If you think that people are driving by sound, your kidding yourself. If people were, you would just be making it MORE dangerous for the guy that doesn't act like an ass, because his normal sounding bike would sound farther away than your mating call model.
And for that matter, LCDs! I remember hearing hundreds of times about LCD monitors on the horizon, and how 'real soon' we would all be switching to monitors that were only a few inches thick. When are we going to get them?!?!?!
He did not win the lawsuit. It was settled. There is a huge difference. The courts did NOT find that Netflix was throttling. The fact that you think the lawsuit ended with a judgment shows that you have fallen for the urban myth. Check your own links.
To get 20 to 30 movies a month, you start by renting all of the movies that you ever wanted to see. Then you move into the movies that you haven't seen in years, but would be nice to see again. After that, you go through all of the old TV shows that you enjoyed. Finally, you start selecting movies that you would normally not consider. I have been pleasantly surprised many times by movies that I didn't expect to enjoy. Considering I have already paid for them, I'm not out if I get a stinker.
Netflix did not throttle. What they did was send new movies to light users, and sent older movies to heavy users. This isn't throttling in any way. The only way that a heavy user would get fewer movies in a month is if they only had brand new releases in their queue. I have been a Netflix user since April of 2003, and during that time I have consistently gone through 20 - 30 movies a month. I would have definitely been a throttling candidate with if they had a policy of doing so. Just about the only time that I did not get one day mailing time each way was if there was a holiday, or I ordered something that was in very low supply like 'Kentucky Fried Movie'. The 'throttling' simply never existed. It is an urban myth. The proof always pointed to was the Netflix TOS. The TOS never said that they throttled. They always said that they would send a heavy user the older title if they had to choose between a heavy or a light user for a new release.
Your logic is faulty. Just as if I say that the sun will cross the sky tomorrow because this guy in my neighborhood named Apollo gets in his fiery yellow car every morning and about half an hour later the sun comes up. Then about a half hour after the sun goes down, my neighbor Apollo pulls his fiery yellow car into his driveway. Would it be arrogant of you to say that even if I am right about the sun rising, I was wrong in my analysis? Heck, if the jury had flipped a coin, they would have had a 50% chance of coming up guilty. If they had just flipped a coin, and convicted based on that, would you still be claiming the original poster was arrogant for saying their conviction was faulty? No, coming up with the right answer does not mean the person came up with the answer in the right way. And it is not arrogant to point that out.
This is Best Buy. They are very clear upfront that there is no way they are taking software back. So, no, people will not bring it back whether it works or not.
Absolutely. About a week after my son's second birthday, I formatted his hard drive and gave him an Ubuntu disk. He installed it with no problem. He had just turned two. That means he couldn't even read. I'll give you that he is extremely smart, but really, he had just turned two. I have no doubt that anyone who can figure out how to put a CD in the drive and reboot their computer can install Ubuntu.
It sounds like you did. The intent of my post was that I believe they thought lamentation was a sexual word, and thus unsuitable for young ears. The only two things I could think of that would make one believe that lamentation was a sexual word was it's similarity to lactation and thus female breasts, and the fact that fact that it was describing an interaction between a barbarian who had just killed/driven off all the men, interacting with the women who were left, and thus the thought of rape.
You think people don't want to use the word lamentation in front of a small child because it sounds like lachrymation? I'm not convinced that makes any sense at all.
I could. Any of the car companies should be able to get off of petroleum in a very short time. Simply make all of their cars all electric, and have an electric plug for the power source. Sell all of your cars with a battery pack that will take the car for 30 miles so that the car can be driven off the lot. Then sell a petroleum generator that can power the thing. Yeah, 90% of the car buyers might buy the gas generator add on, but the car itself would no be a petroleum car. I know some would say that the car was still a petroleum powered car, but I would say that if a car company said they were going to start manufacturing all of their without ashtrays, no one would say it wasn't true because you could buy an aftermarket ashtray for it.
The upside to a very sneaky move like this would be that an all electric car that is designed to take an after market generator, could take a biodiesel generator, battery pack, or fuel cell just as easy. If designed properly, changing the power source should not be any more difficult than changing your oil.
That doesn't solve the problem that you are going to have to ride in the same Taxi/Bus/Whatever as me. Trust me, that is not something you want to do. And, I am not even the worst of the people you might have to ride with. I know I don't want to have to sit in the piss that the last guy left in the seat.
