I usually do something similar to the GP (slow down a little). However, that said, if the tailgater starts tailgating someone else who's going slowly a little bit ahead of me, I usually match speeds with them and stay even with the tailgater for a while. Usually after a minute or so, I come up behind a slower car (most people seem to speed up when someone starts tailgating them) and have to give up, or I feel sorry for the person being tailgated and let the -gater out. Usually it ends up that they have to go the speed limit (65 here in CA, tho most people drive at more like 80) for a minute or two.
> No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback.
MS has said the player will be only used for movies. It seems like (assuming you want an HD-DVD player at all) a decent price if you already own a 360, but otherwise not so much otherwise. A quick check at Best Buy and Circuit City's websites for "HD-DVD Player" puts it at $200 for the add-on, about $500 for a stand alone player. Although I guess a Core 360 + HD-DVD add-on is about the same price as a standalone player.
(sorry to reply to myself, but now that I've actually RTFA rather then just the summary...)
The (U.S. $1.3 million) is not in the article. The yen that is about 1 million US dollars in worth that they are talking about is the 150 million yen that he is suspected of having made, rather then the 6 million he has admitted to making.
Also, the article didn't make that conversion in the summary (the 6 million yen = 1 million U.S.).
Personally I've always been a fan of the classic Ford GT paint: White with blue stripes. Here's the link from that page..
But then, I have yet to own a computer case or peripheral darker then light-gray, too. Not that black doesn't work in a lot of other situations (I definitely wouldn't want the car I actually drive in any other color)
Well, there is one big thing in Halo 2 that counter-balances this: your enemies regain their shields too. This is true of the common enemies in the campaign as well as other players in multi-player. Also, enemies throwing grenades (the AI is at least as good as players) makes it so sufficient cover can be a bit harder to come by if you've taken a decent beating.
I've not played Red Steel, though, so I don't know if they've done anything (either like those things, or something) to counter-balance your regeneration for the enemies. Certainly I've seen a few other games do this since Halo (Gears of War does, for example), and the mechanic itself is certainly as good as any other way of doing health in an FPS style game. If people feel like it makes the game to easy in Red Steel even though they don't for these other games, it might mean the Red Steel developers didn't give the enemies enough of a way to counter it (through AI, map design, or some sort of counter-balancing abilities).
(Note: I'm a student at UCI)
To the best of my knowledge, the way the police here work is that they are basically equivalent to any other state police force (the such as California Highway Patrol, as a few other people have said), both in what they are allowed to do and what rules they have to follow. I'd say it's quite possible that their budget is a subset of the UC system's budget, rather then a part of the regular law enforcement agencies.
They're just a police force who's cars say "UCI Police" or "UCLA Police" (Instead of "Irvine Police", "LAPD", or "CHP"), and their area of operation is limited to the UC campuses.
P.S. Me and a couple of my friends all agree that the result of all this is that they end up being even more ass-holes then regular cops.
Oh don't worry, there are a wide range of reasonably sized shark-based lafrikin-lazer platforms available for deployment. Everything ftom Shoulder-mounted (rocket launcher style) and rifle sized to this guy, who could be a nice frikin-lazer-based sidearm...
Also, this one may be a bit big for mobile deployment, but can you imagine one of them with a friken lazer beem on his forehead?
On a related note, there was an adapter for the orignal XBox that let you hook up a PS/2 ([insert witty comment on the port's name wrt consoles) KB+M with mouse movement bound to the what is usually the "look" stick and other bindings programable. In general, though, it gave the people with it a fairly good sized advantage and I doubt they would integrate the controls into the game.
Be sure to thank your friend for me. I live in Orange County and I voted in the last election. The paper ballot part of the machine was new this year, though the machines were otherwise the same ones we've had since my first election in 2004 (I think that's the first year we had them, though), and I wasn't sure what had prompted the change to paper this year (certainly glad for it though).
It's also good to hear that they are actually counting with the paper ballots (rather then the machine count) getting the highest authority. I had pessimistically assumed they were mostly for recount purposes.
