If Jimbo is right 50% of the time, there's a 50% chance that you have a 1% chance to get a flat. If he's wrong, worst case scenario is 100% chance to have get a flat. Assuming worst case scenario, you have an expected 50.5% chance of a flat. Makes more sense?
What the UK is forgetting, in my opinion, is that this is tax money being spent. Increasing the cost of government through revolving door fees only hurts the tax payer. The more cost effective way is to require the companies to absorb the cost of these inquiries. The cost is then passed on to the customer without the overhead of a government taxation process. (cut out the middle man) The customer (tax payer) is going to pay anyway. This way they pay less because there are fewer layers in the process.
What you're suggesting is essentially that, when law enforcement costs a certain amount of money on a certain service, that cost should be folded into the service's expenses (and, therefore, customers), rather than the law enforcement's expenses (and tax-payers as a whole).
The "stupid cookie" might or might not be an integral part of a discussion of individual rights and privacy, which ties in nicely with many of the complaints related to both the wars the US is waging and the detention centres. I'm not saying whether it should be a priority, only that painting it as a stupid cookie is really missing the point.
Nude != Porn, true. But you have to be pretty damn innocent to think that those girls sent those pics for anything else other than hitting on those guys. Given they're nude, and given there's a clear sexual intent, exactly where do you draw the line and call it porn?
Two tags in gmail map to a tag1/tag2 folder hierarchy when you download that message via IMAP. When you upload something back to gmail, it will be stuffed with a single tag called "path/to/message".
When netscape argued that bundling IE with windows was foul play, they had a point. Today? Technology evolves. What was a luxury yesterday is a staple product today. It follows that what was abusive bundling back then is, today, the bare minimum of functionality.
I could be smarmy and say "OP didn't specify you'd charge it at home", but I won't. Instead, I'll say that, while flawed, the car analogy (yay for car analogies!) gives an interesting view of the potential of the material, all else being ideal.
The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.
"Theft" bears a much larger moral implication in the minds of people than "copyright infringement" does, which is why people here get riled up at the comparison.
Either way, once again I think that it's more or less agreed that copyright infringement isn't quite as bad as outright theft, so it works like so: you assume a bigger crime than was (supposedly) commited, posit that punishment is proportional to crime, and conclude that, if the proposed punishment seems disproportionate for the greater crime, it must follow that it's also disproportionate for the lesser one. (Yes, copyright infringement isn't necessarily a criminal matter, but it simplifies language)
It would've made zero difference. The story hit all sorts of pro-linux sites, and foaming-at-the-mouth zealots in all of them gave their feedback. It only takes reading through the comments posted here in/. to guess what the people posted there.
True, but the point was that if I were to specifically dislike AAC for some reason, and wanted to format shift ASAP, that's what I'd do to ensure minimal lossiness going forward.
Lossiness in the conversion is a function of the destination, rather than source, format. If you have any sense, you'll at most have one lossy conversion step: First you convert your AAC files to a lossless format of some sort (including the lossless version of aac if it suits you). Then, all further conversions are made from that file rather than from lossy transcodings. Is your lossless format going out of fashion? Batch convert your collection to a newer lossless format. Then you can go back to converting to the new lossy standard for your everyday needs.
Going on with the "accurate enough" point, it's quite true, for one simple reason: with the Wii, you don't ever use the motion control for any fine motions. Most of that is done with the infrared pointer (aiming, and stuff). Most motion control is done in a way that doesn't map 1:1 to the game world -- and quite honestly, you wouldn't want to either.
All it takes is seeing people play Wii Sports. I practiced Karate for several years, and the way I play Boxing on Wii Sports is pretty crappy, from the game's perspective: I favor short sequences of punches that don't leave me exposed for long (with longer chains being much more damaging in-game), the game only does a punch at a time so me punching with the left hand while my right hand is still pulling back doesn't translate well, and all sorts of other such issues. My mates that never *did* practice martial arts, though, just flail wildly in their interpretation of boxing, and perform much better. If I go to tennis, I have it pretty much nailed and perform quite well -- especially versus my sister, who actually played tennis for a long time, and does much smoother, wider movements, with a degree of angle control that's really outside the scope of such a game.
