Maple sugaring in Vermont is by no means a recent development. It's been going on since at least the 1700s, and possible a fair bit longer than that. I personally have been in a sugarhouse that's older than your country, and I assure you, they make better syrup than you guys do (I've had plenty of both).
Is this really what it's come to? Are the Democrats really giving up on Obama being able to actually win the favor of the American people enough to win a second term on his own merits? Is fighting fire with mud really the plan?
People wonder why I've given up on politics. This kind of rubbish (which extends to all the local political business as well, lest someone say that this is only a problem on the national scale) is why I no longer look on politics as viable. It's a complete fucking circus, and I treat it as such... I sit back, and watch the car wrecks happen.
I'm stunned at how much worse it's gotten in the last 20 years or so. Just when you think we've reached the nadir of respectability for our political system, something like this comes along. Seriously, how long until the DNC and RNC just offer openly to buy votes? Another three elections?
I wouldn't be able to take notes with a pencil and paper anywhere near fast enough, my shorthand is crap. This would effectively ban all taking of notes in class for me.
Games used to have good reason to be expensive back when the technology was new expensive to produce. I remember many PC games in the 1990s being in the $40+ dollar realm, at least as new releases. But after the PS2 came out, games settled down to a general maximum of $30 ($29.99) for most titles... led by consoles, and aped by the PC releases of the time. Starting with one of the GTA games (I think it was Vice City) prices crept steadily upwards. First there was the occasional new release at $39.99 when everything else was $29.99. And then another $10 hike. And then a new generation of consoles came out. And prices hiked again. The PS3 I get prices being higher for, BluRay is a relatively new technology. But the Xbox 360 just uses standard DVDs that cost pennies apiece to press in bulk. There seems to me to have been a clear downward trend in pricing for several years until this last batch of consoles came out, followed by a sharp hike that has yet to level out to the previous lows. I think that the game makers have finally realized that there are people that will pay $60 for a new game, and that's the market they're going to chase... not those of us more casual players, or on a tighter budget.
It's what the huddled masses perceive chaos theory as. Also, lawyer weasel words that enable them to get out of being responsible for certain circumstances.
Honestly, will anyone who isn't a pro photographer with a $60,000 camera miss this all that much? TFA and all the comments are talking about how it captured color differently than other film technologies... but in the age of image manipulation, why does anyone want to do that up-front anymore? You can just shoot, and then adjust your color as needed or desired after the fact. Film's chemical composition is longer relevant today.
This appears to be the first inexpensive STB that supports discovery and streaming of media directly from a SAMBA or other protocol server. Most of the set top boxes to date have been dependent on software running on a host OS on a computer elsewhere in your network (I have one of the Kodak ones).
I've been a Sprint customer since 2003 or so (the pre-EvDO days, back when data plans were still called "vision"). Sprint has consistently offered a better value than Verizon in data plans, especially once the "unlimited everything" plans started rolling out in the last year or two. Boneheaded moves like this will only cause people serious about mobile data to jump ship to networks with more sane policies. Perhaps after Verizon loses a large enough slice of their customer base they'll reconsider?
It drove me crazy too. People say "just turn off flash". Well, some of us actually LIKE to use streaming video. And if Chrome can handle the exact same video on the exact same hardware more elegantly than FF can, then why does FF falter?
I believe the intent here was to indicate that this was a common problem. Would you care to chime in with something useful, or would you rather pick nits?
The 900MB figure was before I'd started using ANY extensions... but to be fair, it was also one of the early 2.x releases.
I open and close a lot of tabs. It helped a bit when I disabled the "preserve tab history" option in the prefs. But RAM use continued to pile up the longer I had it running. 7-8 days after having first run it, it got to consistently be 400MB+ even with only a couple of tabs open.
I have to disagree. Different folks have different priorities, different setups, and different requirements. For myself, I was constantly having problems with FireFox's UI becoming unresponsive for 1-15 (yes, that large a range) seconds when trying to do simple things like enter text into a box, close a tab, type a URL, or simply watch an embedded video without it coming to a halt every few seconds.
I don't consider it acceptable for FF to just stop responding to all input (seemingly) randomly, after running for a few hours, or a couple of days at the outside. It had actually gotten to the point where I was restarting it every few hours just to keep using it from driving me batty.
FF does have a lot to offer, but I am convinced that more emphasis needs to be paid to it's performance. I used it for about three years as my daily browser, and with each new version the lag-outs got worse. Of course, the 900MB of RAM I'd often see it eating up was annoying too. Even as a non-developer, I could see that there clearly were issues with garbage collection going on under the hood.
When Chrome finally polished a few minor corners, I jumped ship almost entirely without looking back. To me, speed is tantamount to usability. For example, if I was typing this in FF, it would have ground to a halt and pinwheeled a dozen or so times by now. Even if all I was doing was entering text into a field. In my view, FireFox isn't bloated... just piss-poorly optimized. Some multithreading (god, Chrome is so much more responsive on a multi-core machine!) and proper garbage collection would do it a world of good. That's why I ditched FF.
