TiVo also reserves the right to discontinue the TiVo Service altogether at any time in its discretion.
Lovely! I can pay $200 today, and the service can disappear tomorrow -- because 1) the company folded or 2) because they felt like it. If they do fold, I doubt that whomever acquires the bits will continue offering service `for free' just because we paid `somebody else'.
And according to what other posters said, it sounds like they WILL be going out of business, sooner rather than later (because they're losing lots of money.)
Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a BULLSHIT artist!
*I forget what the next line was*
Dole Office Clerk: So, did you Bullshit this week?
Comicus: *sigh* No...
Dole Office Clerk: Did you try to Bullshit this week?
Comicus: *sigh* Yes!
Dole Office Clerk: *starts to give him money*
*then somebody (his manager?) cries that the Emperor wants him to work the palace*
Dole Office Clerk: Then you won't be needing this!
First of all, Data CD-Rs do have a tax on them, its just a smaller tax than the Audio CD-Rs.
On some level, everything has a tax on it.
However, I am unaware of any tax like the `DAT tax' that applies to Data CDRs. If you wish to convince me that such a tax also exists, you'll need to provide some references. I'm talking about the USA -- if you're talking about another country, then say so.
I am aware that analog media (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc.) has no such taxes but that there are agreements between the media producers and the RIAA, MPAA, BMI or some similar organization so they get paid a certain amount per blank tape, so the net effect is the same as the `DAT tax'.
Secondly, there is absolutely no difference between Audio and Data CD-Rs. There is no device that requires Audio CD-Rs. Data CD-Rs work just fine in stand alone audio burners.
And this statement is totally false, as explained by another poster. There is no fundamental difference between Audio CDRs and Data CDRs -- except for a bit twiddled somewhere that says `This is an Audio CDR'. And many (most? all?) consumer grade audio CD recorders look for this bit, and won't work if it's not set. Sometimes you can disable this, or get around it (by switching disks in some models) but the difference IS there.
Are you referring to the
DAT Tax that adds a tax to audio DATs and CDRs?
If so, as much as I dislike this tax, then this isn't much of an argument. Very few mp3s end up on Audio CDRs, and even fewer on Audio DATs (unfortunately, as good as DATs are, they never really took off.) Why? Because, IF it's burned onto a CD at all, it's burned to Data CDs, which have no such tax. Audio CDRs cost several times as much as Data CDRs exactly because of this tax, therefore the only people who use them are typically those who must -- those who have audio burners (NOT computers!) that require them.
I imagine that there's a few people who downloaded music with Napster and then played it via their sound card and then recorded that with an Audio CDR device, but this number is almost certainly dwarfed by those who burned it directly on their computer -- it's cheaper, uses more common hardware, and delivers better quality.
one would assume that an anti-atom would also release the energy used in the strong-force bond of the anti-particles.
Fusion releases energy created as strong bonds overpowers electromagnetic repulsion. Requires atoms with few protons (fewer than iron has.)
Fission releases energy as electromagnetic repulsion overcomes the strong force. Requires atoms with lots of protons (more than iron has.)
Anti matter and matter obliterating each other releases energy from *everything*. The particles are totally destroyed, converted into energy. All the energy stored in any sort of bond, as well as any mass not created as part of a bond is released.
Fission and fusion convert less than 1% of the material into energy. Antimatter/matter anhillations convert 100% of the energy.
Re:Guys in Glass Houses....
on
Tandys Never Die
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Hmm. Bought on at the local Goodwill computer store a while back for $9.00. I set up a simple program --
10 A = A + 1
20 PRINT "Hello there #", $A;
30 GOTO 10
And it's been running this for something like a year now. It's up to 113,869,084.
The battery is very nice -- it let it keep going even while we moved offices and lost power:)
Unfortunately, there's no info to get -- the box is locked solid.
Maybe there was some dump info sent to a vc somewhere -- but with the screen displaying X, I can't see it.
This is my work box, so I can't really have it crashing. It's easier to just go back to the stock 2.4.17 kernel and leave it at that. And the preempt stuff doesn't help it much anyways.
It crashes my machine occasionally. Dual p3/700 (so it's SMP -- which complicates matters.) Without the preempt patch, the box stays up for months at a time. With it, it seems to lock up hard after a few days.
So far, at least two crashes happened while burning a CD. I wonder if that's a coincidence..
If I recall correctly, the movie was set to be released not very long after September 11th -- meaning it was very nearly done, if not completely done. Then September 11th came, and they decided to delay it. I don't know if it changed very much in that period...