The only potential problem with the system you described, and it's something I didn't see you mention, is that it seemed like the counted part of the ballot was in bar code form, while the rest was probably for hand recount purposes. Just a quick look at what a ballot looked like through the window*:
Prop 1A: [Yes/No] Prop 1B: [Yes/No] ... [Page break in here somewhere - there were lots of props and confirmations for judges] ... State Senator: [Whomever] Governor: [Whomever] ... [Another page break after all the ballot items - At this point you can accept or reject the ballot] Accepted! [Bar code] [Maybe some "Thanks for voting!" thing]
The fact that they have a bar code makes me wonder about the process for counting the paper ballots (the VPATS? not to good with alphabet soup). It seems likely that they will be counted by a machine that uses the bar code, rather then by hand looking at the yes/no or name markers. If so, is the counting machine made by the same company? Because the fact that I can no more verify that my vote was accurately recorded in the bar code then I could that the machine wasn't miscounting in the previous two elections is slightly worrisome. Seems like some sort of scantron-like ballot where the machine just fills in the box for you and both you and a machine can read it would be better
"Haven't really changed anything" says to me that (warning: car/software analogy.. though in reverse) as in software, when they've spent the last few months/or more doing minor bug fixes, it'll be alot more secure then right after a major new version.
Take Firefox (even though it's fairly secure), 1.5.0.7 has been around for a while, and since the 1.5 major release, "nothing has really changed".. all the new releases have just been small performance improvements or bug fixes (which is, of course, why they result in such a low order change to the version number). With 2.0 (or maybe 3.0 would be better, since 2 has actually been around for a while), there may be some new, as-of-yet unkown bug in one of the big new features, say a buffer-overflow attack involving the spell-checker that allows remote execution (of course I'm just making up an example... *wink*), but since the feature is relatively new and hasn't spent that much time really in the wild, it hasn't been discovered yet. When such a hole has been, hopefully a patch will be released soon (see: the post somewhere around here about recalls on parts) and the problem fixed once it is identified, but you'll still be vulnerable untill then.
This isn't to say that FF1.5.0.7 doesn't have some security holes or other problems (certainly the bug count isn't down to 0 quite yet, nor will it ever be), but likely most of the bugs, and all of the major ones, have been found by now. They're known, and the big ones are fixed. Even though nothing much has changed since the 1.5 major version release.
But enough of my overly-long, horrible car/computer analogy filled response to your nit-picky misinterpertation of the GP's post...
As far as I know, there's no law against making a web sight hosted on a URL that is similar to another (domain squaters demonstrate this every day). If they're having a big problem with the traffic, they could do something like what http://www.firefox.com/ has done, put a minimalistic main page that says something like "Looking for YouTube.com? Go Here: [youtube.com], or continue to our page about tube manufacturing: [utube.com/main]" It could even be a very light text-based page if they wanted to really cut down on bandwidth.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that their argument seems to be "They have a similar name, we were here first, and we don't like it" when in fact, as others have pointed out, there are two other companies with much more similar names that would probably confuse their target market, and take away from bussiness. It's a shame that youtube's growth has hurt them, but there are certainly other solutions then a legal battle in which they seem to be the underdog.
The question the GP posed was "Why isn't utube.com (owned by Universal Tubing) suing universaltubes.com and universaltube.com, since as far as I (and most people, probably) can tell, they might as well be the same company (and definitely all three apparently different companies have the same company name).
Because when Bill the plumber says to Jim the plumber check Universal Tube's website, Jim isn't going to have any idea which of those three websites Bill is talking about....
I'm pretty sure that's an option of tabbrowser preferences. Check in Options/Tabs/User Interface. The second box is called "Load the following in new tabs:" and has check boxes for URLs from the address bar (with a radio button for whether they should be loaded in foreground or background) and a check box for searches. It may be that they changed the default setting for that in the update, or something (I had it turned on anyway).
I just tested it and switching the setting works fine for me. If it is broken for you for some reason, it looks like the about:config setting browser.tab.opentabfor.urlbar is the setting this is supposed to affect. Turns out the default is still false for that, so I'm not so sure about my guess now.
