perform code reviews, not shakespeare.
For games that need it, voice overs really help lend to the immersion. While there is a prevalence of bad voice acting in the industry, I think that will change with time as it becomes more commonplace.
For a game that needs it, to avoid it because of the hassle is stupid. There are plenty of talented amateur and professional actors that can do this work for much less than the cost of hiring some big name movie star. Local theatre groups or college drama departments are good places to look.
I'd love to do voice over work, but I have no contacts in the game industry nor a resume of voice work. I do have a great deal of stage experience and a voice I'm told records well. I don't really know where to start to get into this kind of work, though. I'd certainly work for less than Dennis Hooper!
Pretty much the best I've EVER had on a Torrent. When I saw the file was a torrent, I figured it'd take me 4 hours to slowly get the file, I was joking about my usual poor DL rates.
I guess I pissed BT off cuz it showed me what it can do when it puts its mind to it!
Maybe I should talk smack more often before starting a DL then!
There is a problem with Toast 6 and how bootable disk burning is handled in Panther, but as long as you don't want to make a bootable disk in Toast, it works fine from my experience. Just burn the bootables with Disk Utility. I'm sure Roxio has an update for Panther in the works.
It should be noted that I don't run any system hack widgets off someshadysite.com. I'm thinking the problem children with upgrade issues are running hack widgets that need updating for Panther.
Solution: Remove widgets before upgrading. That should be obvious anyways.
If you upgrade and have problems. LOG BUGS TO APPLE! Don't just bitch and whine here and then wipe your drive and clean install. Log the bug first! Then bitch and whine to someone else and do a clean install...:-D
There are alot of halfway decent books on software testing. Just search for Software Testing in the computer books section of Amazon.com. Click on the books tab and then the computers and internet link on the left side.
You might want to start with these two books: An introductory book following ASQ Standards. Note: I haven't seen this book, so if it sucks, don't blame me, but it looks like it would be a good intro.
Structured testing is merely looking at the features and functionality of a given piece of software and designing test cases for each one. You make a matrix of tests and configurations and start testing. This type of testing gives you an idea of the test coverage, how much of the application has been tested.
Building up a test plan and matrix of test cases is not something you whip out in 20 minutes. It's time consuming work. Thorough testing of this nature is often avoided due to laziness in dot coms or even some large corporations.
First off, I'm not defending Ballmer. He's an idiot. With that said...
I agree with holding back Open Source releases 'until they're ready.' Personally, no software SHOULD be released until it's ready. The tendency to ship software out the door as soon as it boots has given us a market full of buggy, slopped together code and numbed the public to what amounts to poor craftsmanship. All in the name of the Holy Schedule.
The one thing Open Source lacks, and despite the holding back -- clearly needs, is structured testing. There is no real testing of Open Source. No Test Plans, no Test Matrices of test cases. Pre release versions are dumped to the public to use as they will in a blind, shotgun approach to testing. Exceptionally sloppy QA at best. The frequent patch history of Open Source is testament to this weakness.
Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion as to how to solve this problem. Open Source by it's very nature doesn't lend itself well to any form of centralization, which is necessary for structured testing.
On the other hand, you have Microsoft and others that USE structured testing, but they ship based on schedule, not the number of P1 bugs still open. End result? Garbage.
Open Source at least is a labor of love. I'd just like to see SOMEONE commit to solid testing so that in the future people wouldn't have to put up with such bug ridden software.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amusing that people using compressed file formats are whining about a conversion that will cause a quality loss they'd be hard pressed to hear.
If you're that obsessed with the most pristine audio quality, BUY THE FRIGGING CD! Then you can convert it to any format you like (with the resulting quality loss) at your whim and not be restricted by any DRM system.
Centrino is not a chip!
it's a package of intel wireless, intel cpu and some other stuff.
During my bicycling and bell bottom years (we're talking paleolithic era more or less), I put large rubber bands around my ankles after wrapping the bell bottoms around my leg. This effectively made them straight legs while I was on the bike and kept em outta the way.