Bonus point: I have a low-end netbook with a rather slow SSD in it. Chrome loads in about 10 seconds, and FF starts to approach usability after 50. Guess why I don't use FF on it?
It's been said elsewhere in this discussion, but bears repeating: if you don't have a college degree, you're next to unemployable. I made the decision not to go, since none of the genuine interests I had were in any way applicable to the job market, and I didn't feel like wasting an enormous amount of money on a degree that wouldn't help me find a better job. I wish I had gone and gotten even a "useless" degree in a field like English or Philosophy in hindsight. Because the job market right now is absolute and utter shit if you don't have a 4yr degree, even if it's completely unrelated to the job you're applying for. It's resume padding, pure and simple... but also utterly essential with a job market so saturated with college graduates.
In a nutshell, education does equal employment. Or at least a better chance at it. If I had the time and money, I'd go now. But I work full time and I'm broke, so I have neither.
Because credit unions have shitty customer service (at least the one I was with did) ancient technology, and a grand total of SIX in-network ATMs within a 20-mile radius of where I lived. Oh, and checks were 10x as expensive through them as through the bank I switched to.
Only if the big 3 get involved. Hell, if you live in a place that salts the roads, you already have to trade it in every 3 years if you drive it in the winter anyway.
Verizon wants the iPhone bad. If they have the phone everyone wants and less horrible 3G coverage than AT&T (which in quite a few areas they do) then they can treat their customers even more like shit than they already do, and they'll still be stealing them away from AT&T in droves.
I wouldn't put it beyond them to dump a giant pile on Apple's lap to develop a CDMA (or possible a CDMA+LTE) iPhone.
Am I the only one who's seeing this as a desperate attempt by AT&T to keep iPhone owners loyal to them out of "good will" for not being so locked down once the iPhone is available on Verizon's network?
Skype does all of the above. Desktop / application sharing, cross-platform, and it is free (unless you're calling out to an actual phone number). Oh, and it's cross-platform and works with any video hardware you have drivers for (I used to use it with my DV camcorder before I had a webcam). Is there a reason you cannot or don't want to use Skype for this setup?
Slashdot Mirror
Maple sugaring in Vermont is by no means a recent development. It's been going on since at least the 1700s, and possible a fair bit longer than that. I personally have been in a sugarhouse that's older than your country, and I assure you, they make better syrup than you guys do (I've had plenty of both).
Does this seem lower than expected to anyone else, or is that just my own experience?
I average about 2TB/mo with them. Please don't give them any ideas.
Is this really what it's come to? Are the Democrats really giving up on Obama being able to actually win the favor of the American people enough to win a second term on his own merits? Is fighting fire with mud really the plan?
People wonder why I've given up on politics. This kind of rubbish (which extends to all the local political business as well, lest someone say that this is only a problem on the national scale) is why I no longer look on politics as viable. It's a complete fucking circus, and I treat it as such... I sit back, and watch the car wrecks happen.
I'm stunned at how much worse it's gotten in the last 20 years or so. Just when you think we've reached the nadir of respectability for our political system, something like this comes along. Seriously, how long until the DNC and RNC just offer openly to buy votes? Another three elections?
I wouldn't be able to take notes with a pencil and paper anywhere near fast enough, my shorthand is crap. This would effectively ban all taking of notes in class for me.
Games used to have good reason to be expensive back when the technology was new expensive to produce. I remember many PC games in the 1990s being in the $40+ dollar realm, at least as new releases. But after the PS2 came out, games settled down to a general maximum of $30 ($29.99) for most titles... led by consoles, and aped by the PC releases of the time. Starting with one of the GTA games (I think it was Vice City) prices crept steadily upwards. First there was the occasional new release at $39.99 when everything else was $29.99. And then another $10 hike. And then a new generation of consoles came out. And prices hiked again. The PS3 I get prices being higher for, BluRay is a relatively new technology. But the Xbox 360 just uses standard DVDs that cost pennies apiece to press in bulk. There seems to me to have been a clear downward trend in pricing for several years until this last batch of consoles came out, followed by a sharp hike that has yet to level out to the previous lows. I think that the game makers have finally realized that there are people that will pay $60 for a new game, and that's the market they're going to chase... not those of us more casual players, or on a tighter budget.
It's what the huddled masses perceive chaos theory as. Also, lawyer weasel words that enable them to get out of being responsible for certain circumstances.
Honestly, will anyone who isn't a pro photographer with a $60,000 camera miss this all that much? TFA and all the comments are talking about how it captured color differently than other film technologies... but in the age of image manipulation, why does anyone want to do that up-front anymore? You can just shoot, and then adjust your color as needed or desired after the fact. Film's chemical composition is longer relevant today.
I didn't say it was the first, merely the first inexpensive one. Sub-$200 or so. Wasn't the WDTV box something like $299 when it came out?