Am I the only one who read the line "Making concessions to Symantec and McAffee," and the first concessions that popped into my mind were "Just a little security hole here, buffer overflow there, ect."
I'm no fan of MS, especially when it comes to their horrible security track record. However, if they really can manage to get it right (or even significantly better) in Vista, they shouldn't be going and making concessions to the people who've been making a living off the things that were broken in their last OS.
Not that there's anything wrong with editing about:config directly (I've done it plenty), but I found that just fine in Tools/Options/Tabbed Browsing/Display Options/Show Tab Closure Button On:[Combo Box]
The GP's other complaint that tabs always open to blank pages was an option in Tabbed Browsing/User Interface/When loading new tabs, load the:[Blank Page* | Home Page | Current Page]
It's quite possible that I only see these options because of the Tabbrowser Preferences extension (which auto-updated with the install), though. It's a pretty good extension, adds a lot of extra options to the Tabbed Browsing part of the options menu. Sometimes it's nice to be able to see a list of things to edit without having to look up what number means what.
PS: The setting for "One close button on the right side of the bar" is 3
The point is that companies storing sensative data on laptops should do this. That way, when a criminal steals their laptop, they only get a laptop they can't access instead of a laptop with 1000s of peoples personal information on it. Of course, people with personal laptops that have sensitive information on them (maybe bank account related, or other financial stuff) would probably want to do this for the same reasons.
I think it's a problem with the flash player. When that happened to me (started at Apple's 1984 commercial), I went and tried some other places (specifically, youtube main page and google video) with the tab still open. Other things (like IMs and mp3s) were still working, but othing flash would make sound until I reloaded the page. Very annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
I usually do something similar to the GP (slow down a little). However, that said, if the tailgater starts tailgating someone else who's going slowly a little bit ahead of me, I usually match speeds with them and stay even with the tailgater for a while. Usually after a minute or so, I come up behind a slower car (most people seem to speed up when someone starts tailgating them) and have to give up, or I feel sorry for the person being tailgated and let the -gater out. Usually it ends up that they have to go the speed limit (65 here in CA, tho most people drive at more like 80) for a minute or two.
> No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback.
MS has said the player will be only used for movies. It seems like (assuming you want an HD-DVD player at all) a decent price if you already own a 360, but otherwise not so much otherwise. A quick check at Best Buy and Circuit City's websites for "HD-DVD Player" puts it at $200 for the add-on, about $500 for a stand alone player. Although I guess a Core 360 + HD-DVD add-on is about the same price as a standalone player.
(sorry to reply to myself, but now that I've actually RTFA rather then just the summary...)
The (U.S. $1.3 million) is not in the article. The yen that is about 1 million US dollars in worth that they are talking about is the 150 million yen that he is suspected of having made, rather then the 6 million he has admitted to making.
Also, the article didn't make that conversion in the summary (the 6 million yen = 1 million U.S.).
Summary says "6 million yen or $1.3m" .. but 6m yen is only about 50k dollars (1 yen is slightly less then 1 cent in value) .. so .. which is it?
Personally I've always been a fan of the classic Ford GT paint: White with blue stripes. Here's the link from that page.. But then, I have yet to own a computer case or peripheral darker then light-gray, too. Not that black doesn't work in a lot of other situations (I definitely wouldn't want the car I actually drive in any other color)
Well, there is one big thing in Halo 2 that counter-balances this: your enemies regain their shields too. This is true of the common enemies in the campaign as well as other players in multi-player. Also, enemies throwing grenades (the AI is at least as good as players) makes it so sufficient cover can be a bit harder to come by if you've taken a decent beating.
I've not played Red Steel, though, so I don't know if they've done anything (either like those things, or something) to counter-balance your regeneration for the enemies. Certainly I've seen a few other games do this since Halo (Gears of War does, for example), and the mechanic itself is certainly as good as any other way of doing health in an FPS style game. If people feel like it makes the game to easy in Red Steel even though they don't for these other games, it might mean the Red Steel developers didn't give the enemies enough of a way to counter it (through AI, map design, or some sort of counter-balancing abilities).