Drawbacks:
You kinds looked like a dork. But then just wearing bell bottoms... I just made sure I removed them the moment I got off the bike. That pretty much avoided the dork effect.
If the rubber band wasn't quite big enough, it worked like a torniquet, at least leaving a small canyon running around your leg if not severely lessing the blood flow. Rubber bands are cheap and available in many sizes. After a small amount of experimentation, I found suitable ones for the job.
This is a silicon valley gig. The cost of living is exceptionally high here.
This job should pay $18-20/hr US IMO.
To see posts l like that. The pay range for the job linked to in the original post is about $12/hr US, btw.
4 816.html
I've seen worse, but I ran across this one recently:
http://www.craigslist.org/eby/tch/1911
FWIW, In N Out Burger pays $11.70/hr locally.
If the hacker is untraceable, collusion could not be proven.
If the hacker IS traceable, you certainly have a better chance at proving there was collusion.
Obviously, if you were hacked and not in collusion, you should not be responsible. The only thing you should be responsible for in that case might be negligence, which would also have to be proven.
I don't know how it will all go down in the end, but IMO this is how it should work:
... unless it can be PROVEN you had a trojan or something that hijacked your system.
- You are completely responsible for the actions taken using your computer, by ANYONE.... unless
-
This means you can't get off by saying your little brother did it (lame excuse), but can if you were hacked. You could possibly get off if you coluded with the hacker to perpetrate the crime, but the hacker had better be able to make damn sure he's untrackable. An exception to the exception should be made for this instance.
So if you shoot amateur porn with one...
Tits on a Ritz... Mmmmmm GOOOOOOD cracker!
The UN is about as effective as a perforated condom or the League of Nations. They do very little other than waste the funds contributed by the member nations on a bloated, inefficient, inactive bureaucracy.
While I wouldn't exactly say the US has the internet under it's thumb, at least WE invented it. (No, I am NOT Al Gore...) If the UN were to be given oversight of the net, nothing would get accomplished. A matter would be brought up, some nations would vote for, some against and so no action would be taken.
With the veto powers of the Security Council members, it's actually much harder to get a resolution PASSED than round filed. In other words, it's practically impossible to do ANYTHING.
As long as you have at least 2 members on the security council with politically opposed views, this will continue to be the case.
I say we ditch the facade known as the UN, save the funds we spend on keeping them around, kick them out of NYC and work directly with all the countries of the world. I say each country becomes a state in a new United World. I say Balkanism only brings continued strife.
I say, Doctor, is it time for my medicine already?
Would be nice, but it'll never happen. Screw the puppet UN. They can have the net when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
"A CEO that manages to put 50 billion dollars away for emergences is a damn good CEO."
No, he's a damn good con artist. 50 billion in profits for any individual in their lifetime is not making a fair living, it's making a killing off of screwing over other people.
Obviously, MS products are heavily overpriced. And people are foolish enough to think they NEED them. But does that make ripping off fools ok? Who is more ethical? The greedy con artist or the simpleton fool?
You keep saying I don't know what I'm talking about, but then you spew out a bunch of cluelessness...
ATA100 and SATA and other similar technologies are RELATED to IDE, but they are not IDE as they incorporate features that the original IDE did not.
You've built a top of the line PC for $500? Prove it. I call bullshit. You're a terrible liar. And then you say it's not the fastest around, blah, blah, blah, insert lame ass excuse for your 'top of the line box' not being top of the line...
So, you can build a machine that will hold it's own with the dual G5 for 1 grand, eh? Prove it. Run the exact same benchmarks and when the Mac blows it's doors off, STFU, tard.
My hardware doesn't go bad that often. But sometimes it does. I've been building boxes for over 10 years. Unlike YOU, I actually know wtf I'm doing and talking about.
I don't need to resort to ad hominem smoke and mirrors to make a point. I'll use facts instead.
If the absolute top of the line PC goes for 2 grand, how come Falcon Northwest, Alienware and others sell their top of the line boxes for 5 grand and up? I think perhaps you have no idea what top of the line is in today's technological market?
I don't go as far as they do in equipment, nor do I pony up for custom paint, but I prefer performance systems. I'm not remotely interested in a $500 computer. It can't do what I want from it.
