What about distributing the paper manual with the CD ?
That sort of defeats the purpose of the kiosks, which is to reduce the amount of bulky inventory they need to carry. I suppose they could print out something and hack it together with staples, but what about my cloth map and cheap plastic figurines?;)
...but as other people noted in the last thread, you miss out on some of the other other niceties. For one, I hate "online" manuals. You can take your PDFs and stuff 'em. I treasure my spiral-bound manual for Neverwinter Nights.
Also, about patches: this would be nice for things that need updated patches, like Windows.... except Microsoft won't sell Windows or Office at these kiosks! Erk.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They got the message on the download, anyway. I can get an.exe for the free version only two clicks from the front page.
1. Big, orange "Download RealPlayer" button
2. Little blue text link in the lower right
It took users years to get used to the Windows 95/98/ME/2K UI, and then that got turned on its head by XP's scheme. It was supposed to be easier, but it was mostly confusing for novices: I know, because I had to help people get used to it (to this day, I still run XP in "classic" when forced to use it). I don't think it would be a terribly good idea to make Longhorn look much different from XP, at least at the default level.
I'm sure most of the good stuff is behind the curtain.
I don't have the time/inclination to begin to unravel your comments, and I won't try. It's off-topic now, and I'm not cynical enough. Don't sit here and hit refresh all night.;)
And yet, you advocate overbearing government control and invasion of privacy in support of taxation.
That kind of exaggeration is better suited for comedy. Invasion of privacy? I suppose you roll around with a paper bag over your vehicle, so nobody knows what kind of car you drive.
You find my.sig ironic, so I assume you either don't know what irony is, or you misunderstand my views. Take note that the first three "boxes" are a function of the government that I support to protect my interests. I have the freedom of speech to speak what I believe, I have a right to cast a vote, and to a jury of my peers. The last option, overthrowing the corrupt, is last on the list for a reason.
If you can give me a satisfactory answer to that...
I'm not here to give you anything. If you break the law, you get to pay the consequences. Feel free to justify your position however you like, because you'll accuse me of doing the same thing anyway, right?
If fewer people were cheating on their taxes, would the tax rate automatically get cut? Or would they find something to spend the extra $$$$ on?
Six of one, half dozen of the other. It might sound clever to say "the government will cheat you anyway", but it's a cop-out at the core. Less money is less money, end of story. It might mean honest people pay more taxes, or it might mean that certain programs get cut, or any number of other possibilities, but something has to give.
I only put forth one possibility, think of some of your own. It's naive, at best, to think that tax evasion won't have any negative repercussions. Naive, and foolish.
The privacy issues are obvious, but I think privacy advocates can find better battles to fight. I am not fan of Big Brother, but this is not it. Some of the things discussed in the linked article are pretty mundane, like checking to make sure you aren't driving a Rolls Royce and claiming to work at McDonald's. Clearly the system can be abused for malicious purposes, but since that's the case with more or less everything, I think the benefits should outweigh the potential risks, especially if some form of checks and balances is introduced to the system. We'd all be living in caves, scared of our own shadows, otherwise.
I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cheat on their taxes. I play fair, which means I have to pay more to make up the difference from the people screwing over their own government. If database cross-referencing means it will be easier to catch tax evasion, with the side benefit of making audits more efficient, you've got my vote. It even sounds like it will assist in keeping some innocents out of the audit process, which is good. I'm sure more than a few people still remember the high-profile black eyes the IRS got from false alarms.
A side note: I know the flames in reply will be numerous, because it's not a popular stance, and most won't bother to RTFA or my entire comment. But I wanted to go on record anyway.:P
Is it greed because its a large absolute dollar value or becuase its a large dollar value compaired to what the producers/network make from the Simpsons?
That's a fair question. But if the writers of the Simpsons all went on strike (and let's face it, the writing is the heart and soul a comedy like the Simpsons), you can replace writers. You can't get rid of the voice actors without killing a part of your show. I can't shake the feeling that these people are getting paid a lot solely because they are associated directly with the characters, not because voice talent is hard to come by.
It's not greedy to ask more money if you deserve it. My question, which you answered with four more questions, was whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox (note: this is not to suggest Fox is not evil).
I wish I had their problems, only earning enough money to buy a small house every time I did a voice-over for a single episode. This strikes me in the same way that it did when I heard about the lead in The Sopranos grousing for more money, too. I understand about wanting a fair share of the pie, but where does it cross over into greed?
Dan Castellaneta is the voice of Homer but he is clearly no mug. Along with his five colleagues he believes the $125,000 he earns for each 30-minute episode does not reflect the true value of the characters.