At the end of the day, the whole point of the Wii is not to give you a motion-perfect tennis simulator (though the new motion add-on might make that work). The point is to pick up on your general motion, figure out what you're trying to achieve, and translate the motions into the right way to do it.
There is a considerable number of people around multiboxing and dual-instancing WoW, using funky software to control several instances of it from one single console.
Yes, XMPP and Jingle are available. That sorts the "easy" part of providing an implementation for that one particular protocol. Now solve all the other problems the GP brought up: interoperability, encapsulation, etc.
To say Nokia Killer or Motorola Killer, you would need to say Apple killer not iPhone. However this product is not meant to "kill" Apple as a whole, but a product they produce, the iPhone. If you said no one has made a Nokia N95 killer or a Motorola RAZR killer, then that would be a better comparison.
The issue here is that Apple's product line is tiny, for better and for worse. Insofar as phones are concerned, saying "iPhone killer" or "Apple killer" is essentially equivalent. You can't aim at replacing Nokia or Motorola in the phone market by making a RAZR or N95 killer.
In a way, this is very much equivalent to Apple position in the computer market: if you say you purchased a MacBook (Pro), there are at most 3-4 machines you could mean. If you instead said you bought a Pavillion, how many people will be able to tell that was an HP machine, let alone have a chance at even guessing the specs?
Slashdot Mirror
If Jimbo is right 50% of the time, there's a 50% chance that you have a 1% chance to get a flat. If he's wrong, worst case scenario is 100% chance to have get a flat. Assuming worst case scenario, you have an expected 50.5% chance of a flat. Makes more sense?
that'd be "too", not "to". Oopsie.
In other news, people who consume more content acquire more of it to, by whatever means. That's the grand conclusion I reached, at least.
The point is that these drives are as reliable or more than other enterprise drives as measured with an inaccurate metric
In case I wasn't clear enough: "Yeah, I measured those two wall with my hand, and I'm 100% sure this one is bigger than than one by a hand's breadth."
I'd say that this post made a rather insightful point. The tone was quite sarcastic, but that doesn't in any way detract from the underlying point.
What the UK is forgetting, in my opinion, is that this is tax money being spent. Increasing the cost of government through revolving door fees only hurts the tax payer. The more cost effective way is to require the companies to absorb the cost of these inquiries. The cost is then passed on to the customer without the overhead of a government taxation process. (cut out the middle man) The customer (tax payer) is going to pay anyway. This way they pay less because there are fewer layers in the process.
What you're suggesting is essentially that, when law enforcement costs a certain amount of money on a certain service, that cost should be folded into the service's expenses (and, therefore, customers), rather than the law enforcement's expenses (and tax-payers as a whole).
The "stupid cookie" might or might not be an integral part of a discussion of individual rights and privacy, which ties in nicely with many of the complaints related to both the wars the US is waging and the detention centres. I'm not saying whether it should be a priority, only that painting it as a stupid cookie is really missing the point.
Where one man sees a link farm, many others see a properly and conveniently cross-referenced encyclopaedia.
Nude != Porn, true. But you have to be pretty damn innocent to think that those girls sent those pics for anything else other than hitting on those guys. Given they're nude, and given there's a clear sexual intent, exactly where do you draw the line and call it porn?
Two tags in gmail map to a tag1/tag2 folder hierarchy when you download that message via IMAP. When you upload something back to gmail, it will be stuffed with a single tag called "path/to/message".
Possibly that's what the GP meant.
(or not so it mutates in very bad ways :D)
It would take a lot of computing power and/or time for random mutation to yield useful results. That's more or less half of evolution right there.
When netscape argued that bundling IE with windows was foul play, they had a point. Today? Technology evolves. What was a luxury yesterday is a staple product today. It follows that what was abusive bundling back then is, today, the bare minimum of functionality.