That has already happened. R/C planes and helicopters are nothing new, and there's lots of people out there who take a plane kit and add a wireless camera and sell the whole thing.
As for still photographs, people have been putting cameras into R/C planes for decades now...
That the corp sueing him apparently didn't go through the ICANN name dispute resolution system?
Well, if they had, and the ICANN followed it's own rules, ICANN would have had to rule in Chip's favor. ICANN rules in favor of those who were there first -- the domain, or the trademark. In this case, the domain was there long before any trademark.
Only if a domain is registered after a trademark is created do they start figuring out the purpose of the domain and such (and they usually side with the plaintifs, but that's another story.)
At least if you go through the courts, there's a good chance they won't undertand and will side for you due to that.
Don't buy Windows games. I hear how people can't justify paying full price for an "old game" that Loki ported while they can't stop themselves from running out and buying Quake3 the second it is released at full price for Windows.
That's rather one sided and naive. Let's also look at it from the consumer's side --
I really want Quake 3 -- it just came out, and it's been hyped forever, and it looks great! Best of all, it's on sale for $30 right now at Best Buy! I could buy it now, and boot into Windows, and play it now -- or I could wait 6 months, and then *maybe* a Linux version will be out, and I'll have to pay $50 for that version -- even if I've already bought the Windows version! Screw that!
[ Yes. That's right. Windows games are often heavily discounted right off the bat, where the Linux ports are only discounted maybe if they never sell. I'm much more likely to pay $30 for a game than $50, and I doubt I'm the only one. ]
It's fine and dandy for you to ask people not to buy Windows games -- and if everybody listened to you, the Windows game market would crumble tomorrow. However, truth is that very few people will honor this request, because they want the games, and while many of them may not like it, they're still willing to boot into Windows or go to another computer to play them.
If you want to port Windows games to Linux, and you want to make decent money doing this, then you need to get your Linux ports out at approximately the same time as the Windows version. In the game world, today's chart topper is tomorrow's bargain bin title, and the next day's `abandonwarez' (where you can't even buy it anymore -- the only place to get it is from some abandonwarez site or maybe Ebay or a garage sale.)
I understand that this is not as easy as it sounds, and that the problems are perhaps even more political than technical, but it IS the way things are.
Another suggestion -- if you can't get a Linux port out at approximately the same time as the Windows version, when you do get it out, also ship a stripped down Linux version that 1) costs a lot less and 2) only contains the Linux bits, and uses the data files on the Windows CD.
Call it a `Linux Upgrade for Descent 3' (or whatever.) Where I'd be unwilling to pay $50 for Descent 3 for Linux now, I'd probably be willing to pay $10 so I can use my Windows version under Linux.
I read the Reuters article rather carefully and I don't think they really did anything wrong.
The news that they reported was NOT that somebody had invented a new perpetual motion machine. It was that somebody else was claiming to have done so, and since a big enough deal was made of it, it became news, no matter how `bogus' it was.
Reuters did do their part in showing that people were incredibly skeptical of this new invention.
Reuters could have taken the position of the patent office that perpetual motion machines are always bunk, but instead they decided to just report on the news as given, as well as giving conterpoints.
They weren't `taken' at all. They knew it was bunk.
Sorry but the games that they ported were already out for a long ass time, didn't really catch my eye, and I really didn't see a need for them.
And that's why Loki failed. They ported old games.
By the time a Linux port is available, the Windows version has gone up and down the charts. The people who really wanted that game already bought it, finished it, and have moved on to the next game.
Now, if Loki could get Linux ports out the same day as the Windows version was released, things would be different...
Linux users are so used to receiving games for free (and other apps) I guess they just believe that all apps should be free (this is IMHO as I pretty much refuse to pay for any software).
That might be a small part, but it's a very small part. You can find lots of good free Windows software too if you just look.
Here's the real clincher -- as a Linux user, why would I pay $50 for a Linux version of Quake 3 when 1) the Windows version of Quake 3 is in the bargain bin for $10, and 2) I bought Quake many months ago (for Windows) when it first came out. And I only paid $30 for that!
You all are idiots... We've not spent $$$ on the OS or anything like that, we can afford to pay for games.
No, you're the idiot. I have several computers, two of which I use all the time. I've got my `work' computer, which runs Linux, and my game computer, which runs Windows (because that's what the games run under.)
I buy a lot of games. I enjoy them. I probably spend as much on game software as I do on hardware. I spend *much* less on OS's -- Windows 98 was around $100, and I spent that years ago (XP may run some games, but 98 runs all games. If all the computer is for is Windows games, 98 is what you want.)
