Perhaps it's because of the bad karma you get from posting offtopic tech support requests for a specific web page in a thread discussing programming techinques on a completely unrelated other web page? Just a guess...
Interviewer: "I'm here with Brendan Eich, the creator of Javascript. So, Brendan, it looks like some companies are doing some pretty awesome stuff with Javascript these days! Word has it this was what you envisioned for Javascript from the beginning."
Brendan: "Yeah... um, this is exactly what we envisioned! Awesome tools like what Google is doing with the maps thing, and the... uh... craigslist + Google maps thing! Yeah.. these companies are finally doing exactly what we had originally planned, so... just wait until they come up with--I mean finally catch on to our big picture and we'll let you know what else we had envisioned! You'll just have to wait and see what we take credit fo--I mean, the other ideas of ours they catch on to!"
No shit. I'm sure it doesn't help now that the damage has already been done, but I finally closed my BofA account. I was a Fleet customer who was dragged through the mud during their merger, and after being on the fence about closing my account this definitely shoved me off.
How hard is it to write a process that looks for updates to the music collection on the hard drive?
It's not hard. All you have to do is drag your music folder onto iTunes and it'll merge. Try `open -a iTunes ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes\ Music/ ` in a cron job. It'd be even easier with spotlight's mdfind. So, I guess the answer to your question is "not that hard."
Personally, I think that party shuffle is a *fantastic* enque system. You just have to have all your music in the iTunes database already. After all, iTunes is a database, not just a player like Winamp or XMMS. If all you want is a player then yeah, you probably won't like iTunes. If you want a music database that lets you generate playlists based on database queries then iTunes is more your style.
I agree that the beginning sucked. This was, obviously, the first thing that irritated me about the movie. For about the first 10 minutes I thought I was watching some a comedy sci-fi flick, or a sitcom. It got much better after they dropped the comedy BS. Sure, a little is alright, but geez... that R2 fight with the droids was like something out of Home Alone or some other child movie. This obviously isn't a child's movie with a PG13 rating, due to all the violence, so why bother catering to that age group?
We're not going backwards. We're going forward as planned, right into Lucas's master plan. Just wait for them to release Star Wars Extra Extended Platinum coated Gold Edition! Now completely re-rendered for a fully immersive digital expierience that show just how dirty and technical his new Lucasfilm SF installation can make things!
At no point while watching the movie for the first time was I suddenly reminded that I was watching CGI characters or backgrounds.
What about photographed naturally moving heads on stiffly moving computer-animated bodies? What about the scene where all the wookies on the planet have no shadows? What about the scene where C3PO's foot sinks into the floor? What about the scene where... etc..
Over all though, the CG is sweet. It's definitely not perfect. I'm no movie critic but even I noticed some mess ups. Lot's of shadow mess ups.
Yeah, gift cards are kind of a cop out, especially when it's somebody you should know as well as a wife. But if you REALLY love her you'll use your own finger-print to buy the DVD, crack the DRM, burn it region and DRM free onto a DVD-R and give her FREEDOM for Christmas.
My thoughts exactly on the piracy thing, and even more so I think I'd just keep the soft-copy. They still just don't get it. Some people don't want physical things. I want to be able to watch movies without carrying around a DVD and right now I am not aware of one legal way to do that, because, after all, CSS is allegedly about copy protection and is somehow supposed to keep me from playing those.vob files on my laptop, nevermind converting them to a more portable filesize. It's bullshit. The audacity of marketing goons is just astounding. Sometimes I think some people just need a good ass kicking, Sam Hamilton style, with good intentions to wake the atackee up from their mindless existence outside of the real world.
Set up an IMAP client to log in and forward all the mail to her GMAIL. Or, even better, just configure her Mail application to log in with both Gmail (via pop3) and AOL Mail (via IMAP) and move all of the AOL mail into one inbox.