The six core cast members are now demanding $360,000 (194,000) an episode or $8 million (4.3 million) for a 22-episode season, according to insiders.
But that sort of subliminal advertising is flashing an ad on-screen for a fraction of a second. This would be underlaying one track beneath another. I don't know how effective it is, but it's not a snapshot like the movie "urban legend", it's immersive. Can't actors memorize lines by recording them, and then playing back while they sleep?
About ten grams of caffeine in a short period of time will kill you. There is about 100mg in your average cup of coffee (though it can vary wildly). So the math is right, but you'd have to suck down all one-hundred in a short period of time to get a fatal amount of it. Too much liquid, I think, you just can't process it that fast. All that would happen is you'd probably be urinating like a racehorse (caffeine is a diuretic), and and have a really bad headache to show for it at the end of the day.
Over the course of 24 hours, a lot of the effect would probably be mitigated by the time span. I don't know how long it would take you to get the caffeine out of your system, maybe someone else does. Google says around 13% of the caffeine in your body is removed every hour, but I haven't a clue how correct it is. Sounds dubious.;)
There's a lot of *whoosh* going on in this thread. It was a very, very lame joke (car stolen in the future, ha-ha). I know how to read different date formats.
sigh @ text, expression never gets across how you intend it to.;)
Unless I am reading the date format wrong, and the submitter's car was stolen in the future (November), this was three weeks ago. Over here in the States I hear numbers like around 2/3 of stolen cars are eventually recovered, but I'm not privy to stats in The Netherlands. You would think that the longer you wait, the less chance you have of getting your car back, no?
On top of that, it would hardly take long to sell a laptop off. What a bummer.:(
If I knew the answer, I'd be working for the Canaidian recording industry. However, the RIAA seemed to find a way, and even if there isn't one, they won't stop trying, if that I am certain.
Well, I RTFA (someone reply with "You must be new here" for your free +5 Funny), and it doesn't look to be a cause for celebration. It seems as if they didn't present compelling enough evidence to the judge.
"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings. They merely placed personal copies onto shared directories on their computers which were accessible by other computer users via an online download service," the judge wrote.
I'll wager that once the Canadian recording industry gets its wagons in a circle, they are going to try again. Regrettably, one failure won't stop them.
Adding a Windows license would kick that price up considerably.
I understand your point, but what price makes you say "significant"? Assume we're talking about XP Home, here. While Wal-Mart will charge you ~$120 to buy it off the shelf, aren't they able to squeeze XP out of Microsoft for a good deal less than that? They certainly have the clout to do it.
Well, I guess that's one advantage of the iPod's high price. Since I'm not the type to carry around $400 in cash, I bought it with my CC, and that gives me a bit of theft protection.:P
How was it? I'd rather not talk too much about it. Suffice it to say that my peers had hygiene issues, there was always a rush to be the first one in class, professors constantly duplicated their own lectures, and my diploma was created with outdated HTML and an eye-gouging color scheme. I won't even get into the thing with the "crackhead" TA's that graded papers.
Oh, and we had a knock-down drag-out fight every other day about the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents. That was pretty annoying. Otherwise though... good times, good times.
Blah, blah, blah. I guess you're probably trolling, but in case someone falls for it: the McDonald's lawsuit in question is a piss-poor example of a "frivolous" lawsuit. Two quick links explaining why:
Since I have a PhD in/. patent law, I'll take this one: It might set "some sort" of precedent, but since PanIP dropped the case, it probably won't be a legal precedent. D'oh!
As an aside, I like the choice of "www.youmaybenext.com" for the fund's homepage. I wonder what the next ridiculous patent lawsuit will be for? I smell a new poll.
This may be slightly OT, but: I've never visited this site before, and I wanted to see what they were about. So I click the pretty link for BuyMusic.com, and I'm greeted with this:
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
I realize it's unlikely that supporting the most popular web browser on the most popular desktop OS is bad for business, but locking out everyone else? I can't even find out what these people are about without having to load up IE and crossing my fingers. Pfft, to heck with that. I won't have the gall to say "no wonder these people are going south", because I know that people who use the same browser as I do are a niche market. But still... Sheesh!
Slashdot Mirror
...but as other people noted in the last thread, you miss out on some of the other other niceties. For one, I hate "online" manuals. You can take your PDFs and stuff 'em. I treasure my spiral-bound manual for Neverwinter Nights.
Also, about patches: this would be nice for things that need updated patches, like Windows.... except Microsoft won't sell Windows or Office at these kiosks! Erk.
They got the message on the download, anyway. I can get an .exe for the free version only two clicks from the front page.
