if you're dumping windows, you no longer have a need for those games.
No-one ever has a need for games (or at least, only under very specific circumstances that applies to a very tiny minority).
Linux, as it exists today, is a philosophical choice. I'm not supporting Redmond or any of the companies that butter their bread using that damnable product.
I bet you're still supporting illegal (if it were run in America) working conditions and child slave labour by having a computer (if you own a computer solely made in America, sorry for the incorrect assumption). Compared with Chinese working conditions, Microsoft is a very small evil. But most people here refuse to consider that.
I'm not saying you have to refuse to support all the evils in the business world. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency when it comes to which evil you'll support with computers.
Computers are for whatever you want them to be. They can be for serious work, they can be for games, they can be an expensive type-writer. Whatever you want. They aren't just for one specific thing. Your computer might be, but not mine.
My point w/ Marvel and DC is that they are the biggies. If their products online are free crap as industry leaders this doesn't bode well for the chance of pay per view online distrobution of quality and popular comic books in the near future.
They may be industry leaders in the print comics, but in online comics, they're nobody. IMO what they do, only matters for what the other print dinosaurs do. Webcomics do exist, and I doubt very much they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. I'm personally not that certain with print comics.
There are big differences here. The print format has the giant advantage that you tend to see comics other than your "favorites," because you can't help but read those nearby; you may get exposed to lots of artists including a great one or two. I would never have known a damn thing about newspaper comics if I had started reading them online.
most of the webcomics i've read aren't remotely funny, interesting or worth the webspace
You're right.
this is so derivative unlike those original paper comics. And yet, you read them. They must be doing something right.
how many fucking comics do we need about, some loser with some stupid talking furry animal.
along with all those stupid chars that you couldn't care less about?
If DC/Marvel had a decent online presence and started making original comics again, Keenspot and the rest of the webcomic industry would be hard-pressed.
I can see them having an online presence before they start actually make original comics. But even if they did do both, I just can't see them handling the sort of comicsI've come to enjoy, so I doubt very much Keenspot would be threatened by them.
I'm not surprised to see this article here, but if you click here you'll find a good disection of the piece. Here's a small snippet that summarises the post:
Boxer's research would barely qualify for a Freshman Comp essay, much less a piece of journalism in a newspaper of record. She seems to have drawn her information off of several Comics Journal articles, read Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics, and looked at the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards.
Well, at least she dipped her toe into webcomics before declaring it a failed experiment.
I found that blog post (yes! It's a blog post! Oh noes!) much more interesting (and informative as well as correct) then the actual news paper article itself.
If I was in the UK I'd be calling someone up just to say "bomb" and "Bush" in the same sentence. If they want to mark me as a terrorist, they can go right ahead. I'll protect me freedoms and liberties, and they won't be able to scare me that easily.
Thankfully nothing like that would ever happen in Australia. We haven't invented the telephone yet.
If you've got nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any objection to select government agencies/individuals listening to what you whisper in your lover's ear. On the other hand, if you're a member of Al Queda, I could see why you might have a problem with this idea.
I don't think the Al Queda will be whispering terrorist plans into their lover's ears. So why should they care?
If you've got nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any objection to select government agencies/individuals placing cameras in your shower. On the other hand, if you're a member of Al Queda, I could see why you might have a problem with this idea.
Are you implying that all Al Queda have small dicks?
Can't they simply close down their "US" webpages and servers, and re-open them up in a more friendly country, and not ask people if they're from the US or not?
Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them?
They can. And other "reporters" can comment on this, with SATIRE, if they so choose. Don't you love how freedom of speech works? Everyone can have their say in this matter.
the trick is to have your car be within safety regs. If the safety regs say 10% and you're booked for doing 63 in a 60 zone, you're safe. If the safety regs say you can have a margin of error of 5% and you do 63 in a 60 zone you're safe. In fact, you have to get down to a pretty small percentage (or a very slow speed) to have 63 not be okay!
Yes, I do drive. I am from Tasmania. I'm sick of hearing these half-arsed excuses.
Yeah but it's quite a bit different in places where you can't walk across the state in a day! This is like a 15th century welshman commenting on speeding tickets. You have no frame of reference. Up here, us car drivers (not horse and cart drivers!), speeding is much easier.