What I have consistantly wanted to see is land ferries. Give us some heavy rail that only goes to one point in each urban area. Put 'loading' ramps on one side, and 'unloading' ramps on the other. Last mile is one of the major problems with public transportation. This would let you drive to the train. Park on the train so that you can sleep/talk on your cell/read the newspaper/whatever. Then drive off at the other end. Privacy would not be a problem. Noise would not be a problem. Gas would be massively saved. AND you could get to where you want to go.
If you really wanted to make it change the transportation scene, you could make it only hold those street legal golf carts they were selling a few years ago. Top speeds of 35 mph wont seems so bad if your not going to leave the city streets anyways. Limited range becomes less of an issue when you are not going to leave the city. Parking becomes less of an issue. And if cities want to develop there own in city transportation, it would no longer be a requirement that their central bus station be located at the exact same spot as the out of city system.
I had never heard of it either prior to my son's birth. Presumably because nobody had ever worried about talking dirty around me. I haven't called anyone on it because I never felt that it was a good idea to humiliate someone by basically calling them an idiot in front of my young son, so I'm not sure what they think it means exactly. Given their reactions, and the context, I think that they are associating it with rape. The word sounds somewhat similar to lactate, it is describing something about women, and it is something that a barbarian would want. If I asked you, What does a barbarian do to the women after he crushes the men and drives them away? Your answer might be to rape the women. I've found it kind of funny, because it had just never struck me before.
Since the DVD and BR movie is often showing on the SAME tv at the same time, split down the middle, I am going to have to agree with you. It always reminds me of the old TV commercials that would show you how much better picture you would have with their brand by showing you the better picture on you set.
crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and we will hear the lamentations of their women.
I know this is completely off topic, but you would be amazed at how many people don't know what the word lamentation means. My son's name is Conan, so as you can well imagine people are regularly quoting the movie at him. 9 out of 10 people will either mumble out the word 'lamentation', or outright apologize for saying it in front of a small child. Not for the quote, but for the word 'lamentation'.
No, it is not arrogance. You should look up the word. People are frequently right about things for the wrong reason. Not only is it NOT arrogant to believe that any case placed before a jury was determined through incorrect means, it could be argued that it is ignorant to assume that any are determined through correct means. We all know how juries are selected. We all know the old saying about hammering the law/facts/table. We all know that our legal system is a screwed up mess, and just hope that even though it is broken, that it works well enough to keep society from breaking down.
Arrogance? No, not even close. Did Hans kill his wife? Apparently. Was the jury given evidence that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is what the GP is arguing.
I'm not sure you know what 'height of arrogance' means. If every jury got their verdict right every time and THEN he said that a particular one got it wrong because he knows better, that would be the height of arrogance. Given our current system, believing that a jury got their verdict wrong doesn't really require any arrogance at all.
Oh, come on now. I'm pretty sure that the red squiggly underline for spelling mistakes was implemented in Office after 2000. That was a major improvement. It's the only one I can think of, but it was a major improvement.
No one wants to see civil war, and the geographical layout of our rural vs. urban locations is far more intermixed than during The Civil War. I was just pointing out that contrary to grade school history, the US Civil War was about the inequities and lack of understanding between urban and rural citizens. It is a problem that, as a nation, we have seem to have forgotten.
I certainly hope you are wrong about a depression. I'm not saying you are. Just that I HOPE you are. Of course, many in rural areas will also have problems. Being in debt is not just an urban problem. True, rural, and even real suburban areas can delay the problems by growing some of their own food, but having that space doesn't help when the bank comes in and repossesses the farm.
Hehe...Sir, I like the cut of your gib. I can't agree that urban gardening is a successful large scale plane though. It, like many things, is great when a few people do it, but if everybody in a place like San Francisco tried to do it, the simply isn't even close to enough empty lots and rooftops for everybody. Cities just cannot support their own populations. Of course one should be careful about pointing out the flaws of urbanites logic concerning ecology and 'culture', as the conflict between urban and rural citizens has been known to cause civil war, right here in the US.;)
While I agree with your rant, you would be seen as a villain by many here if they thought about what you said. Not because you want copyright obliterated, but because you actually advocate living in enough space that you can grow food for yourself. There is a very large segment of Slashdot that believes anyone that doesn't live in a tiny apartment in a densely packed city, is evil and the cause of global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that people are driving by sound, your kidding yourself. If people were, you would just be making it MORE dangerous for the guy that doesn't act like an ass, because his normal sounding bike would sound farther away than your mating call model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimig
And for that matter, LCDs! I remember hearing hundreds of times about LCD monitors on the horizon, and how 'real soon' we would all be switching to monitors that were only a few inches thick. When are we going to get them?!?!?!
