Because ultimately, nobody wants to watch 168 hours of television on a particular topic every week, and the people who like one kind of thing like other predictable sorts of things. Now, if you can afford to keep 168 hours of television programming going every week, with some of it making no money at all due to demographic dilution, so be it. But if you're running a business that wants to make money, you need more variety in your programming.
Certainly I disagree with SyFy doing professional wrestling and all the other atrocities they're committing these days, but at least it makes business sense. Ultimately, the best thing we can hope for is having a lot of other channels trying to do sci fi on their line-ups to take advantage of SyFy's weaknesses. One channel being the place for sci fi was never going to work out. A lot of people would agree with me, I think, when I say that the 90s were great for sci fi, and back then there was sci fi on all sorts of channels. Shows had to compete head-to-head for the same demographics in the same sort of time slots, and everybody won. With just one sci fi channel, you end up with other networks ignoring the whole sci fi viewership, and that one sci fi channel competing with itself. It's far easier to pare back to just a small number of shows in that case, so the demographics don't get spread over too many shows.
It's definitely more clean than the last version. I only see my name once at the top of the screen, so I will probably get confused less often about which me to click on. Let's hope it's less buggy and more snappy. I do sort of miss the original site though.
Yeah, honestly I'd rather they just put us through metal detectors alone, while we still have our shoes on. The occasional bombing from terrorists is such a minor threat compared to all the other things that kill people every single day. Toss in some Israeli-style profiling, starting right when you drive into the airport, and again and again before you even get to the checkpoint, and we'll be just fine.
I don't want security, I just want hassle-free travel. Give me liberty or give me death. No other option is acceptable.
No no, see, Wikileaks wanted to frame themselves! That way, they get more media attention, and if they can convince a few people that it was a conspiracy by governments and financial institutions to frame Wikileaks, that's an even bigger score.
One would have been plenty. If you had anything illegal on there, the police don't have the capacity of getting at it. If you had financial or private items that could harm you financially or socially, there are thousands of other people's hard drives out there that weren't erased at all, and yours isn't worth any criminal's time.
While I agree with you, it's an urban legend that data written over can be magically recovered, there is one interesting fact about the government that makes it seem like it can. NIST, the DoD, and the various military branches of the US have given guidelines on preventing data remanence. This can only mean one of three things:
1) They fell for the same urban legend, or at the very least, think it's better to be safe than sorry. 2) There's truth to the theory, they know how to do it, and assume foreign governments can too. 3) They want everyone to think they can do it, to force the enemy to waste money trying to achieve the same capacity, or to make the enemy more paranoid (and overlook other ways the can gather data).
Probably some combination of all three. But the point is, the government now prefers to degauss or destroy, rather than overwrite. Take that however you will. But unless you're trading in nuclear secrets, nobody's ever going to try to get at your overwritten data with a magnetometer. One overwrite is plenty.
The deposit they require covers the cost of the drive. If somebody destroys the drive in the process, it's no big deal. They shouldn't have any problem letting anybody disassemble the drive. Who cares, if you can get your data back, right?
Yeah, the money offered is rather pathetic, and the rules explicitly prevent anyone from using anything but software to get the data back. Obviously, software alone isn't going to get data back. Yes, you need to disassemble the drive if you want to get at the raw magnetism of the bits.
Of course, has anybody actually ever done such a thing? I'm sure most of us know about the US government's various guidelines on multiple-pass hard drive erasures, and of course now they no longer say such a thing is acceptable... a drive must be degaussed or physically destroyed in the case of certain kinds of classified information.
However, is the government saying this because it's actually possible to get data off of a single-pass overwritten drive, or does the government merely want everyone else to believe that they can? It's really a moot point anyway. Nobody cares enough about the your data to take a magnetometer to your overwritten hard drive.
Yeah... except Blizzard doesn't want WoW players to cancel their subscriptions to go play World of Starcraft. Their big money-maker is people's monthly subscription fees, not a one-time payment and free use of battle.net.
But, on principle, and probably in reality too, a Starcraft mod that throws around some other Blizzard trademarks isn't really a big deal for Blizzard's bottom line.