And for the mods on crack: yes, I'm kidding. Just some friendly cajoling between two fellow aussies;)
hat advice really helps when I'm trying to pass an 18-wheeler whose driver is nodding off.
Perhaps you should hang way back of the driver so that if he does anything unexpected you have a larger time to assess the risk and react.
Or when I'm in heavy traffic, and an ambulance comes up behind me and there's no clearance to pull to a different lane.
I recently saw this happen just yesterday! But it was a fire-truck. I did have enough room to move into the next lane, but the car behind me didn't. So the car behind me sped along, right past a police-car. The police-car could have reacted, and didn't. So I'm guessing that you are allowed to speed up, to get out of the way for them. Having said that, there is a reason you can challenge speeding fines. I've seen people do so, and not have to pay it (the reason they got off was because the camera didn't take into account the context of the situation, and the judge felt the context allowed the person to do the speed he was). But systems shouldn't be devised around exceptional circumstances like the one you suggested. That's why they have the check put in place, in allowing you to challenge a speeding ticket (and representing yourself so you don't have to pay for a lawyer).
Or when I'm minding my business on a one-lane highway, doing somewhere around the speed limit, and some drunk moron comes flying up behind me leaving me nowhere to go but forward in order to avoid being hit.
When this happens you must report it to the police immediately. In the best case scenario, you provide enough information for the drunk-driver to be charged. Worst-case scenario, you've laid down the foundation for a defence in speeding (and then challenge the ticket, if the American system is anything like the Australian one, you'll be given the benefit of the doubt).
Speeding cameras DO stop people from speeding (it's stopped me in any case). But they aren't fool-proof, which is why the system does have checks and balances. Take advantage of them!
I think anyone that wanted to fight it, easily could. Just grab a document saying speedo's can have a margin of error of 10%. They might have to provide evidence that their car is out by that much, but then you can just concede defeat and pay the damn fine.
It's sound in theory, and it looks like they're doing tests to ensure that it's sound in practice. I'm assuming it means that it's being done because it's more reliable/cheaper then the current method. I just don't want to see "2km over the limit" speeding tickets because of it, which it could most likely do.
As soon as I cross the border to Vic, I don't speed at all.
So the answer is "yes", they are very very trigger happy and in a lot of cases
Although it looks like it's serving it's function as a deterrant to speeding.
Look, I'm normally very cynical about red-light cameras, and speeding cameras (oh the cops are out issuing fines, I guess they're running a bit short of some cash this month). However recently (in New South Wales at the very least), a survey found that most people don't care about the monetary loss of a speeding fine, but do worry about the demerit point loss. So as a result, speeding fines were halved, while the demerit points were doubled (I looked for an online source of this, but couldn't find one. It did happen either earlier this year or very late last year).
Now I could be cynical and claim they must have been getting to much revenue. But I personally think it was made in good faith, and it helped restore my faith in the system (which I have VERY little faith for even now, ESPECIALLY in Sydney).
People hate speeding tickets, but the thing is. If you don't break the law* you won't have to suffer the consequences.
* To those who are getting booked for a couple of kilometers over the limit, I agree that is excessive.
Slashdot Mirror
if you're dumping windows, you no longer have a need for those games.
No-one ever has a need for games (or at least, only under very specific circumstances that applies to a very tiny minority).
Linux, as it exists today, is a philosophical choice. I'm not supporting Redmond or any of the companies that butter their bread using that damnable product.
I bet you're still supporting illegal (if it were run in America) working conditions and child slave labour by having a computer (if you own a computer solely made in America, sorry for the incorrect assumption). Compared with Chinese working conditions, Microsoft is a very small evil. But most people here refuse to consider that.
I'm not saying you have to refuse to support all the evils in the business world. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency when it comes to which evil you'll support with computers.
Computers are for serious work.
You're a parent aren't you? *rolls-eyes*
Computers are for whatever you want them to be. They can be for serious work, they can be for games, they can be an expensive type-writer. Whatever you want. They aren't just for one specific thing. Your computer might be, but not mine.
I just don't think people will pay for webcomics that have PREVIOUSLY been free
Faans did actually.