He did not win the lawsuit. It was settled. There is a huge difference. The courts did NOT find that Netflix was throttling. The fact that you think the lawsuit ended with a judgment shows that you have fallen for the urban myth. Check your own links.
To get 20 to 30 movies a month, you start by renting all of the movies that you ever wanted to see. Then you move into the movies that you haven't seen in years, but would be nice to see again. After that, you go through all of the old TV shows that you enjoyed. Finally, you start selecting movies that you would normally not consider. I have been pleasantly surprised many times by movies that I didn't expect to enjoy. Considering I have already paid for them, I'm not out if I get a stinker.
Netflix did not throttle. What they did was send new movies to light users, and sent older movies to heavy users. This isn't throttling in any way. The only way that a heavy user would get fewer movies in a month is if they only had brand new releases in their queue. I have been a Netflix user since April of 2003, and during that time I have consistently gone through 20 - 30 movies a month. I would have definitely been a throttling candidate with if they had a policy of doing so. Just about the only time that I did not get one day mailing time each way was if there was a holiday, or I ordered something that was in very low supply like 'Kentucky Fried Movie'. The 'throttling' simply never existed. It is an urban myth. The proof always pointed to was the Netflix TOS. The TOS never said that they throttled. They always said that they would send a heavy user the older title if they had to choose between a heavy or a light user for a new release.
Your logic is faulty. Just as if I say that the sun will cross the sky tomorrow because this guy in my neighborhood named Apollo gets in his fiery yellow car every morning and about half an hour later the sun comes up. Then about a half hour after the sun goes down, my neighbor Apollo pulls his fiery yellow car into his driveway. Would it be arrogant of you to say that even if I am right about the sun rising, I was wrong in my analysis? Heck, if the jury had flipped a coin, they would have had a 50% chance of coming up guilty. If they had just flipped a coin, and convicted based on that, would you still be claiming the original poster was arrogant for saying their conviction was faulty? No, coming up with the right answer does not mean the person came up with the answer in the right way. And it is not arrogant to point that out.
You can pirate pretty much any Linux distro. Just change some code, and redistribute without offering the source code. ;)
That's no joke. My son installed Ubuntu the first time right after turning 2. He couldn't even read and he installed it with no problems.
This is Best Buy. They are very clear upfront that there is no way they are taking software back. So, no, people will not bring it back whether it works or not.
Absolutely. About a week after my son's second birthday, I formatted his hard drive and gave him an Ubuntu disk. He installed it with no problem. He had just turned two. That means he couldn't even read. I'll give you that he is extremely smart, but really, he had just turned two. I have no doubt that anyone who can figure out how to put a CD in the drive and reboot their computer can install Ubuntu.
It sounds like you did. The intent of my post was that I believe they thought lamentation was a sexual word, and thus unsuitable for young ears. The only two things I could think of that would make one believe that lamentation was a sexual word was it's similarity to lactation and thus female breasts, and the fact that fact that it was describing an interaction between a barbarian who had just killed/driven off all the men, interacting with the women who were left, and thus the thought of rape.
You think people don't want to use the word lamentation in front of a small child because it sounds like lachrymation? I'm not convinced that makes any sense at all.
I could. Any of the car companies should be able to get off of petroleum in a very short time. Simply make all of their cars all electric, and have an electric plug for the power source. Sell all of your cars with a battery pack that will take the car for 30 miles so that the car can be driven off the lot. Then sell a petroleum generator that can power the thing. Yeah, 90% of the car buyers might buy the gas generator add on, but the car itself would no be a petroleum car. I know some would say that the car was still a petroleum powered car, but I would say that if a car company said they were going to start manufacturing all of their without ashtrays, no one would say it wasn't true because you could buy an aftermarket ashtray for it.
The upside to a very sneaky move like this would be that an all electric car that is designed to take an after market generator, could take a biodiesel generator, battery pack, or fuel cell just as easy. If designed properly, changing the power source should not be any more difficult than changing your oil.
That doesn't solve the problem that you are going to have to ride in the same Taxi/Bus/Whatever as me. Trust me, that is not something you want to do. And, I am not even the worst of the people you might have to ride with. I know I don't want to have to sit in the piss that the last guy left in the seat.
