Well, considering the point of the law raising the drinking age to 21 was to prevent car accidents, and it's highly unlikely that 20 year olds are driving to bars in Manhattan, it's not really violating the spirit of the law.
I do agree that in the future we may not have to pay a premium to get 'business class' type access that we do today.
That's the thing I don't agree with. The point of "business class" access is guaranteed reliability - The telephone was invented a long time ago, and they still won't guarantee it. Having to provide same-day service under penalty to everyone is just unfeasible.
I run servers on my cable modem, but I still use gmail for the email address I gave my boss, because their servers are more reliable than mine.
Even if people have these servers, they probably won't have redundant power supplies, access to multiple backbones, automatic backup, or uptime guarantees from the ISP.
Well, I frequently get references to information in journals that are difficult to get (even if that means they're not online and I'd have to go to the library). It takes me about 20 minutes to look up and copy the article in the library, so I'll spend 20 minutes finding it somewhere else...
Considering a WU takes 8 hours on the PS3, and my work day is longer than that, maybe I should start bringing the PS3 to work and using their free electricity.:)
I ran F@H for a couple days, but I lost interest in paying the electricity bill. I'd use it if it supported background downloading. I'd leave it on for the night whenever a new game demo/video came out.
The thing that irritates me about F@H on the PS3 is that it stops background downloads when it's running. When new game demos come out, I usually just start the download before I go to bed. After it finishes downloading, it's just sitting there.
They're not really just "turning around and selling the product." Even defining a specific target for a drug, the drug still has to be developed and put through the approval process. There's a lot of work between this sort of basic research and an actual product.
Nobody ever said being a huge monopoly wasn't good for the company. Having several smaller companies, of course, would be inefficient - but it is actually this inefficiency that leads to a better overall economy. That economy of scale that saves the huge company money ends up costing all of their raw material suppliers. Also, more people need to be hired to duplicate work that would otherwise be unnecessary, e.g. when two companies merge, they don't need two HR departments anymore, or for that matter two CEO's. While this might be better for the half that keeps the job, it's probably not best for the half that doesn't get one. You can't have a million Bill Gates, but you can have a lot of (whoever the CEOs of all the Linux distro companies are). Overall, having wealth spread around more evenly may be better for the economy. When you're the only employer in town, you can pay your workers whatever you think won't make them leave town.
"The ideal firm size is the theoretically most competitive size for any company, in a given industry, at a given time; which should ideally correspond with the highest possible per-unit profit."
Monopolies, of course, being the companies with the highest possible per-unit profit. However, having the highest possible per-unit profit isn't necessarily the best for the economy as a whole, if you're squeezing your suppliers and customers on both ends. In fact, profit is probably itself actually bad for the economy as a whole.
Also, I have to admit that I didn't read the Wikipedia entry before posting, I read it as I was posting, so I didn't get to the end until now, where it says, "A service-based economy will again favor smaller firms, as services have a limited economy of scale." So, I guess I've just been wasting my time. Also, I don't think that this article even applies, considering that it's only about individual firms. Even a monopoly has an ideal size. It doesn't have anything to with the ideal number of firms.
Not being able to run large companies would destroy our economy, but maybe that would be a good thing, after the economy recovers. Having a bunch of competitors doing the same thing ends up working better than having one huge monopoly, maybe.
There probably isn't any GHB in the soap - which would make sense, if the more accurate test gave a negative. However, GHB is very similar chemically to soap. A soap is essentially a fatty acid salt, and GHB is a fatty acid salt with a terminal -OH. So, a soap product containing any sort of alcohol, or particularly any soap made from hydroxyl-terminated acids has all the same functionality as GHB, and will likely give a false positive, although I'm not familiar with how this particular test operates.
I've heard that's not really the way AACS works. There are a small number of keys, say 100. Each player has a different combination of these keys. To revoke a player, you're not revoking a key, you're revoking a combination of keys, which can be done by changing a hash and generating a single key from that, so any number of players can be revoked without having to add additional data to the disc.
I dunno. I live in a fairly small market (Rochester, NY). ABC, NBC, and CBS OTA broadcasts are 1080i. The NBC affiliate also has an additional 480p weather channel. FOX is 720p with an additional 480p music channel. PBS has four stations (one 1080i and four 480p).
