i'm sure their real problem with it was that they weren't releasing this to just a select few companies that paid them for it. if they'd done that, the public/press wouldn't have heard about it and it would have been more revenue for that division rather than unwanted attention.
you already have a significant advantage against bad players that get lucky, you'll win most of the time against them regardless. the hard part is making your odds of winning better against good players.
Along the same lines, it's just horrific that they'd abbreviate the decade anyway, how are we to know that the writer didn't intend the 1870s, or the 2070s even, if he happens to be living backwards in time?
well, from context one could assume that "the software uses algorithmic techniques known by mathematicians since the 70's" is not referring to knowing something "since" the future, and it's pretty rare to run across data storage algorithms from the 1870s or earlier
i think there's a balance. if Google targetting enables TV networks to charge more for advertising, then they can recoup their costs with fewer ads. the remaining spots can either be used for more advertising like you say, or they could be used for more show. why would someone want to use it for more show? well, if you've got a particular type of programming that's shown on several networks in a similar format (e.g. national news), you could show it virtually uninterrupted in order to draw more eyes (so they can view the few ads that you do have, and you're hoping they'll stay for the next show).
remember also that a large portion of the advertising on TV is often bought by the same few companies (AT&T, McDonalds, etc), so if those companies decide to spend the same amount of ad dollars before and after it may be difficult to actually find customers for all the minutes of advertising that were once bought. in that event, you may be better off showing more show than selling at cut-rate prices to some less desirable advertisers and spoiling your market.
they sell that same CD that the library had at the store, it seems like they do want to be a part of it. they actually even released a best of CD called "1" (all their songs that made it to the top of the charts) for people that don't want to buy each album individually.
It's there, almost a hidden message that rewards careful listening, and it would be destroyed if the songs were Shuffled. My "unsung" song on that album is Let Down, one that got no attention and would be left out if I had bought the "singles" on iTunes.
Pink Floyd's The Wall tells a long narrative as well, but i certainly enjoy listening to some of the tracks singly on a shuffle. i see an overall story to an album as a bonus that lets me have another way of enjoying it
they'll buy YouTube and slowly turn them away from music and onto other things. didn't MTV do that with VH1? interestingly there's a digital tv music station that's available in several cities already that shows music videos for old and new songs 24-hours a day, and it's got a similar name...The Tube (Cue the Ted Stevens jokes)
That's the real key. Blowing up a store is not as big a deal. They have store everywhere. Put airplanes are part of the symbol of western technological power.
i dunno, start randomly blowing up stores all over the map and i (as someone who uses one store or another everyday) might be more concerned than if you're blowing up airplanes (that i use almost never). 9/11 scared the people that work in the biggest skyscrapers almost as much as it did the people that fly in airplanes. granted, they'd have to hit a lot of small stores or malls before people stopped seeing them as random, distant incidents.
actually, they make no revenue off of people listening to their songs on the radio. even setting aside payola and contests that they run on stations, they're losing money on radio just in the cost of sending out a trillion free copies so that every station has one. if the money that they invest in radio publicity doesn't get them sales (e.g. if someone is boycotting sales and only listening to radio) then their investment didn't pay off.
Are you able to keep the whole world in order? You do realize at there's 6 billion people on the planet right? Most of them would kill you, your family, and everyone you know, if it made their lives even marginally better.
i don't think it's as bad as you're saying, i don't think a majority of people are amoral. but all it takes is a small minority who is willing to act like that to totally throw things out of balance and even force some of the "good" people to act in kind.
that's what they get for too-precise naming of functions. they should have named it nothing_to_see_here_move_along for the first week of release until people had patched...
3) Having a choice amongst players, and more importantly, the ability to jumpship from Creative or Rio if the players become substandard is something that I personally value.
the trouble with this is that many people (maybe not you) think the interfaces on the Creative and Rio players are already substandard, so you've offered them a choice among "second-choice" players. i know a lot of people on this forum particularly will break down and cry when presented with a player that doesn't do OGG or some other format, but a very large portion of the market puts more value in a simple/easy interface than some file format that they've probably never heard of and definitely never used
that's probably closer to the point, they're probably hoping that your spam filter sees that it's received other "non-spam" emails from the same address and so it lets through future spam. my spam filter is a separate box from my email server, so just deleting an email won't let it know that it was wrong that something wasn't a spam
It's entirely pointless. That new gear you're going for isn't real. When you eventually stop playing (and eventually you will), you are left with nothing. Zero. It's all fake.
...
Spend the $14.99 a month on a good book, or a movie ticket.
because the story in the book or movie is real? anything that people do can be taken too far, but that isn't necessarily an indictment on the activity itself. people need to spend time doing things that aren't "real", just make sure that it's manageable
let's be honest, the thing that they did that "they won't do again" is release this information publically. lots and lots of people got this information without paying AOL for it, and it also brought all this publicity. they'll keep giving out the data, they'll just get paid for it and the people they give it to won't want you to know they were given it either so you won't hear about it.
this isn't at all unlike that AOL employee they fired for spending 10 minutes trying to badger that guy into not cancelling his subscription. he wasn't doing anything they didn't want him to do (whether they explicitly told him to do it in that manner is another matter), the thing that they didn't like was that he was taped doing it.