What I have consistantly wanted to see is land ferries. Give us some heavy rail that only goes to one point in each urban area. Put 'loading' ramps on one side, and 'unloading' ramps on the other. Last mile is one of the major problems with public transportation. This would let you drive to the train. Park on the train so that you can sleep/talk on your cell/read the newspaper/whatever. Then drive off at the other end. Privacy would not be a problem. Noise would not be a problem. Gas would be massively saved. AND you could get to where you want to go.
If you really wanted to make it change the transportation scene, you could make it only hold those street legal golf carts they were selling a few years ago. Top speeds of 35 mph wont seems so bad if your not going to leave the city streets anyways. Limited range becomes less of an issue when you are not going to leave the city. Parking becomes less of an issue. And if cities want to develop there own in city transportation, it would no longer be a requirement that their central bus station be located at the exact same spot as the out of city system.
I had never heard of it either prior to my son's birth. Presumably because nobody had ever worried about talking dirty around me. I haven't called anyone on it because I never felt that it was a good idea to humiliate someone by basically calling them an idiot in front of my young son, so I'm not sure what they think it means exactly. Given their reactions, and the context, I think that they are associating it with rape. The word sounds somewhat similar to lactate, it is describing something about women, and it is something that a barbarian would want. If I asked you, What does a barbarian do to the women after he crushes the men and drives them away? Your answer might be to rape the women. I've found it kind of funny, because it had just never struck me before.
Since the DVD and BR movie is often showing on the SAME tv at the same time, split down the middle, I am going to have to agree with you. It always reminds me of the old TV commercials that would show you how much better picture you would have with their brand by showing you the better picture on you set.
crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and we will hear the lamentations of their women.
I know this is completely off topic, but you would be amazed at how many people don't know what the word lamentation means. My son's name is Conan, so as you can well imagine people are regularly quoting the movie at him. 9 out of 10 people will either mumble out the word 'lamentation', or outright apologize for saying it in front of a small child. Not for the quote, but for the word 'lamentation'.
No, it is only allowing Private Investigators preform computer repair
No, it is not arrogance. You should look up the word. People are frequently right about things for the wrong reason. Not only is it NOT arrogant to believe that any case placed before a jury was determined through incorrect means, it could be argued that it is ignorant to assume that any are determined through correct means. We all know how juries are selected. We all know the old saying about hammering the law/facts/table. We all know that our legal system is a screwed up mess, and just hope that even though it is broken, that it works well enough to keep society from breaking down.
Arrogance? No, not even close. Did Hans kill his wife? Apparently. Was the jury given evidence that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt? That is what the GP is arguing.
I'm not sure you know what 'height of arrogance' means. If every jury got their verdict right every time and THEN he said that a particular one got it wrong because he knows better, that would be the height of arrogance. Given our current system, believing that a jury got their verdict wrong doesn't really require any arrogance at all.
Well, I guess that's the kind of mistakes I make when I don't keep up on the latest cutting edge versions. ;)
Oh, come on now. I'm pretty sure that the red squiggly underline for spelling mistakes was implemented in Office after 2000. That was a major improvement. It's the only one I can think of, but it was a major improvement.
No one wants to see civil war, and the geographical layout of our rural vs. urban locations is far more intermixed than during The Civil War. I was just pointing out that contrary to grade school history, the US Civil War was about the inequities and lack of understanding between urban and rural citizens. It is a problem that, as a nation, we have seem to have forgotten.
I certainly hope you are wrong about a depression. I'm not saying you are. Just that I HOPE you are. Of course, many in rural areas will also have problems. Being in debt is not just an urban problem. True, rural, and even real suburban areas can delay the problems by growing some of their own food, but having that space doesn't help when the bank comes in and repossesses the farm.
Hehe...Sir, I like the cut of your gib. I can't agree that urban gardening is a successful large scale plane though. It, like many things, is great when a few people do it, but if everybody in a place like San Francisco tried to do it, the simply isn't even close to enough empty lots and rooftops for everybody. Cities just cannot support their own populations. Of course one should be careful about pointing out the flaws of urbanites logic concerning ecology and 'culture', as the conflict between urban and rural citizens has been known to cause civil war, right here in the US. ;)
While I agree with your rant, you would be seen as a villain by many here if they thought about what you said. Not because you want copyright obliterated, but because you actually advocate living in enough space that you can grow food for yourself. There is a very large segment of Slashdot that believes anyone that doesn't live in a tiny apartment in a densely packed city, is evil and the cause of global warming.