1. Big, orange "Download RealPlayer" button
2. Little blue text link in the lower right
Voila!
It took users years to get used to the Windows 95/98/ME/2K UI, and then that got turned on its head by XP's scheme. It was supposed to be easier, but it was mostly confusing for novices: I know, because I had to help people get used to it (to this day, I still run XP in "classic" when forced to use it). I don't think it would be a terribly good idea to make Longhorn look much different from XP, at least at the default level.
I'm sure most of the good stuff is behind the curtain.
I don't have the time/inclination to begin to unravel your comments, and I won't try. It's off-topic now, and I'm not cynical enough. Don't sit here and hit refresh all night. ;)
You find my
I only put forth one possibility, think of some of your own. It's naive, at best, to think that tax evasion won't have any negative repercussions. Naive, and foolish.
The privacy issues are obvious, but I think privacy advocates can find better battles to fight. I am not fan of Big Brother, but this is not it. Some of the things discussed in the linked article are pretty mundane, like checking to make sure you aren't driving a Rolls Royce and claiming to work at McDonald's. Clearly the system can be abused for malicious purposes, but since that's the case with more or less everything, I think the benefits should outweigh the potential risks, especially if some form of checks and balances is introduced to the system. We'd all be living in caves, scared of our own shadows, otherwise.
:P
I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cheat on their taxes. I play fair, which means I have to pay more to make up the difference from the people screwing over their own government. If database cross-referencing means it will be easier to catch tax evasion, with the side benefit of making audits more efficient, you've got my vote. It even sounds like it will assist in keeping some innocents out of the audit process, which is good. I'm sure more than a few people still remember the high-profile black eyes the IRS got from false alarms.
A side note: I know the flames in reply will be numerous, because it's not a popular stance, and most won't bother to RTFA or my entire comment. But I wanted to go on record anyway.
It's not greedy to ask more money if you deserve it. My question, which you answered with four more questions, was whether they deserved the piece of the pie they demanded, or whether they were just using the celebrity of the characters they played to blackmail Fox (note: this is not to suggest Fox is not evil).
*gag*
But that sort of subliminal advertising is flashing an ad on-screen for a fraction of a second. This would be underlaying one track beneath another. I don't know how effective it is, but it's not a snapshot like the movie "urban legend", it's immersive. Can't actors memorize lines by recording them, and then playing back while they sleep?
About ten grams of caffeine in a short period of time will kill you. There is about 100mg in your average cup of coffee (though it can vary wildly). So the math is right, but you'd have to suck down all one-hundred in a short period of time to get a fatal amount of it. Too much liquid, I think, you just can't process it that fast. All that would happen is you'd probably be urinating like a racehorse (caffeine is a diuretic), and and have a really bad headache to show for it at the end of the day.
;)
Over the course of 24 hours, a lot of the effect would probably be mitigated by the time span. I don't know how long it would take you to get the caffeine out of your system, maybe someone else does. Google says around 13% of the caffeine in your body is removed every hour, but I haven't a clue how correct it is. Sounds dubious.
There's a lot of *whoosh* going on in this thread. It was a very, very lame joke (car stolen in the future, ha-ha). I know how to read different date formats.
;)
sigh @ text, expression never gets across how you intend it to.
Unless I am reading the date format wrong, and the submitter's car was stolen in the future (November), this was three weeks ago. Over here in the States I hear numbers like around 2/3 of stolen cars are eventually recovered, but I'm not privy to stats in The Netherlands. You would think that the longer you wait, the less chance you have of getting your car back, no?
:(
On top of that, it would hardly take long to sell a laptop off. What a bummer.
... when the intrepid crime-fighters in the US DOJ sue the EU for patent infringement to proect their monopoly.
Don't forget (as noted when this story broke last time), SCO can still sue their own customers if they want! :P
Well, I guess that's one advantage of the iPod's high price. Since I'm not the type to carry around $400 in cash, I bought it with my CC, and that gives me a bit of theft protection. :P
Oh, and we had a knock-down drag-out fight every other day about the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents. That was pretty annoying. Otherwise though... good times, good times.
Blah, blah, blah. I guess you're probably trolling, but in case someone falls for it: the McDonald's lawsuit in question is a piss-poor example of a "frivolous" lawsuit. Two quick links explaining why:
Clicky
Clicky
As an aside, I like the choice of "www.youmaybenext.com" for the fund's homepage. I wonder what the next ridiculous patent lawsuit will be for? I smell a new poll.
Careful, that's how Ted Kaczynski got started.
I should be okay, I'm not much for huge dark sunglasses or hoodies. My vanity will keep me on the Light side.