My point w/ Marvel and DC is that they are the biggies. If their products online are free crap as industry leaders this doesn't bode well for the chance of pay per view online distrobution of quality and popular comic books in the near future.
They may be industry leaders in the print comics, but in online comics, they're nobody. IMO what they do, only matters for what the other print dinosaurs do. Webcomics do exist, and I doubt very much they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. I'm personally not that certain with print comics.
Short of Marvel's dotComics, which are usually 6 month old storylines set into flash. There are not alot of comic books online.
I disagree*
because already they are free and I think that's the ONLY way anybody would be willing to be subjected to that experience.
Not too sure what you mean there, but if you're claiming people won't pay for webcomics, I'm sure these guys disagree.
There are big differences here. The print format has the giant advantage that you tend to see comics other than your "favorites," because you can't help but read those nearby; you may get exposed to lots of artists including a great one or two. I would never have known a damn thing about newspaper comics if I had started reading them online.
Those are advantages, but I think the benefits of online overcome them. For example many websites have links to other comics that the author enjoys. Some having free banner rotations on their pages. Which I think is a much better recommendation then it happens to just be there. Also if today's comic isn't exactly funny You can read whole archives which people are more inclined to do if it's for free.
IMO though, the distinction between online and newspaper comics will begin to fade, as more and more "webcomics" become syndicated by newspapers
most of the webcomics i've read aren't remotely funny, interesting or worth the webspace
You're right. this is so derivative unlike those original paper comics. And yet, you read them. They must be doing something right.
how many fucking comics do we need about, some loser with some stupid talking furry animal. along with all those stupid chars that you couldn't care less about?
Oh I agree I don't know how anyone could care about these characters
of course don't forget the utter lack of good artwork for most of them Agreed. These hacks should be shot for the good of man-kind.
On the other hand, I believe having real comic books published online would be a boon for the industry.
They have for quite some time now. They're certainly nothing new (unless by "real" you meant the many rehashed comics from the 1930s.
If DC/Marvel had a decent online presence and started making original comics again, Keenspot and the rest of the webcomic industry would be hard-pressed.
I can see them having an online presence before they start actually make original comics. But even if they did do both, I just can't see them handling the sort of comics I've come to enjoy, so I doubt very much Keenspot would be threatened by them.
I'm not surprised to see this article here, but if you click here you'll find a good disection of the piece. Here's a small snippet that summarises the post:
Boxer's research would barely qualify for a Freshman Comp essay, much less a piece of journalism in a newspaper of record. She seems to have drawn her information off of several Comics Journal articles, read Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics, and looked at the Web Cartoonists Choice Awards.
Well, at least she dipped her toe into webcomics before declaring it a failed experiment.
I found that blog post (yes! It's a blog post! Oh noes!) much more interesting (and informative as well as correct) then the actual news paper article itself.
Hell, MS has problems with people using their own name
If I was in the UK I'd be calling someone up just to say "bomb" and "Bush" in the same sentence. If they want to mark me as a terrorist, they can go right ahead. I'll protect me freedoms and liberties, and they won't be able to scare me that easily.
Thankfully nothing like that would ever happen in Australia. We haven't invented the telephone yet.
If you've got nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any objection to select government agencies/individuals listening to what you whisper in your lover's ear. On the other hand, if you're a member of Al Queda, I could see why you might have a problem with this idea.
I don't think the Al Queda will be whispering terrorist plans into their lover's ears. So why should they care?
If you've got nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any objection to select government agencies/individuals placing cameras in your shower. On the other hand, if you're a member of Al Queda, I could see why you might have a problem with this idea.
Are you implying that all Al Queda have small dicks?
Can't they simply close down their "US" webpages and servers, and re-open them up in a more friendly country, and not ask people if they're from the US or not?
The results of pollution can be seen in the increase of skin cancers and asthma in America
Sounds like more job opportunities for pharmacies, doctors, nurses, cleaners, etc. At least Bush is being consistent.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide some reporters piss off their chief executive, and they are going to ignore them?
They can. And other "reporters" can comment on this, with SATIRE, if they so choose. Don't you love how freedom of speech works? Everyone can have their say in this matter.