Just because I didn't spend $200 on Linux, that doesn't magically give me $1000 to spend on games...
It also would pit the DCMA against patent rights and other goodies...
As far as I can tell, none of this really has anything to do with patents.
What matters is that Philips owns the little `CD' logo, and can control how it's used. They have decided that since the copy protected CD's do not fit their specifications, their logo cannot be used with them. This ownership of the logo will not expire like a patent. (I assume it's a trademark?)
This will not stop the RIAA. What it may do is prompt them to stop including that logo -- and it's not like it matters anyways. Back when CD's were new, maybe it [the logo] did make people happier that the logo was there. Now that most people are familiar with CD's, I doubt it matters at all.
(Of course, it may eventually mean that this logo means `Unprotected CD. Fair Use rights not restricted' and so it'll be a good thing to have on your CDs again.)
As far as Phillips making a copier that can copy these CDs goes, this really has nothing to do with the logo. It may be interesting to see how the RIAA responds to that, however -- and if Philips does actually make it and touts it's ability to copy `protected' CDs, I'd fully expect the RIAA to at least try to get them with the DMCA.
Do CD copiers `rip' the CD digitally like a computer does, or do they just take the analog output and write it to the destination disc? If it's the latter, I'd fully expect CD copiers to copy most `protected' CD's right now. (What's probably the case is that there are CD Audio copiers that work in each way.)
Even so, few people would use it or buy it. I only have two friends with CD Audio burners -- both musicians. Most of the rest of my friends have computers with CD Burners. And at least one of the musicians never uses this drive anymore -- he now uses the one on his computer, even for his own music.
The difference is important for several reasons --
Computer CDR drives are cheap.
Audio CDR drives cost a lot more
Computer CDR drives use cheap media.
Audio CDR drives use expensive media. (The media is exactly the same, but the Audio blanks have a bit set that says `Ok for Audio', which most Audio CDR drives check for and require. Along with this bit being set, there's a tax being payed to somebody (RIAA?) that greatly increases the cost of the blank.)
Computer CDR drives can do more than write audio tracks -- they can write audio tracks, data tracks, copy disks completely, etc. Even for writing straight audio tracks, the computer often makes this easier and faster (you're not limited to 1x) than the Audio CDR drive.
Anybody know what the ratio of `Data CDR media' vs `Audio CDR media' sold in the US is? I'll bet it's at least 30:1.
Re:everything I "know" about flight is wrong?
on
Flying on Mars
·
· Score: 2
You'd take off from space, of course. So you'd need some sort of rockets to get you back into space once you're done.
And you'd better have a very reliable craft. If your engine were to fail, or you ran out of fuel, you'd be gliding. Which would normally be fine, but you'd be getting deeper and deeper into the atmosphere of the planet, the pressure would go up and up and up -- you'd be gliding better and better, but eventually the pressure would crush your plane. Oops.
everything I "know" about flight is wrong?
on
Flying on Mars
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
It's a beautiful challenge - how to fly in a situation where everything you "know" about flight is wrong.
Everything we know about flight is wrong? Hardly!
Did you even read the article?
The laws of physics are the laws of physics -- and they're the same on Mars. Yes, you'll need larger wings, and will have to fly *much* faster than you would here -- but 1) we can easily calculate all these factors (like Austin did) and 2) we've already got planes here on Earth that fly in somewhat similar conditions (up at 100k feet -- not 1/3rd Earth gravity, but the same weak atmosphere (well, it's not mostly CO2, but there are realms where the Reynold's numbers are the same.)
The only way that `everything we know about flight' could be wrong is if `everything we know about flight' corresponds to `Give it full power, wait a few seconds as it accelerates, and then pull back on the stick at 60 knots, and your Cub will take off'. Sorry, but we do know more than this. If we didn't, this article wouldn't even be here.
Other/. posters have commented about the horrible `storms' on Mars. I'm not so sure they'd be a problem for anything but a blimp -- sure, the wind may be blowing at 200 knots -- but that's only 1/3rd of your cruising speed (and only 20 knots on your Earth-calibrated air speed indicator -- it wouldn't even faze a guy in a spacesuit walking on the surface.) Hell, a 400 knot headwind might allow you to take off and land in a reasonably short space:)
What would be even neater than flying in Mars would be flying in Venus or Jupiter. As I understand it, Venus has a thicker atmosphere, so you could fly slower and turn quicker. Jupiter is a gas giant, so as you get deeper and deeper the atmosphere would get thicker and thicker -- of course, the pressure goes up too, and since it's mostly hydrogen, you're likely to have a much higher pressure than you'd find on Earth before the atmosphere would be as `thick' as it is here, but it would certainly be doable.