(Note: I'm a student at UCI)
To the best of my knowledge, the way the police here work is that they are basically equivalent to any other state police force (the such as California Highway Patrol, as a few other people have said), both in what they are allowed to do and what rules they have to follow. I'd say it's quite possible that their budget is a subset of the UC system's budget, rather then a part of the regular law enforcement agencies.
They're just a police force who's cars say "UCI Police" or "UCLA Police" (Instead of "Irvine Police", "LAPD", or "CHP"), and their area of operation is limited to the UC campuses.
P.S. Me and a couple of my friends all agree that the result of all this is that they end up being even more ass-holes then regular cops.
Don't worry, it's still a ways off. I don't even think there's a release date for Web 3.0rc1 yet!
Oh don't worry, there are a wide range of reasonably sized shark-based lafrikin-lazer platforms available for deployment. Everything ftom Shoulder-mounted (rocket launcher style) and rifle sized to this guy, who could be a nice frikin-lazer-based sidearm...
Also, this one may be a bit big for mobile deployment, but can you imagine one of them with a friken lazer beem on his forehead?
I don't think any console FPS does this yet.
On a related note, there was an adapter for the orignal XBox that let you hook up a PS/2 ([insert witty comment on the port's name wrt consoles) KB+M with mouse movement bound to the what is usually the "look" stick and other bindings programable. In general, though, it gave the people with it a fairly good sized advantage and I doubt they would integrate the controls into the game.
It's also good to hear that they are actually counting with the paper ballots (rather then the machine count) getting the highest authority. I had pessimistically assumed they were mostly for recount purposes.
The only potential problem with the system you described, and it's something I didn't see you mention, is that it seemed like the counted part of the ballot was in bar code form, while the rest was probably for hand recount purposes. Just a quick look at what a ballot looked like through the window*:The fact that they have a bar code makes me wonder about the process for counting the paper ballots (the VPATS? not to good with alphabet soup). It seems likely that they will be counted by a machine that uses the bar code, rather then by hand looking at the yes/no or name markers. If so, is the counting machine made by the same company? Because the fact that I can no more verify that my vote was accurately recorded in the bar code then I could that the machine wasn't miscounting in the previous two elections is slightly worrisome. Seems like some sort of scantron-like ballot where the machine just fills in the box for you and both you and a machine can read it would be better
Thanks again for the info.
Shotgun!*
*Although I have no intention of buying a PS3 at the moment, it's always best to play it safe...
"Haven't really changed anything" says to me that (warning: car/software analogy .. though in reverse) as in software, when they've spent the last few months/or more doing minor bug fixes, it'll be alot more secure then right after a major new version.
.. all the new releases have just been small performance improvements or bug fixes (which is, of course, why they result in such a low order change to the version number). With 2.0 (or maybe 3.0 would be better, since 2 has actually been around for a while), there may be some new, as-of-yet unkown bug in one of the big new features, say a buffer-overflow attack involving the spell-checker that allows remote execution (of course I'm just making up an example ... *wink*), but since the feature is relatively new and hasn't spent that much time really in the wild, it hasn't been discovered yet. When such a hole has been, hopefully a patch will be released soon (see: the post somewhere around here about recalls on parts) and the problem fixed once it is identified, but you'll still be vulnerable untill then.
Take Firefox (even though it's fairly secure), 1.5.0.7 has been around for a while, and since the 1.5 major release, "nothing has really changed"
This isn't to say that FF1.5.0.7 doesn't have some security holes or other problems (certainly the bug count isn't down to 0 quite yet, nor will it ever be), but likely most of the bugs, and all of the major ones, have been found by now. They're known, and the big ones are fixed. Even though nothing much has changed since the 1.5 major version release.
But enough of my overly-long, horrible car/computer analogy filled response to your nit-picky misinterpertation of the GP's post...
2006 means .. should be out around Saturn by now*
By an interesting coincidence, I just finished reading the book (Contact) a week or two ago.