I know most people out there don't use Mac, but I tell ya, Adium is the best chat software I've ever used. Better than Gaim (no disrespect), better than trillian, and even better than the other Mac multi-service chat clients. It's got web-based CSS compliant visual themes that you can customize, animated icons, custom soundsets, etc. etc.. Gaim definitely comes in second though, and is clearly the best for linux. I love that app. But really, I'd use anything except the standard chat clients of ANY of these services, except when video is necessary... *sigh*
4848 <ohm> damn
<ohm> FUCK
<ohm> DAMN
<ohm> i was just in an AIM convo with a chick, and my grandmother's window pops up
<ohm> FUCK
<ohm> i go like this to her
<ohm> "i want to suck on your clit"
<ohm> FUCK
If you think that a corporation is limited to standard free AIM accounts then you're seriously mistaken. A quick glance through AIM@Work shows that corporations have the ability to restrict logins based on IP#, authenticate against the corporation's LDAP server, provide users with person@corporation.com chat names to match corporate e-mail addresses, encryption via certificates, and other features that cater to corporate IM needs. This is perfect when you want to deal with other corporations while giving your company a presence in an incredibly populated IM service. This is great because you don't want to go giving ALL of your client's accounts on your corporate Jabber server... A perfect example of this all are those mac.com chat addresses that Apple gives out with their mac.com subscription. You know who those people are affiliated with as soon as they IM you. AIM@Work is good business. It's much more flexible and secure than regular AIM and it's MUCH more widely used than private Jabber (or whatever else) servers.
On top of all that, even a standard AIM account is capable of securing IM's by using things like OTR so it doesn't matter how many 3rd party servers the messages go through. Besides, saying that people shouldn't communicate through 3rd party servers is like saying "call them on a purely POTS telephone line." It's pretty much impossible. Every online communication standard goes through 3rd party servers, and this even includes things that aren't considered online, such as your long distance, your cell phone, and probably your local land line.
I thought that was just some fabricated quote, and it would've been a pretty humorous one if it was, but to find out that IT IS A REAL QUOTE just blows my mind. Bill Gates has a way with words... a way that is similar to... hell, I can't even think of anything that is so bumblingly foot munching.
Does anybody else have examples of MS blatantly stealing and profiting from somebody else's creation or innovation? What are the other examples of MS passing off other people's hard work as the property of their own?
Yes, it's a tactic called "Leading By Example" that is meant to stir up morale among the trolls. He's very good at it, to be sure. Several times I was tempted to hit the reply link and flame his dereliction of elementary grammar and spelling. Alas, if i'd been foolish enough to do so he'd have won. They'd all have won. In fact, the very act of wasting precious time pining over these subtle aggravations is a sign that the trolls may already be winning a cold war.
The ITMS is never going to be Apple's primary revenue stream. It's just barely holding at the break-even point. It's being held afloat by iPod revenue, which is itself still dwarfed by Apple's computer business.
That's exactly what I was going to say...
Along those lines, it would make perfect sense for MS to allow your Xbox 360 to have it's Live subscription tied in with a subscription music service which would sync to a Rio or whatever, as well as let you play songs through your stereo and possibly in games. It would essentially give them a subscription based alternative to the ITMS, and on top of that it already has a large client base who are already paying a monthly subscription fee. I can see the labels eating this one up because it's just tacking on a subtle fee for the end user and diverting some of the cash flow. And, I can see how Xbox users would love the service. It ties music selection into a device which they feel very comfortable using.
I think you're right. They're probably trying to get it to work, but aren't promising it just in case they can't. They did, however, buy Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC. This was likely because they wanted people who had experience with both PPC and x86, but wether that was merely for the Xbox 360 or for reverse compatibility is anyone's guess. Perhaps if they can't get it working on the first release of the Xbox 360 they'll release an application whenever they get it working and let people download it from that new 360 button guide thingy that is supposed to let you do everything.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They have a large chunk of the digital music player market. They have a music store that in and of itself brings them ~$0 profit. They have a great business model which any other company can step up and take, and that model is the old "Sell the razor blades and give away the razor" model. Apple sells the iPod and breaks even with the media. They make their money through selling hardware, the iPod. (digression: It's the same with their computer hardware which is why you'll never see an x86 version of Mac OS X.) This is the place where everybody else is failing in the non-subscription based market. Now, you'd think it would make sense to support WMA, but then, that has nothing to do with their monopoly now, does it? After all, their monopoly is in their own DRM scheme and their own digital music store, which isn't making them any money in and of itself. Support for WMA would also open them up to the downfalls that so many users of MS software experience. (EG: have you ever tried playing WMA files on Mac? Even in WMP some of them still suck badly compared to WMP for Windows. Ever tried playing protected WMA files on a different computer?) These problems would make the iPod look bad, and who wants to make their cash cow look bad? This would in turn make Apple look bad. And for what purpose? All because somebody wants support for a proprietary format, and that's not even including the DRM that would come along with it. No, supporting WMA doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's because of the bad karma you get from posting offtopic tech support requests for a specific web page in a thread discussing programming techinques on a completely unrelated other web page? Just a guess...