Well, do you have a degree of any sort? Any college at all?
If yes, then you may be pretty close to a CS degree already. One year probably won't work, but two years is probably doable.
If no, you've got well more than 30 semester hours of stuff like english, math, history, philosophy, etc. ahead of you, and everybody else had to take these classes to get their degree, why should you be any different?
The biggest problem in the first case is going to be dependancies -- CS 302 requires CS 301, CS 303 requires CS 302, etc. Even if you can place out of several classes (which may not be as easy as you think), many (most?) later classes won't have such tests.
Your best bet is probably night school, or perhaps some sort of correspendance school. If you really do have the skills (and already have the non-CS stuff taken care of), then taking the classes won't take much of your time. If you don't have the non-CS stuff, this is going to take a long time...
And of course, as you already know, in this field a degree is nice, but it's hardly essential. An impressive resume is much more important than a degree...
... but then the story tells how the companies want it fixed! (even if they won't take the time to fix it right, they DO copy over a correct copy of the web site. Obviously they DO care.)
If they didn't care, they'd never correct it -- they'd leave the defacement up forever.
Some more appropriate/accurate titles would be :
Some Companies Don't Care enough about Web Defacement
Some Companies Care about Web Defacement, but won't Fix It Right
or
Some Companies Care about Web Defacement, but when they `fix' it they just fix the defacement itself and don't take the time needed to keep it from happening again
Of course, once somebody read one of these more `accurate' titles, they'd go `duh! and this is news? We all knew that already!'
I forgot to quote everything I'd meant to quote. Upon noticing, I was going to correct it, but then I figured that most people would understand my point. Obviously I was in error...
And secondly, Apple makes the lion's share of their money from HARDWARE sales. Their position in the industry is unique,
You may not be aware of this, but Sun is in a similar situation. They do make software, but they practically give it away.
Unlike Apple, however, their flagship software product (Solaris) is available both for their hardware (Sparc) AND for x86. Not many people use the x86 version, but it does exist.
Slashdot Mirror
And according to what other posters said, it sounds like they WILL be going out of business, sooner rather than later (because they're losing lots of money.)
However, I am unaware of any tax like the `DAT tax' that applies to Data CDRs. If you wish to convince me that such a tax also exists, you'll need to provide some references. I'm talking about the USA -- if you're talking about another country, then say so.
I am aware that analog media (cassette tapes, vcr tapes, etc.) has no such taxes but that there are agreements between the media producers and the RIAA, MPAA, BMI or some similar organization so they get paid a certain amount per blank tape, so the net effect is the same as the `DAT tax'.
And this statement is totally false, as explained by another poster. There is no fundamental difference between Audio CDRs and Data CDRs -- except for a bit twiddled somewhere that says `This is an Audio CDR'. And many (most? all?) consumer grade audio CD recorders look for this bit, and won't work if it's not set. Sometimes you can disable this, or get around it (by switching disks in some models) but the difference IS there.If so, as much as I dislike this tax, then this isn't much of an argument. Very few mp3s end up on Audio CDRs, and even fewer on Audio DATs (unfortunately, as good as DATs are, they never really took off.) Why? Because, IF it's burned onto a CD at all, it's burned to Data CDs, which have no such tax. Audio CDRs cost several times as much as Data CDRs exactly because of this tax, therefore the only people who use them are typically those who must -- those who have audio burners (NOT computers!) that require them.
I imagine that there's a few people who downloaded music with Napster and then played it via their sound card and then recorded that with an Audio CDR device, but this number is almost certainly dwarfed by those who burned it directly on their computer -- it's cheaper, uses more common hardware, and delivers better quality.
Fission releases energy as electromagnetic repulsion overcomes the strong force. Requires atoms with lots of protons (more than iron has.)
Anti matter and matter obliterating each other releases energy from *everything*. The particles are totally destroyed, converted into energy. All the energy stored in any sort of bond, as well as any mass not created as part of a bond is released.
Fission and fusion convert less than 1% of the material into energy. Antimatter/matter anhillations convert 100% of the energy.
The battery is very nice -- it let it keep going even while we moved offices and lost power :)
Unfortunately, there's no info to get -- the box is locked solid.