*given 2 or 3 years to reach Jupiter, starting at the begging of 2000 = Saturn by late 2006?
As far as I know, there's no law against making a web sight hosted on a URL that is similar to another (domain squaters demonstrate this every day). If they're having a big problem with the traffic, they could do something like what http://www.firefox.com/ has done, put a minimalistic main page that says something like "Looking for YouTube.com? Go Here: [youtube.com], or continue to our page about tube manufacturing: [utube.com/main]" It could even be a very light text-based page if they wanted to really cut down on bandwidth.
The point I was trying to make in my first post was that their argument seems to be "They have a similar name, we were here first, and we don't like it" when in fact, as others have pointed out, there are two other companies with much more similar names that would probably confuse their target market, and take away from bussiness. It's a shame that youtube's growth has hurt them, but there are certainly other solutions then a legal battle in which they seem to be the underdog.
The question the GP posed was "Why isn't utube.com (owned by Universal Tubing) suing universaltubes.com and universaltube.com, since as far as I (and most people, probably) can tell, they might as well be the same company (and definitely all three apparently different companies have the same company name).
Because when Bill the plumber says to Jim the plumber check Universal Tube's website, Jim isn't going to have any idea which of those three websites Bill is talking about....
Yeah, I thought it would be a good controller to give to one of my friends who has a history of hardware abuse.
Although, since he's mostly a PC guy, what he really needs is some sort of reinforced mouse.
I'm pretty sure that's an option of tabbrowser preferences. Check in Options/Tabs/User Interface. The second box is called "Load the following in new tabs:" and has check boxes for URLs from the address bar (with a radio button for whether they should be loaded in foreground or background) and a check box for searches. It may be that they changed the default setting for that in the update, or something (I had it turned on anyway).
I just tested it and switching the setting works fine for me. If it is broken for you for some reason, it looks like the about:config setting browser.tab.opentabfor.urlbar is the setting this is supposed to affect. Turns out the default is still false for that, so I'm not so sure about my guess now.
Good luck, hope that helps with your problem.
Am I the only one who read the line "Making concessions to Symantec and McAffee," and the first concessions that popped into my mind were "Just a little security hole here, buffer overflow there, ect."
I'm no fan of MS, especially when it comes to their horrible security track record. However, if they really can manage to get it right (or even significantly better) in Vista, they shouldn't be going and making concessions to the people who've been making a living off the things that were broken in their last OS.
I saw an option for that, but I don't like the button (prefer Ctrl+T), so I left it alone.
Not that there's anything wrong with editing about:config directly (I've done it plenty), but I found that just fine in Tools/Options/Tabbed Browsing/Display Options/Show Tab Closure Button On:[Combo Box]
The GP's other complaint that tabs always open to blank pages was an option in Tabbed Browsing/User Interface/When loading new tabs, load the:[Blank Page* | Home Page | Current Page]
It's quite possible that I only see these options because of the Tabbrowser Preferences extension (which auto-updated with the install), though. It's a pretty good extension, adds a lot of extra options to the Tabbed Browsing part of the options menu. Sometimes it's nice to be able to see a list of things to edit without having to look up what number means what.
PS: The setting for "One close button on the right side of the bar" is 3
The point is that companies storing sensative data on laptops should do this. That way, when a criminal steals their laptop, they only get a laptop they can't access instead of a laptop with 1000s of peoples personal information on it. Of course, people with personal laptops that have sensitive information on them (maybe bank account related, or other financial stuff) would probably want to do this for the same reasons.
[sarcasm]Clearly this was infact the first time you click on the "Read More" link.[/sarcasm]
It happens sometimes when you click the link too soon after it shows up on the main page.
Sarcasm because 50-60% of the discussions have quite a few jokes about that message...
I think it's a problem with the flash player. When that happened to me (started at Apple's 1984 commercial), I went and tried some other places (specifically, youtube main page and google video) with the tab still open. Other things (like IMs and mp3s) were still working, but othing flash would make sound until I reloaded the page. Very annoying.
(Sorry, as a Californian, I couldn't resist)