I've built many PCs personally and have had problems most often with RAM. It usually waits 3-6 months before going bad, though. i've had bad mobos and bad CPUs as well. Video cards do me well, only had one die after 3 months. Power supplies have gotten better over the years, haven't had probs with those in a while. Hard drives don't seem to last like they used to, but that's not specific to PCs really, since Macs use the same drives (not IDE, btw, but ATA100, SATA and other modern ATA based busess). One of the problems most PC user have when comparing Macs and PCs is they compare what Macs were 5 or 10 years ago. They think of the old OS, the slower boxes that are 15 years old in some Junior High. They are apparently not aware that Macs are using the same memory types, drives and video cards that PCs use. The major differences lie in the motherboard and CPU.
For Macs, if it's a heavy use machine, I buy an aftermarket mouse, if not, the stock mouse is quite useful and comfortable. I certainly don't feel FORCED to replace it any more than I would feel FORCED to buy a nice wireless mouse for a Compaq or Dell.
You can believe PCs are cheaper all you want while you use your home brewed slug. I'm quite happy to spend more than $500 on a system when I use them so much. But if that works for you, great.
Putting up a Hyundai and comparing it to a BMW is rather stupid. At least compare it to a Mercedes, Acura, Infinity or something in it's class.
it wasn't SCO trying to sneak in some of it's code so it could point to it and say... "See? We TOLD you the kernel had our code in it!"
But seriously, it's a credit to the ppl working on the project that this attempt was caught. I am not toooooo worried that other attempt at malice have gone unseen as just too many people are looking over the code all the time. Any maliciousness would have to be buried under several layers of valid and useful code (not sluggish crap or slop, either).
After hearing of security holes in every OS AFTER the fact, it's nice to see one caught before it even happened. And a non-accidental one at that. Kudos to the team!
You also left out the motherboard in your list, although you referenced it in the drive listing.
A 15" LCD does not have the view size or resolution capabilities of a 17" CRT.
Any mac user can easily buy a multi button mouse if they want, WITH scroll wheel. One isn't required to use it, though as Macs use multiple modifier keys quite effectively. It's a matter of preference.
With the eMac, there's no digging though a stack of receipts (uh oh, lost the ONE I need!). You just take it to any Apple Authorized Service center. One stop shopping.
No hassle to compile the parts lists, build the box, install the OS, dealing with multiple vendors for warranty. All good to go and one stop shopping if you have a problem. This is why build it yourself boxes are not a valid comparison. You'll have to configure a Dell, Compaq or similar reputable brand (no Joe's Fly By Night boxes need apply) to get anyone to take your comparison seriously.
Yes, you can put alot of effort into it and build something cheaper. But you have to put the effort into it. And you usually get something with less performance. Every PC I've ever built cost me over $2000 to make and I was salvaging CD drives and floppies from older systems. I can easily buy a nice mac for two grand, and have. I use all platforms, that's why I know Macs are price competitive against comparable models.
This sounds like a build your own system, which is not a valid comparison.
Factor in your time to pick all the parts, build the box, return the part or two that doesn't work, and reinstall those. Also factor in OS install time.
Then factor in managing support with 15 different vendors.
Oh, and your lame excuse for rationalizing downsizing the montior doesn't fly. More viewspace = better. LCD or no.
Pardon me but...
Who gives a shit about what developers want for preferences?
Preferences are for the users to set and should use an interface intuitive and designed for users, not developers.
I'm not saying the change was bad, but if that was the reason for the change, it was a stupid reason.
Macs aren't the most expensive option. When are people going to get this through their heads?
Just because you can by a Joe's Fly By Night PC that is stripped to the bone and you can't buy a 'so underconfigged it's worthless' Mac doesn't mean Macs are more expensive. When you compare comparably equipped PC to Macs, the Macs in many cases are cheaper and in some are just a tiny bit more expensive. VERY competitive. They just don't serve the $400 market.
Add to that that Macs last longer than comparable PCs, require less support and you have an extremely competitive ROI vs a PC.