Interviewer: "I'm here with Brendan Eich, the creator of Javascript. So, Brendan, it looks like some companies are doing some pretty awesome stuff with Javascript these days! Word has it this was what you envisioned for Javascript from the beginning."
Brendan: "Yeah... um, this is exactly what we envisioned! Awesome tools like what Google is doing with the maps thing, and the... uh... craigslist + Google maps thing! Yeah.. these companies are finally doing exactly what we had originally planned, so... just wait until they come up with--I mean finally catch on to our big picture and we'll let you know what else we had envisioned! You'll just have to wait and see what we take credit fo--I mean, the other ideas of ours they catch on to!"
No shit. I'm sure it doesn't help now that the damage has already been done, but I finally closed my BofA account. I was a Fleet customer who was dragged through the mud during their merger, and after being on the fence about closing my account this definitely shoved me off.
It could be an Intel CPU, just not used in a computer. After all, the original Airport Base Station ran a 486.
Personally, I think that party shuffle is a *fantastic* enque system. You just have to have all your music in the iTunes database already. After all, iTunes is a database, not just a player like Winamp or XMMS. If all you want is a player then yeah, you probably won't like iTunes. If you want a music database that lets you generate playlists based on database queries then iTunes is more your style.
I agree that the beginning sucked. This was, obviously, the first thing that irritated me about the movie. For about the first 10 minutes I thought I was watching some a comedy sci-fi flick, or a sitcom. It got much better after they dropped the comedy BS. Sure, a little is alright, but geez... that R2 fight with the droids was like something out of Home Alone or some other child movie. This obviously isn't a child's movie with a PG13 rating, due to all the violence, so why bother catering to that age group?
We're not going backwards. We're going forward as planned, right into Lucas's master plan. Just wait for them to release Star Wars Extra Extended Platinum coated Gold Edition! Now completely re-rendered for a fully immersive digital expierience that show just how dirty and technical his new Lucasfilm SF installation can make things!
Over all though, the CG is sweet. It's definitely not perfect. I'm no movie critic but even I noticed some mess ups. Lot's of shadow mess ups.
Yeah, gift cards are kind of a cop out, especially when it's somebody you should know as well as a wife. But if you REALLY love her you'll use your own finger-print to buy the DVD, crack the DRM, burn it region and DRM free onto a DVD-R and give her FREEDOM for Christmas.
My thoughts exactly on the piracy thing, and even more so I think I'd just keep the soft-copy. They still just don't get it. Some people don't want physical things. I want to be able to watch movies without carrying around a DVD and right now I am not aware of one legal way to do that, because, after all, CSS is allegedly about copy protection and is somehow supposed to keep me from playing those .vob files on my laptop, nevermind converting them to a more portable filesize. It's bullshit. The audacity of marketing goons is just astounding. Sometimes I think some people just need a good ass kicking, Sam Hamilton style, with good intentions to wake the atackee up from their mindless existence outside of the real world.
make that userContent.css.
usercontents.css
Set up an IMAP client to log in and forward all the mail to her GMAIL. Or, even better, just configure her Mail application to log in with both Gmail (via pop3) and AOL Mail (via IMAP) and move all of the AOL mail into one inbox.
I know most people out there don't use Mac, but I tell ya, Adium is the best chat software I've ever used. Better than Gaim (no disrespect), better than trillian, and even better than the other Mac multi-service chat clients. It's got web-based CSS compliant visual themes that you can customize, animated icons, custom soundsets, etc. etc.. Gaim definitely comes in second though, and is clearly the best for linux. I love that app. But really, I'd use anything except the standard chat clients of ANY of these services, except when video is necessary... *sigh*
4848
<ohm> damn
<ohm> FUCK
<ohm> DAMN
<ohm> i was just in an AIM convo with a chick, and my grandmother's window pops up
<ohm> FUCK
<ohm> i go like this to her
<ohm> "i want to suck on your clit"
<ohm> FUCK
If you think that a corporation is limited to standard free AIM accounts then you're seriously mistaken. A quick glance through AIM@Work shows that corporations have the ability to restrict logins based on IP#, authenticate against the corporation's LDAP server, provide users with person@corporation.com chat names to match corporate e-mail addresses, encryption via certificates, and other features that cater to corporate IM needs. This is perfect when you want to deal with other corporations while giving your company a presence in an incredibly populated IM service. This is great because you don't want to go giving ALL of your client's accounts on your corporate Jabber server... A perfect example of this all are those mac.com chat addresses that Apple gives out with their mac.com subscription. You know who those people are affiliated with as soon as they IM you. AIM@Work is good business. It's much more flexible and secure than regular AIM and it's MUCH more widely used than private Jabber (or whatever else) servers.