I could be smarmy and say "OP didn't specify you'd charge it at home", but I won't. Instead, I'll say that, while flawed, the car analogy (yay for car analogies!) gives an interesting view of the potential of the material, all else being ideal.
It's husband/wife, if you're a gay/lesbian, respectively. Nothing PC about it. Of course, the OP could just have used "spouse", but whatever.
The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.
"Theft" bears a much larger moral implication in the minds of people than "copyright infringement" does, which is why people here get riled up at the comparison.
Either way, once again I think that it's more or less agreed that copyright infringement isn't quite as bad as outright theft, so it works like so: you assume a bigger crime than was (supposedly) commited, posit that punishment is proportional to crime, and conclude that, if the proposed punishment seems disproportionate for the greater crime, it must follow that it's also disproportionate for the lesser one. (Yes, copyright infringement isn't necessarily a criminal matter, but it simplifies language)
It would've made zero difference. The story hit all sorts of pro-linux sites, and foaming-at-the-mouth zealots in all of them gave their feedback. It only takes reading through the comments posted here in /. to guess what the people posted there.
If you close your eyes, it almost feels like you're eating runny eggs
True, but the point was that if I were to specifically dislike AAC for some reason, and wanted to format shift ASAP, that's what I'd do to ensure minimal lossiness going forward.
Lossiness in the conversion is a function of the destination, rather than source, format. If you have any sense, you'll at most have one lossy conversion step: First you convert your AAC files to a lossless format of some sort (including the lossless version of aac if it suits you). Then, all further conversions are made from that file rather than from lossy transcodings. Is your lossless format going out of fashion? Batch convert your collection to a newer lossless format. Then you can go back to converting to the new lossy standard for your everyday needs.
Funny, I always thought of sarcasm as being pretty corrosive.
Going on with the "accurate enough" point, it's quite true, for one simple reason: with the Wii, you don't ever use the motion control for any fine motions. Most of that is done with the infrared pointer (aiming, and stuff). Most motion control is done in a way that doesn't map 1:1 to the game world -- and quite honestly, you wouldn't want to either.
All it takes is seeing people play Wii Sports. I practiced Karate for several years, and the way I play Boxing on Wii Sports is pretty crappy, from the game's perspective: I favor short sequences of punches that don't leave me exposed for long (with longer chains being much more damaging in-game), the game only does a punch at a time so me punching with the left hand while my right hand is still pulling back doesn't translate well, and all sorts of other such issues. My mates that never *did* practice martial arts, though, just flail wildly in their interpretation of boxing, and perform much better. If I go to tennis, I have it pretty much nailed and perform quite well -- especially versus my sister, who actually played tennis for a long time, and does much smoother, wider movements, with a degree of angle control that's really outside the scope of such a game.
At the end of the day, the whole point of the Wii is not to give you a motion-perfect tennis simulator (though the new motion add-on might make that work). The point is to pick up on your general motion, figure out what you're trying to achieve, and translate the motions into the right way to do it.
There is a considerable number of people around multiboxing and dual-instancing WoW, using funky software to control several instances of it from one single console.
Yes, XMPP and Jingle are available. That sorts the "easy" part of providing an implementation for that one particular protocol. Now solve all the other problems the GP brought up: interoperability, encapsulation, etc.
By definition of "primary sexual characteristics".
To say Nokia Killer or Motorola Killer, you would need to say Apple killer not iPhone. However this product is not meant to "kill" Apple as a whole, but a product they produce, the iPhone. If you said no one has made a Nokia N95 killer or a Motorola RAZR killer, then that would be a better comparison.
The issue here is that Apple's product line is tiny, for better and for worse. Insofar as phones are concerned, saying "iPhone killer" or "Apple killer" is essentially equivalent. You can't aim at replacing Nokia or Motorola in the phone market by making a RAZR or N95 killer.
In a way, this is very much equivalent to Apple position in the computer market: if you say you purchased a MacBook (Pro), there are at most 3-4 machines you could mean. If you instead said you bought a Pavillion, how many people will be able to tell that was an HP machine, let alone have a chance at even guessing the specs?