So if you're a black hat and you've found a new, as yet undiscovered hole in Vista, would you really go running to MS to tell them all about it so they can patch it?
i think by the very definition of Black Hat, you would not do so. people that do tell the manufacturer that sort of thing are called White Hat hackers. i guess an argument could be made if you were making more money from MS to tell them about the hole than you could make by exploiting it...
if such a virus also worked on BSD it would be the viral equivalent of hitting for the cycle in baseball or winning the grand slam in tennis. i'm just trying to lend a hand to future editors of its introduction article
Not that Matt Damon probably couldn't play a good Kirk, just that they're actually making a prequel movie like this to begin with.
exactly, i can't believe that we're arguing over whether or not an actor could live up to the legacy of William Shatner. grab *any* actor in Hollywood, make him unlearn anything he's ever learned about acting, send him out there, and you've got at least as good of an actor as Shatner was. the real story here is whether this movie is going to be complete crapola because the real charm of the old show was that it was "sci-fi on a nickel budget" and the main body of Hollywood can't seem to find it in themselves to make a non-comedy movie with less than $100M spent on special effects
Slashdot Mirror
i don't think that argument would fly, but if it's a unique expression of the owner would it not also be self-incrimination?
i'm sure their real problem with it was that they weren't releasing this to just a select few companies that paid them for it. if they'd done that, the public/press wouldn't have heard about it and it would have been more revenue for that division rather than unwanted attention.
you already have a significant advantage against bad players that get lucky, you'll win most of the time against them regardless. the hard part is making your odds of winning better against good players.
i think there's a balance. if Google targetting enables TV networks to charge more for advertising, then they can recoup their costs with fewer ads. the remaining spots can either be used for more advertising like you say, or they could be used for more show. why would someone want to use it for more show? well, if you've got a particular type of programming that's shown on several networks in a similar format (e.g. national news), you could show it virtually uninterrupted in order to draw more eyes (so they can view the few ads that you do have, and you're hoping they'll stay for the next show).
remember also that a large portion of the advertising on TV is often bought by the same few companies (AT&T, McDonalds, etc), so if those companies decide to spend the same amount of ad dollars before and after it may be difficult to actually find customers for all the minutes of advertising that were once bought. in that event, you may be better off showing more show than selling at cut-rate prices to some less desirable advertisers and spoiling your market.
they sell that same CD that the library had at the store, it seems like they do want to be a part of it. they actually even released a best of CD called "1" (all their songs that made it to the top of the charts) for people that don't want to buy each album individually.
maybe there was a hot coffee mode in the OS?
my laptop flies just fine, but if this laptop is still useable after landing then i suppose that's an improvement
they'll buy YouTube and slowly turn them away from music and onto other things. didn't MTV do that with VH1? interestingly there's a digital tv music station that's available in several cities already that shows music videos for old and new songs 24-hours a day, and it's got a similar name...The Tube (Cue the Ted Stevens jokes)
how do i know you verified it on Google and aren't just a co-conspirator with the person that posted the first number?
does SourceForge charge $99 a year to share your end product?
actually, they make no revenue off of people listening to their songs on the radio. even setting aside payola and contests that they run on stations, they're losing money on radio just in the cost of sending out a trillion free copies so that every station has one. if the money that they invest in radio publicity doesn't get them sales (e.g. if someone is boycotting sales and only listening to radio) then their investment didn't pay off.
that's what they get for too-precise naming of functions. they should have named it nothing_to_see_here_move_along for the first week of release until people had patched...
that's probably closer to the point, they're probably hoping that your spam filter sees that it's received other "non-spam" emails from the same address and so it lets through future spam. my spam filter is a separate box from my email server, so just deleting an email won't let it know that it was wrong that something wasn't a spam
let's be honest, the thing that they did that "they won't do again" is release this information publically. lots and lots of people got this information without paying AOL for it, and it also brought all this publicity. they'll keep giving out the data, they'll just get paid for it and the people they give it to won't want you to know they were given it either so you won't hear about it.
this isn't at all unlike that AOL employee they fired for spending 10 minutes trying to badger that guy into not cancelling his subscription. he wasn't doing anything they didn't want him to do (whether they explicitly told him to do it in that manner is another matter), the thing that they didn't like was that he was taped doing it.
i think you mean "This is like going forward in time a year and saying Vista has been rolled out..."
if such a virus also worked on BSD it would be the viral equivalent of hitting for the cycle in baseball or winning the grand slam in tennis. i'm just trying to lend a hand to future editors of its introduction article