On top of all that, even a standard AIM account is capable of securing IM's by using things like OTR so it doesn't matter how many 3rd party servers the messages go through. Besides, saying that people shouldn't communicate through 3rd party servers is like saying "call them on a purely POTS telephone line." It's pretty much impossible. Every online communication standard goes through 3rd party servers, and this even includes things that aren't considered online, such as your long distance, your cell phone, and probably your local land line.
I thought that was just some fabricated quote, and it would've been a pretty humorous one if it was, but to find out that IT IS A REAL QUOTE just blows my mind. Bill Gates has a way with words... a way that is similar to... hell, I can't even think of anything that is so bumblingly foot munching.
MSN Ripped the Ubuntu Logo
Does anybody else have examples of MS blatantly stealing and profiting from somebody else's creation or innovation? What are the other examples of MS passing off other people's hard work as the property of their own?
Yes, it's a tactic called "Leading By Example" that is meant to stir up morale among the trolls. He's very good at it, to be sure. Several times I was tempted to hit the reply link and flame his dereliction of elementary grammar and spelling. Alas, if i'd been foolish enough to do so he'd have won. They'd all have won. In fact, the very act of wasting precious time pining over these subtle aggravations is a sign that the trolls may already be winning a cold war.
The ITMS is never going to be Apple's primary revenue stream. It's just barely holding at the break-even point. It's being held afloat by iPod revenue, which is itself still dwarfed by Apple's computer business.
That's exactly what I was going to say...
Along those lines, it would make perfect sense for MS to allow your Xbox 360 to have it's Live subscription tied in with a subscription music service which would sync to a Rio or whatever, as well as let you play songs through your stereo and possibly in games. It would essentially give them a subscription based alternative to the ITMS, and on top of that it already has a large client base who are already paying a monthly subscription fee. I can see the labels eating this one up because it's just tacking on a subtle fee for the end user and diverting some of the cash flow. And, I can see how Xbox users would love the service. It ties music selection into a device which they feel very comfortable using.
For that they'd have to copy a dislcaimer from Apple too: Do not eat iBox.
I think you're right. They're probably trying to get it to work, but aren't promising it just in case they can't. They did, however, buy Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC. This was likely because they wanted people who had experience with both PPC and x86, but wether that was merely for the Xbox 360 or for reverse compatibility is anyone's guess. Perhaps if they can't get it working on the first release of the Xbox 360 they'll release an application whenever they get it working and let people download it from that new 360 button guide thingy that is supposed to let you do everything.
Only a pr0n surfer would say that the letter N is a left-handed keystroke.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They have a large chunk of the digital music player market. They have a music store that in and of itself brings them ~$0 profit. They have a great business model which any other company can step up and take, and that model is the old "Sell the razor blades and give away the razor" model. Apple sells the iPod and breaks even with the media. They make their money through selling hardware, the iPod. (digression: It's the same with their computer hardware which is why you'll never see an x86 version of Mac OS X.) This is the place where everybody else is failing in the non-subscription based market. Now, you'd think it would make sense to support WMA, but then, that has nothing to do with their monopoly now, does it? After all, their monopoly is in their own DRM scheme and their own digital music store, which isn't making them any money in and of itself. Support for WMA would also open them up to the downfalls that so many users of MS software experience. (EG: have you ever tried playing WMA files on Mac? Even in WMP some of them still suck badly compared to WMP for Windows. Ever tried playing protected WMA files on a different computer?) These problems would make the iPod look bad, and who wants to make their cash cow look bad? This would in turn make Apple look bad. And for what purpose? All because somebody wants support for a proprietary format, and that's not even including the DRM that would come along with it. No, supporting WMA doesn't make sense.