This appears to be the first inexpensive STB that supports discovery and streaming of media directly from a SAMBA or other protocol server. Most of the set top boxes to date have been dependent on software running on a host OS on a computer elsewhere in your network (I have one of the Kodak ones).
It takes ages to start up, uses up all the CPU, and it takes 5 minutes before you finally managed to load a page.
So, just like the full version of FireFox on the desktop, eh?
I've been a Sprint customer since 2003 or so (the pre-EvDO days, back when data plans were still called "vision"). Sprint has consistently offered a better value than Verizon in data plans, especially once the "unlimited everything" plans started rolling out in the last year or two. Boneheaded moves like this will only cause people serious about mobile data to jump ship to networks with more sane policies. Perhaps after Verizon loses a large enough slice of their customer base they'll reconsider?
It drove me crazy too. People say "just turn off flash". Well, some of us actually LIKE to use streaming video. And if Chrome can handle the exact same video on the exact same hardware more elegantly than FF can, then why does FF falter?
I believe the intent here was to indicate that this was a common problem. Would you care to chime in with something useful, or would you rather pick nits?
I have a Gmail tab permanently open. That could well have been/be the cause.
That seems to me a particularly glaring bug to be fixed.
I did fix it. I installed Chrome.
The 900MB figure was before I'd started using ANY extensions... but to be fair, it was also one of the early 2.x releases.
I open and close a lot of tabs. It helped a bit when I disabled the "preserve tab history" option in the prefs. But RAM use continued to pile up the longer I had it running. 7-8 days after having first run it, it got to consistently be 400MB+ even with only a couple of tabs open.
I have to disagree. Different folks have different priorities, different setups, and different requirements. For myself, I was constantly having problems with FireFox's UI becoming unresponsive for 1-15 (yes, that large a range) seconds when trying to do simple things like enter text into a box, close a tab, type a URL, or simply watch an embedded video without it coming to a halt every few seconds.
I don't consider it acceptable for FF to just stop responding to all input (seemingly) randomly, after running for a few hours, or a couple of days at the outside. It had actually gotten to the point where I was restarting it every few hours just to keep using it from driving me batty.
FF does have a lot to offer, but I am convinced that more emphasis needs to be paid to it's performance. I used it for about three years as my daily browser, and with each new version the lag-outs got worse. Of course, the 900MB of RAM I'd often see it eating up was annoying too. Even as a non-developer, I could see that there clearly were issues with garbage collection going on under the hood.
When Chrome finally polished a few minor corners, I jumped ship almost entirely without looking back. To me, speed is tantamount to usability. For example, if I was typing this in FF, it would have ground to a halt and pinwheeled a dozen or so times by now. Even if all I was doing was entering text into a field. In my view, FireFox isn't bloated... just piss-poorly optimized. Some multithreading (god, Chrome is so much more responsive on a multi-core machine!) and proper garbage collection would do it a world of good. That's why I ditched FF.
Bonus point: I have a low-end netbook with a rather slow SSD in it. Chrome loads in about 10 seconds, and FF starts to approach usability after 50. Guess why I don't use FF on it?
It's been said elsewhere in this discussion, but bears repeating: if you don't have a college degree, you're next to unemployable. I made the decision not to go, since none of the genuine interests I had were in any way applicable to the job market, and I didn't feel like wasting an enormous amount of money on a degree that wouldn't help me find a better job. I wish I had gone and gotten even a "useless" degree in a field like English or Philosophy in hindsight. Because the job market right now is absolute and utter shit if you don't have a 4yr degree, even if it's completely unrelated to the job you're applying for. It's resume padding, pure and simple... but also utterly essential with a job market so saturated with college graduates.
In a nutshell, education does equal employment. Or at least a better chance at it. If I had the time and money, I'd go now. But I work full time and I'm broke, so I have neither.
Because credit unions have shitty customer service (at least the one I was with did) ancient technology, and a grand total of SIX in-network ATMs within a 20-mile radius of where I lived. Oh, and checks were 10x as expensive through them as through the bank I switched to.
Only if the big 3 get involved. Hell, if you live in a place that salts the roads, you already have to trade it in every 3 years if you drive it in the winter anyway.
Verizon wants the iPhone bad. If they have the phone everyone wants and less horrible 3G coverage than AT&T (which in quite a few areas they do) then they can treat their customers even more like shit than they already do, and they'll still be stealing them away from AT&T in droves.
I wouldn't put it beyond them to dump a giant pile on Apple's lap to develop a CDMA (or possible a CDMA+LTE) iPhone.
Am I the only one who's seeing this as a desperate attempt by AT&T to keep iPhone owners loyal to them out of "good will" for not being so locked down once the iPhone is available on Verizon's network?
Skype does all of the above. Desktop / application sharing, cross-platform, and it is free (unless you're calling out to an actual phone number). Oh, and it's cross-platform and works with any video hardware you have drivers for (I used to use it with my DV camcorder before I had a webcam). Is there a reason you cannot or don't want to use Skype for this setup?
You must be part of the 5% that the other 95% give a bad name to.