Maybe there was some dump info sent to a vc somewhere -- but with the screen displaying X, I can't see it.
This is my work box, so I can't really have it crashing. It's easier to just go back to the stock 2.4.17 kernel and leave it at that. And the preempt stuff doesn't help it much anyways.
It crashes my machine occasionally. Dual p3/700 (so it's SMP -- which complicates matters.) Without the preempt patch, the box stays up for months at a time. With it, it seems to lock up hard after a few days.
So far, at least two crashes happened while burning a CD. I wonder if that's a coincidence ..
If I recall correctly, the movie was set to be released not very long after September 11th -- meaning it was very nearly done, if not completely done. Then September 11th came, and they decided to delay it. I don't know if it changed very much in that period ...
In any event, I doubt those who chose Beta over VHS got any sort of refund ...
As for still photographs, people have been putting cameras into R/C planes for decades now ...
Only if a domain is registered after a trademark is created do they start figuring out the purpose of the domain and such (and they usually side with the plaintifs, but that's another story.)
At least if you go through the courts, there's a good chance they won't undertand and will side for you due to that.
Last time I looked, the Loki games were all $50 each, whether you ordered them from Loki or you found then at EB. Maybe this has changed ...
It's fine and dandy for you to ask people not to buy Windows games -- and if everybody listened to you, the Windows game market would crumble tomorrow. However, truth is that very few people will honor this request, because they want the games, and while many of them may not like it, they're still willing to boot into Windows or go to another computer to play them.
If you want to port Windows games to Linux, and you want to make decent money doing this, then you need to get your Linux ports out at approximately the same time as the Windows version. In the game world, today's chart topper is tomorrow's bargain bin title, and the next day's `abandonwarez' (where you can't even buy it anymore -- the only place to get it is from some abandonwarez site or maybe Ebay or a garage sale.)
I understand that this is not as easy as it sounds, and that the problems are perhaps even more political than technical, but it IS the way things are.
Another suggestion -- if you can't get a Linux port out at approximately the same time as the Windows version, when you do get it out, also ship a stripped down Linux version that 1) costs a lot less and 2) only contains the Linux bits, and uses the data files on the Windows CD. Call it a `Linux Upgrade for Descent 3' (or whatever.) Where I'd be unwilling to pay $50 for Descent 3 for Linux now, I'd probably be willing to pay $10 so I can use my Windows version under Linux.
The news that they reported was NOT that somebody had invented a new perpetual motion machine. It was that somebody else was claiming to have done so, and since a big enough deal was made of it, it became news, no matter how `bogus' it was.
Reuters did do their part in showing that people were incredibly skeptical of this new invention.
Reuters could have taken the position of the patent office that perpetual motion machines are always bunk, but instead they decided to just report on the news as given, as well as giving conterpoints.
They weren't `taken' at all. They knew it was bunk.
By the time a Linux port is available, the Windows version has gone up and down the charts. The people who really wanted that game already bought it, finished it, and have moved on to the next game.
Now, if Loki could get Linux ports out the same day as the Windows version was released, things would be different ...
That might be a small part, but it's a very small part. You can find lots of good free Windows software too if you just look.Here's the real clincher -- as a Linux user, why would I pay $50 for a Linux version of Quake 3 when 1) the Windows version of Quake 3 is in the bargain bin for $10, and 2) I bought Quake many months ago (for Windows) when it first came out. And I only paid $30 for that!
I buy a lot of games. I enjoy them. I probably spend as much on game software as I do on hardware. I spend *much* less on OS's -- Windows 98 was around $100, and I spent that years ago (XP may run some games, but 98 runs all games. If all the computer is for is Windows games, 98 is what you want.)
Just because I didn't spend $200 on Linux, that doesn't magically give me $1000 to spend on games ...
What matters is that Philips owns the little `CD' logo, and can control how it's used. They have decided that since the copy protected CD's do not fit their specifications, their logo cannot be used with them. This ownership of the logo will not expire like a patent. (I assume it's a trademark?)
This will not stop the RIAA. What it may do is prompt them to stop including that logo -- and it's not like it matters anyways. Back when CD's were new, maybe it [the logo] did make people happier that the logo was there. Now that most people are familiar with CD's, I doubt it matters at all.
(Of course, it may eventually mean that this logo means `Unprotected CD. Fair Use rights not restricted' and so it'll be a good thing to have on your CDs again.)
As far as Phillips making a copier that can copy these CDs goes, this really has nothing to do with the logo. It may be interesting to see how the RIAA responds to that, however -- and if Philips does actually make it and touts it's ability to copy `protected' CDs, I'd fully expect the RIAA to at least try to get them with the DMCA.