Personally I think Cook and Schiller will keep the trains running, and Ives will be spokesman (he's got that watchable quality). Forstall will probably also have an increasing public profile, but in terms of products he'll probably remain with iOS stuff. Steve put so many good people in place around him, that Apple in the long run will be just fine no matter what. Obviously a succession plan in a company like Apple will have been in place for a long time, and with Steve Job's health problems in the past, he's definitely had more people in the spotlight with him recently, to get the public used to some of these guys.
I was taught in a materials science-type class years ago that glass used for ordinary bottles and jars and such has always had superior tensile strength to that of steel. So yeah, that particular bit of marketing isn't really that impressive. I guess if they made it stronger in other ways as well, maybe it's something.
Still, the only reason this made Slashdot is because people like their Star Trek references.
Chrome does make money for Google. It's set up to direct as many people to Google search as possible. Chrome may live on your hard drive, but it's basically just a web portal. Do anything other than click a bookmark or type in a URL, and you see Google ads. 4) Profit???
Google won't destroy Google the company, no. Google can destroy Chrome though, which in this context is the whole point. I like Chrome, I use Chrome (among other things). But if I go to a lot of sites that serve up only H.264 traffic, I'm going to start using Safari much more often. If Google also makes a WebM plug-in for Safari, I'm not going to do the reverse when I encounter WebM sites. I'll just keep using Safari.
Chrome had something big going for it, the ability to play H.264 and WebM. They were the one-browser-plays-all browser. Now, they've removed a feature, and added a feature to their competitors. Now Google is half a browser, and their competitors are one-browser-plays-all. How does that turn into a win for Google?
Slashdot Mirror
Because ultimately, nobody wants to watch 168 hours of television on a particular topic every week, and the people who like one kind of thing like other predictable sorts of things. Now, if you can afford to keep 168 hours of television programming going every week, with some of it making no money at all due to demographic dilution, so be it. But if you're running a business that wants to make money, you need more variety in your programming.
Certainly I disagree with SyFy doing professional wrestling and all the other atrocities they're committing these days, but at least it makes business sense. Ultimately, the best thing we can hope for is having a lot of other channels trying to do sci fi on their line-ups to take advantage of SyFy's weaknesses. One channel being the place for sci fi was never going to work out. A lot of people would agree with me, I think, when I say that the 90s were great for sci fi, and back then there was sci fi on all sorts of channels. Shows had to compete head-to-head for the same demographics in the same sort of time slots, and everybody won. With just one sci fi channel, you end up with other networks ignoring the whole sci fi viewership, and that one sci fi channel competing with itself. It's far easier to pare back to just a small number of shows in that case, so the demographics don't get spread over too many shows.
SGU was good because it *didn't* follow the SG mantra. I'm not a Stargate fan. I loved SGU.
It was your Deep Space Nine. It's a shame Stargate fans weren't able to expand their horizons a bit and embrace something new.
And Defying Gravity.
In fact, there was an episode based just on that premise, that the Serenity was purposefully staying away from the usual shipping lanes.
Nah, I think he means episodes that take place before the movie, but after the series.
I'm 100% certain AC meant the impact of the reaver harpoon to his chest, not the impact of the ship with the hangar.
At least I hope my VOIP call to 911 gets priority over somebody's torrent.
I was expecting a Earth Final Conflict clip. The moon, after all, hid the alien mothership and a secret colony.
The alleged military shuttle is supposed to be a space bomber.
There's certainly been plenty of classified payloads put up into orbit, as well, of course.
Still, I like to at least hope there's no nukes in space.
Yeah, our relationship with the Saudis is kind of why Al Qaeda hates us, in fact.
Apparently Slashdot is no longer News for Nerds or Stuff that Matters!
It's definitely more clean than the last version. I only see my name once at the top of the screen, so I will probably get confused less often about which me to click on. Let's hope it's less buggy and more snappy. I do sort of miss the original site though.
Yeah, honestly I'd rather they just put us through metal detectors alone, while we still have our shoes on. The occasional bombing from terrorists is such a minor threat compared to all the other things that kill people every single day. Toss in some Israeli-style profiling, starting right when you drive into the airport, and again and again before you even get to the checkpoint, and we'll be just fine.
I don't want security, I just want hassle-free travel. Give me liberty or give me death. No other option is acceptable.
Tron!