Also, people forget the only people who need a converter box are people who watch TV with rabbit ears. They probably aren't going to spend the extra cash for HD sets.
well, I'm not who you asked, but I play games on it (VF5, oblivion, motorstorm, RFOM), all the downloadable games. I don't have any BD movies yet, but DVD's really look like shit on a large TV set. I watch HD movies over cable, and it's a huge difference, even with the obvious overcompression. All I've really seen is a concert BD from my gf, but I'm definitely looking forward to BD movies.
BTW. I hear a lot about people who go to a friend's house who has a wii, they play it... "That's really cool, i want one." It's pretty cheap, so when they become available, maybe they'll get one, if they remember. However, I've had friends come over, and play Virtua Fighter 5 or R:FOM on the PS3, which gets more of a "HOLY SHIT" response. Then, they hear it's $600, and that's pretty much it. However, when the price comes down, they'll definitely remember it.
When the PS3 first came out, I thought it was a pointless piece of shit. When the Wii came out, I really wanted that. After several months of trying to get one, I gave up and bought a PS3. (Sorry, buying the 360 never even crossed my mind.) I thought it was OK, but I still wanted a Wii.
A week after I bought the PS3, I went to someone's house, they had a Wii. It was pretty cool. But, I was there for about six hours, and in that time, I became bored with it. The motion sensing gimmick got boring fast, and it didn't really work that well. After spending a week playing the PS3, the Wii graphics were appallingly poor. After my Wii experience, I'm 100% satisfied in my decision to not wait.
I can't really speak to the 360 vs. the PS3, but the ability to play HD movies on my 61" 1080p TV set definitely makes up for any difference in price.
Slashdot Mirror
Key Lime Pie.
Well, considering the point of the law raising the drinking age to 21 was to prevent car accidents, and it's highly unlikely that 20 year olds are driving to bars in Manhattan, it's not really violating the spirit of the law.
Unless your sunglasses are made of salt, they block IR.
I haven't tried - all my PS1 games got stolen in college. But, you can download PS1 games and play them, at least.
did you forget the sarcasm tag, or are you saying that 20 year olds drinking beer is what's wrong with society?
I do agree that in the future we may not have to pay a premium to get 'business class' type access that we do today.
That's the thing I don't agree with. The point of "business class" access is guaranteed reliability - The telephone was invented a long time ago, and they still won't guarantee it. Having to provide same-day service under penalty to everyone is just unfeasible.
I run servers on my cable modem, but I still use gmail for the email address I gave my boss, because their servers are more reliable than mine.
Even if people have these servers, they probably won't have redundant power supplies, access to multiple backbones, automatic backup, or uptime guarantees from the ISP.
The GP was talking about the former. The 2600 was never $1000. /pedantry
Only because they didn't have ebay when it came out.
We're too busy working.
Well, I frequently get references to information in journals that are difficult to get (even if that means they're not online and I'd have to go to the library). It takes me about 20 minutes to look up and copy the article in the library, so I'll spend 20 minutes finding it somewhere else...
Considering a WU takes 8 hours on the PS3, and my work day is longer than that, maybe I should start bringing the PS3 to work and using their free electricity. :)
I ran F@H for a couple days, but I lost interest in paying the electricity bill. I'd use it if it supported background downloading. I'd leave it on for the night whenever a new game demo/video came out.
The thing that irritates me about F@H on the PS3 is that it stops background downloads when it's running. When new game demos come out, I usually just start the download before I go to bed. After it finishes downloading, it's just sitting there.
They're not really just "turning around and selling the product." Even defining a specific target for a drug, the drug still has to be developed and put through the approval process. There's a lot of work between this sort of basic research and an actual product.
Nobody ever said being a huge monopoly wasn't good for the company. Having several smaller companies, of course, would be inefficient - but it is actually this inefficiency that leads to a better overall economy. That economy of scale that saves the huge company money ends up costing all of their raw material suppliers. Also, more people need to be hired to duplicate work that would otherwise be unnecessary, e.g. when two companies merge, they don't need two HR departments anymore, or for that matter two CEO's. While this might be better for the half that keeps the job, it's probably not best for the half that doesn't get one. You can't have a million Bill Gates, but you can have a lot of (whoever the CEOs of all the Linux distro companies are). Overall, having wealth spread around more evenly may be better for the economy. When you're the only employer in town, you can pay your workers whatever you think won't make them leave town.