Macs aren't for baby's. Macs come with a full unix development environment. I don't see ANY PCs coming with squat for development. Seems to me that the PCs are for the babys, after all, isn't that where all the games are?
I only said local talent was an option. I also never said it was a good idea to hire anyone just because they are local and cheap. However, there is often local talent that IS good and cheap, but that doesn't mean you can easily fill your entire roster that way. You can always go to the nearest metropolitan center and canvas for talent there as well.
I also recommend NOT having engineers do the casting. Let them write code, not storylines. Let them fix bugs, not the audio. Let them perform code reviews, not shakespeare.
For games that need it, voice overs really help lend to the immersion. While there is a prevalence of bad voice acting in the industry, I think that will change with time as it becomes more commonplace.
For a game that needs it, to avoid it because of the hassle is stupid. There are plenty of talented amateur and professional actors that can do this work for much less than the cost of hiring some big name movie star. Local theatre groups or college drama departments are good places to look.
I'd love to do voice over work, but I have no contacts in the game industry nor a resume of voice work. I do have a great deal of stage experience and a voice I'm told records well. I don't really know where to start to get into this kind of work, though. I'd certainly work for less than Dennis Hooper!
The Beige G3 is a 6 year old computer. Think about that for a minute...
22 peers connected.
148KB/s
Pretty much the best I've EVER had on a Torrent. When I saw the file was a torrent, I figured it'd take me 4 hours to slowly get the file, I was joking about my usual poor DL rates.
I guess I pissed BT off cuz it showed me what it can do when it puts its mind to it!
Maybe I should talk smack more often before starting a DL then!
I upgraded and just everything works fine.
There is a problem with Toast 6 and how bootable disk burning is handled in Panther, but as long as you don't want to make a bootable disk in Toast, it works fine from my experience. Just burn the bootables with Disk Utility. I'm sure Roxio has an update for Panther in the works.
It should be noted that I don't run any system hack widgets off someshadysite.com. I'm thinking the problem children with upgrade issues are running hack widgets that need updating for Panther.
Solution: Remove widgets before upgrading. That should be obvious anyways.
Works for me. Haven't had a problem.
:-D
If you upgrade and have problems. LOG BUGS TO APPLE! Don't just bitch and whine here and then wipe your drive and clean install. Log the bug first! Then bitch and whine to someone else and do a clean install...
You might want to start with these two books:
An introductory book following ASQ Standards. Note: I haven't seen this book, so if it sucks, don't blame me, but it looks like it would be a good intro.
Cem Kaner's classic book. Not exactly an exciting read, but some good concepts and ideas.
Structured testing is merely looking at the features and functionality of a given piece of software and designing test cases for each one. You make a matrix of tests and configurations and start testing. This type of testing gives you an idea of the test coverage, how much of the application has been tested.
Building up a test plan and matrix of test cases is not something you whip out in 20 minutes. It's time consuming work. Thorough testing of this nature is often avoided due to laziness in dot coms or even some large corporations.
First off, I'm not defending Ballmer. He's an idiot. With that said...
I agree with holding back Open Source releases 'until they're ready.' Personally, no software SHOULD be released until it's ready. The tendency to ship software out the door as soon as it boots has given us a market full of buggy, slopped together code and numbed the public to what amounts to poor craftsmanship. All in the name of the Holy Schedule.
The one thing Open Source lacks, and despite the holding back -- clearly needs, is structured testing. There is no real testing of Open Source. No Test Plans, no Test Matrices of test cases. Pre release versions are dumped to the public to use as they will in a blind, shotgun approach to testing. Exceptionally sloppy QA at best. The frequent patch history of Open Source is testament to this weakness.
Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion as to how to solve this problem. Open Source by it's very nature doesn't lend itself well to any form of centralization, which is necessary for structured testing.
On the other hand, you have Microsoft and others that USE structured testing, but they ship based on schedule, not the number of P1 bugs still open. End result? Garbage.
Open Source at least is a labor of love. I'd just like to see SOMEONE commit to solid testing so that in the future people wouldn't have to put up with such bug ridden software.