Don't worry, America's going to the moon in 2015! So they'll be light-years ahead of everyone else....
the trick is to have your car be within safety regs. If the safety regs say 10% and you're booked for doing 63 in a 60 zone, you're safe. If the safety regs say you can have a margin of error of 5% and you do 63 in a 60 zone you're safe. In fact, you have to get down to a pretty small percentage (or a very slow speed) to have 63 not be okay!
This is wrong, wrong, wrong! Privatising enforcement of the law is a TERRIBLE thing to do.
Yes, I do drive. I am from Tasmania. I'm sick of hearing these half-arsed excuses.
;)
Yeah but it's quite a bit different in places where you can't walk across the state in a day! This is like a 15th century welshman commenting on speeding tickets. You have no frame of reference. Up here, us car drivers (not horse and cart drivers!), speeding is much easier.
And for the mods on crack: yes, I'm kidding. Just some friendly cajoling between two fellow aussies
hat advice really helps when I'm trying to pass an 18-wheeler whose driver is nodding off.
Perhaps you should hang way back of the driver so that if he does anything unexpected you have a larger time to assess the risk and react.
Or when I'm in heavy traffic, and an ambulance comes up behind me and there's no clearance to pull to a different lane.
I recently saw this happen just yesterday! But it was a fire-truck. I did have enough room to move into the next lane, but the car behind me didn't. So the car behind me sped along, right past a police-car. The police-car could have reacted, and didn't. So I'm guessing that you are allowed to speed up, to get out of the way for them. Having said that, there is a reason you can challenge speeding fines. I've seen people do so, and not have to pay it (the reason they got off was because the camera didn't take into account the context of the situation, and the judge felt the context allowed the person to do the speed he was). But systems shouldn't be devised around exceptional circumstances like the one you suggested. That's why they have the check put in place, in allowing you to challenge a speeding ticket (and representing yourself so you don't have to pay for a lawyer).
Or when I'm minding my business on a one-lane highway, doing somewhere around the speed limit, and some drunk moron comes flying up behind me leaving me nowhere to go but forward in order to avoid being hit.
When this happens you must report it to the police immediately. In the best case scenario, you provide enough information for the drunk-driver to be charged. Worst-case scenario, you've laid down the foundation for a defence in speeding (and then challenge the ticket, if the American system is anything like the Australian one, you'll be given the benefit of the doubt).
Speeding cameras DO stop people from speeding (it's stopped me in any case). But they aren't fool-proof, which is why the system does have checks and balances. Take advantage of them!
I think anyone that wanted to fight it, easily could. Just grab a document saying speedo's can have a margin of error of 10%. They might have to provide evidence that their car is out by that much, but then you can just concede defeat and pay the damn fine.
It's sound in theory, and it looks like they're doing tests to ensure that it's sound in practice. I'm assuming it means that it's being done because it's more reliable/cheaper then the current method. I just don't want to see "2km over the limit" speeding tickets because of it, which it could most likely do.
As soon as I cross the border to Vic, I don't speed at all.
So the answer is "yes", they are very very trigger happy and in a lot of cases
Although it looks like it's serving it's function as a deterrant to speeding.
Look, I'm normally very cynical about red-light cameras, and speeding cameras (oh the cops are out issuing fines, I guess they're running a bit short of some cash this month). However recently (in New South Wales at the very least), a survey found that most people don't care about the monetary loss of a speeding fine, but do worry about the demerit point loss. So as a result, speeding fines were halved, while the demerit points were doubled (I looked for an online source of this, but couldn't find one. It did happen either earlier this year or very late last year).
Now I could be cynical and claim they must have been getting to much revenue. But I personally think it was made in good faith, and it helped restore my faith in the system (which I have VERY little faith for even now, ESPECIALLY in Sydney).
People hate speeding tickets, but the thing is. If you don't break the law* you won't have to suffer the consequences.
* To those who are getting booked for a couple of kilometers over the limit, I agree that is excessive.
Australia (and New South Wales, the state under consideration) has a network of fixed speed cameras.
;)
Probably not the best term to use, considering fixed can mean "rigged to not work properly", as in they'll report you as speeding when you aren't
Sorry, slashdot did something weird. www.comic-nation.com
If you go to maximal zoom, you'll finally see what the moon is made of!
Pixels?