"The ideal firm size is the theoretically most competitive size for any company, in a given industry, at a given time; which should ideally correspond with the highest possible per-unit profit."
Monopolies, of course, being the companies with the highest possible per-unit profit. However, having the highest possible per-unit profit isn't necessarily the best for the economy as a whole, if you're squeezing your suppliers and customers on both ends. In fact, profit is probably itself actually bad for the economy as a whole.
Also, I have to admit that I didn't read the Wikipedia entry before posting, I read it as I was posting, so I didn't get to the end until now, where it says, "A service-based economy will again favor smaller firms, as services have a limited economy of scale." So, I guess I've just been wasting my time. Also, I don't think that this article even applies, considering that it's only about individual firms. Even a monopoly has an ideal size. It doesn't have anything to with the ideal number of firms.
Not being able to run large companies would destroy our economy, but maybe that would be a good thing, after the economy recovers. Having a bunch of competitors doing the same thing ends up working better than having one huge monopoly, maybe.
There probably isn't any GHB in the soap - which would make sense, if the more accurate test gave a negative. However, GHB is very similar chemically to soap. A soap is essentially a fatty acid salt, and GHB is a fatty acid salt with a terminal -OH. So, a soap product containing any sort of alcohol, or particularly any soap made from hydroxyl-terminated acids has all the same functionality as GHB, and will likely give a false positive, although I'm not familiar with how this particular test operates.
Well, GHB is soap, sort of. It's not surprising that soap tests positive, or even that the rate of false positives when testing soap would be 100%.
According to a recent episode of Frontline, oddly enough, the last company that was making TV sets in the USA was Samsung.
I've heard that's not really the way AACS works. There are a small number of keys, say 100. Each player has a different combination of these keys. To revoke a player, you're not revoking a key, you're revoking a combination of keys, which can be done by changing a hash and generating a single key from that, so any number of players can be revoked without having to add additional data to the disc.
No matter how much cheaper HDTV sets get, SD sets will still be cheaper than that.
I dunno. I live in a fairly small market (Rochester, NY). ABC, NBC, and CBS OTA broadcasts are 1080i. The NBC affiliate also has an additional 480p weather channel. FOX is 720p with an additional 480p music channel. PBS has four stations (one 1080i and four 480p).
Also, people forget the only people who need a converter box are people who watch TV with rabbit ears. They probably aren't going to spend the extra cash for HD sets.
well, I'm not who you asked, but I play games on it (VF5, oblivion, motorstorm, RFOM), all the downloadable games. I don't have any BD movies yet, but DVD's really look like shit on a large TV set. I watch HD movies over cable, and it's a huge difference, even with the obvious overcompression. All I've really seen is a concert BD from my gf, but I'm definitely looking forward to BD movies.
BTW. I hear a lot about people who go to a friend's house who has a wii, they play it... "That's really cool, i want one." It's pretty cheap, so when they become available, maybe they'll get one, if they remember. However, I've had friends come over, and play Virtua Fighter 5 or R:FOM on the PS3, which gets more of a "HOLY SHIT" response. Then, they hear it's $600, and that's pretty much it. However, when the price comes down, they'll definitely remember it.
When the PS3 first came out, I thought it was a pointless piece of shit. When the Wii came out, I really wanted that. After several months of trying to get one, I gave up and bought a PS3. (Sorry, buying the 360 never even crossed my mind.) I thought it was OK, but I still wanted a Wii.
A week after I bought the PS3, I went to someone's house, they had a Wii. It was pretty cool. But, I was there for about six hours, and in that time, I became bored with it. The motion sensing gimmick got boring fast, and it didn't really work that well. After spending a week playing the PS3, the Wii graphics were appallingly poor. After my Wii experience, I'm 100% satisfied in my decision to not wait.
I can't really speak to the 360 vs. the PS3, but the ability to play HD movies on my 61" 1080p TV set definitely makes up for any difference in price.