Do CD copiers `rip' the CD digitally like a computer does, or do they just take the analog output and write it to the destination disc? If it's the latter, I'd fully expect CD copiers to copy most `protected' CD's right now. (What's probably the case is that there are CD Audio copiers that work in each way.)
Even so, few people would use it or buy it. I only have two friends with CD Audio burners -- both musicians. Most of the rest of my friends have computers with CD Burners. And at least one of the musicians never uses this drive anymore -- he now uses the one on his computer, even for his own music.
The difference is important for several reasons --
Computer CDR drives are cheap.
Audio CDR drives cost a lot more
Computer CDR drives use cheap media.
Audio CDR drives use expensive media. (The media is exactly the same, but the Audio blanks have a bit set that says `Ok for Audio', which most Audio CDR drives check for and require. Along with this bit being set, there's a tax being payed to somebody (RIAA?) that greatly increases the cost of the blank.)
Computer CDR drives can do more than write audio tracks -- they can write audio tracks, data tracks, copy disks completely, etc. Even for writing straight audio tracks, the computer often makes this easier and faster (you're not limited to 1x) than the Audio CDR drive.
Anybody know what the ratio of `Data CDR media' vs `Audio CDR media' sold in the US is? I'll bet it's at least 30:1.
And you'd better have a very reliable craft. If your engine were to fail, or you ran out of fuel, you'd be gliding. Which would normally be fine, but you'd be getting deeper and deeper into the atmosphere of the planet, the pressure would go up and up and up -- you'd be gliding better and better, but eventually the pressure would crush your plane. Oops.
Did you even read the article?
The laws of physics are the laws of physics -- and they're the same on Mars. Yes, you'll need larger wings, and will have to fly *much* faster than you would here -- but 1) we can easily calculate all these factors (like Austin did) and 2) we've already got planes here on Earth that fly in somewhat similar conditions (up at 100k feet -- not 1/3rd Earth gravity, but the same weak atmosphere (well, it's not mostly CO2, but there are realms where the Reynold's numbers are the same.)
The only way that `everything we know about flight' could be wrong is if `everything we know about flight' corresponds to `Give it full power, wait a few seconds as it accelerates, and then pull back on the stick at 60 knots, and your Cub will take off'. Sorry, but we do know more than this. If we didn't, this article wouldn't even be here.
Other /. posters have commented about the horrible `storms' on Mars. I'm not so sure they'd be a problem for anything but a blimp -- sure, the wind may be blowing at 200 knots -- but that's only 1/3rd of your cruising speed (and only 20 knots on your Earth-calibrated air speed indicator -- it wouldn't even faze a guy in a spacesuit walking on the surface.) Hell, a 400 knot headwind might allow you to take off and land in a reasonably short space :)
What would be even neater than flying in Mars would be flying in Venus or Jupiter. As I understand it, Venus has a thicker atmosphere, so you could fly slower and turn quicker. Jupiter is a gas giant, so as you get deeper and deeper the atmosphere would get thicker and thicker -- of course, the pressure goes up too, and since it's mostly hydrogen, you're likely to have a much higher pressure than you'd find on Earth before the atmosphere would be as `thick' as it is here, but it would certainly be doable.
If yes, then you may be pretty close to a CS degree already. One year probably won't work, but two years is probably doable.
If no, you've got well more than 30 semester hours of stuff like english, math, history, philosophy, etc. ahead of you, and everybody else had to take these classes to get their degree, why should you be any different?
The biggest problem in the first case is going to be dependancies -- CS 302 requires CS 301, CS 303 requires CS 302, etc. Even if you can place out of several classes (which may not be as easy as you think), many (most?) later classes won't have such tests.
Your best bet is probably night school, or perhaps some sort of correspendance school. If you really do have the skills (and already have the non-CS stuff taken care of), then taking the classes won't take much of your time. If you don't have the non-CS stuff, this is going to take a long time ...
And of course, as you already know, in this field a degree is nice, but it's hardly essential. An impressive resume is much more important than a degree ...
If they didn't care, they'd never correct it -- they'd leave the defacement up forever.
Some more appropriate/accurate titles would be :
or Of course, once somebody read one of these more `accurate' titles, they'd go `duh! and this is news? We all knew that already!'Unlike Apple, however, their flagship software product (Solaris) is available both for their hardware (Sparc) AND for x86. Not many people use the x86 version, but it does exist.