HTML Six Vegas 2
Wait... that has numbers, crap.
No no, see, Wikileaks wanted to frame themselves! That way, they get more media attention, and if they can convince a few people that it was a conspiracy by governments and financial institutions to frame Wikileaks, that's an even bigger score.
One would have been plenty. If you had anything illegal on there, the police don't have the capacity of getting at it. If you had financial or private items that could harm you financially or socially, there are thousands of other people's hard drives out there that weren't erased at all, and yours isn't worth any criminal's time.
While I agree with you, it's an urban legend that data written over can be magically recovered, there is one interesting fact about the government that makes it seem like it can. NIST, the DoD, and the various military branches of the US have given guidelines on preventing data remanence. This can only mean one of three things:
1) They fell for the same urban legend, or at the very least, think it's better to be safe than sorry.
2) There's truth to the theory, they know how to do it, and assume foreign governments can too.
3) They want everyone to think they can do it, to force the enemy to waste money trying to achieve the same capacity, or to make the enemy more paranoid (and overlook other ways the can gather data).
Probably some combination of all three. But the point is, the government now prefers to degauss or destroy, rather than overwrite. Take that however you will. But unless you're trading in nuclear secrets, nobody's ever going to try to get at your overwritten data with a magnetometer. One overwrite is plenty.
The deposit they require covers the cost of the drive. If somebody destroys the drive in the process, it's no big deal. They shouldn't have any problem letting anybody disassemble the drive. Who cares, if you can get your data back, right?
Yeah, the money offered is rather pathetic, and the rules explicitly prevent anyone from using anything but software to get the data back. Obviously, software alone isn't going to get data back. Yes, you need to disassemble the drive if you want to get at the raw magnetism of the bits.
Of course, has anybody actually ever done such a thing? I'm sure most of us know about the US government's various guidelines on multiple-pass hard drive erasures, and of course now they no longer say such a thing is acceptable... a drive must be degaussed or physically destroyed in the case of certain kinds of classified information.
However, is the government saying this because it's actually possible to get data off of a single-pass overwritten drive, or does the government merely want everyone else to believe that they can? It's really a moot point anyway. Nobody cares enough about the your data to take a magnetometer to your overwritten hard drive.
Yeah... except Blizzard doesn't want WoW players to cancel their subscriptions to go play World of Starcraft. Their big money-maker is people's monthly subscription fees, not a one-time payment and free use of battle.net.
But, on principle, and probably in reality too, a Starcraft mod that throws around some other Blizzard trademarks isn't really a big deal for Blizzard's bottom line.
Personally I think Cook and Schiller will keep the trains running, and Ives will be spokesman (he's got that watchable quality). Forstall will probably also have an increasing public profile, but in terms of products he'll probably remain with iOS stuff. Steve put so many good people in place around him, that Apple in the long run will be just fine no matter what. Obviously a succession plan in a company like Apple will have been in place for a long time, and with Steve Job's health problems in the past, he's definitely had more people in the spotlight with him recently, to get the public used to some of these guys.
The math is rather trivial, no different than the rest of the game.
I was taught in a materials science-type class years ago that glass used for ordinary bottles and jars and such has always had superior tensile strength to that of steel. So yeah, that particular bit of marketing isn't really that impressive. I guess if they made it stronger in other ways as well, maybe it's something.
Still, the only reason this made Slashdot is because people like their Star Trek references.
Chrome does make money for Google. It's set up to direct as many people to Google search as possible. Chrome may live on your hard drive, but it's basically just a web portal. Do anything other than click a bookmark or type in a URL, and you see Google ads.
4) Profit???
Google won't destroy Google the company, no. Google can destroy Chrome though, which in this context is the whole point. I like Chrome, I use Chrome (among other things). But if I go to a lot of sites that serve up only H.264 traffic, I'm going to start using Safari much more often. If Google also makes a WebM plug-in for Safari, I'm not going to do the reverse when I encounter WebM sites. I'll just keep using Safari.
Chrome had something big going for it, the ability to play H.264 and WebM. They were the one-browser-plays-all browser. Now, they've removed a feature, and added a feature to their competitors. Now Google is half a browser, and their competitors are one-browser-plays-all. How does that turn into a win for Google?