But the producers are well within their rights to put advertisements in the game if they want. If you don't like it, don't buy the game. I doubt most people would consider non-intrusive ads (ie. produce placement) a dealbreaker.
Gmail has always done this for me - if somebody sends me an email, I reply, and they reply to my reply, all three emails appear in the same thread ("conversation").
How so? Any discussion with more then two people becomes completly unreadable, because Gmail mashes them all up in a single linear list, all the proper threading gets completly lost and it becomes impossible to figure out who answered whom.
I prefer it this way - it works well for me. You can view the headers of a message by clicking the name of the sender, which makes it easy to work out who's answering who. Shouldn't you be quoting the messages you're responding to on a high-traffic mailing list, anyway?
It is also impossible to kill subthreads, watch them, ignore them and all that stuff.
This is true, but it's not something that everybody needs or wants to do. I think for many people Gmail's way of doing things is better. If that's not the case for you, use another client.
If you advance on the efficiency ladder past the "Getting Things Done" phase, you will notice that GMail is a horribly inefficient interface.
The Gmail interface is perfectly adequate for my use, and I've never run into any problems with it being 'inefficient'. What exactly are your issues with it? I suspect that they are non-issues for the majority of email users.
There are numerous advantages to the webmail client, too, so I don't think you can say that either is "unquestionably superior". Choose the right tool for the right job.
Consequently I think even these part-time pirates will stop caring at some point in the near future
Probably, but by then other people will be doing it. Why is it far-fetched to call it a valid use case? These people have money and they're using it to buy storage.
1TB holds 250 dvd-rips without compression.
Or 20 uncompressed Blu-ray rips. People will find a way to use the storage. It's very easy to fill a 1TB disk right now by downloading HD content.
For these people, it would take a relatively small amount to kill them.
Got a source for that? Some people with an underlying predisposition to psychological conditions like schizophrenia can have a psychotic break triggered by marijuana use, but the last I heard, nobody has ever died from smoking marijuana, allergy or not.
That's taking it a bit far. Sure, RAID isn't a total backup solution, but it does provide some protection against one form of data loss (hardware failure).
The average consumer stopped caring a long time ago - I don't know any 'average' users with more than 100GB of data. I know lots of people with over 1TB of pirated movies and music, though. It's a legitimate use case for the storage, even if it is illegal.
Yep, overloading the SI prefixes worked well for years. Maybe you and I understand the overloading, but many people don't, and it's unnecessarily confusing. I think the fact that a class action suit was brought against Seagate as a result of this confusion indicates that overloading the SI prefixes hardly 'works well'.
SI is based on 10, but unless there's a good reason to we normally use the units based on 1000 (kilo, mega, giga, tera) because changing units every time you go up an order of magnitude is tedious and unnecessary.
There's technically no reason you can't mix prefixes, but the GP's point was that it's odd to use different units (centiliters and milliliters) to refer to the same volume (0.75 L). It's not wrong, just unusual and confusing for those who aren't familiar with the SI system.
Seems to me 1 KM * 1 KM = 1 SQUARE KM, and not 1 K SQUARE M.
Your math's off - if you're squaring 1km and want to express the answer in square metres, then you need to square the 'kilo' prefix as well, giving you 1 'mega-square metre'. Although it's more conventionally expressed as one square kilometre, like you said.
You seem to be getting awfully upset about this. Perhaps you'd have better luck convincing us if you tried to calmly explain why you disagree, rather than calling us 'morans' (ha).
Yes, 'kilobyte' means 1024 bytes, but the point is that this is abusing the SI prefix 'kilo', which means 1000. We all understand that in CS sometimes 'kilo' means 1000 and sometimes it means 1024, but it's unnecessarily confusing.
Yes, we should expect somebody working with computers to understand when 'kilo' means 1024 and when it means 1000, but it would be nice if we didn't have to.
Standards are nice, but things making sense is much nicer.
It makes sense to have a unit that means '1024 bytes', but it doesn't make sense to call it a kilobyte, because anybody who's familiar with SI units will assume that 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes.
And if the universe is quantum, SI is technically wrong for everything.
This doesn't have anything to do with SI, this has to do with the inaccuracy inherent in any form of measurement. In scientific contexts you usually provide an uncertainty for your measurements (or that uncertainty is implied by the number of significant figures), so when you say a metal rod is 1.00m long you don't actually mean to say it's precisely 1 meter long, but that the length is closer to 1.00m than 0.99m or 1.01m.
It's not really fair to say that SI is 'wrong' because we understand that measurement is a way of approximating the value of something when we can't count out its exact value. That's the context in which SI units are used, and they're very useful in that context.
This is what causes confusion when comparing download speeds, which are usually represented in KB/s or MB/s (bytes), and line sync speeds, which are represented in Kbps or Mbps (bits).
So you're arguing that Microsoft discovered the RROD problem during testing, ignored it despite knowing they'd lose billions of dollars over it, and then released the product anyway and lost billions of dollars over it? And because of this, you think they should be punished financially and with jail time.
If you actually believe this, I see no point in arguing further with you. You're insane.
Slashdot Mirror
But the producers are well within their rights to put advertisements in the game if they want. If you don't like it, don't buy the game. I doubt most people would consider non-intrusive ads (ie. produce placement) a dealbreaker.
And yet it's still preferable to using a 'real' client for most Gmail users - at least, I assume it is, because otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
It would be nice if offline Gmail allowed you to choose to back up the whole account if you so desired, though.
Gmail has always done this for me - if somebody sends me an email, I reply, and they reply to my reply, all three emails appear in the same thread ("conversation").
Gmail has been able to read mail since it was created (after all, that's what it's for), so this doesn't really apply.
Some people prefer the Gmail interface to that of a 'real' client.
I prefer it this way - it works well for me. You can view the headers of a message by clicking the name of the sender, which makes it easy to work out who's answering who. Shouldn't you be quoting the messages you're responding to on a high-traffic mailing list, anyway?
This is true, but it's not something that everybody needs or wants to do. I think for many people Gmail's way of doing things is better. If that's not the case for you, use another client.
The Gmail interface is perfectly adequate for my use, and I've never run into any problems with it being 'inefficient'. What exactly are your issues with it? I suspect that they are non-issues for the majority of email users.
IMAP does have its advantages, but you can set up filters and access multiple accounts from Gmail.
There are numerous advantages to the webmail client, too, so I don't think you can say that either is "unquestionably superior". Choose the right tool for the right job.
Probably, but by then other people will be doing it. Why is it far-fetched to call it a valid use case? These people have money and they're using it to buy storage.
Or 20 uncompressed Blu-ray rips. People will find a way to use the storage. It's very easy to fill a 1TB disk right now by downloading HD content.
Got a source for that? Some people with an underlying predisposition to psychological conditions like schizophrenia can have a psychotic break triggered by marijuana use, but the last I heard, nobody has ever died from smoking marijuana, allergy or not.
It still requires more time and effort than buying it (in most cases).
It's common, but it's certainly not the most common way of acquiring tomatoes.
There's no 'I' in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think!
That's taking it a bit far. Sure, RAID isn't a total backup solution, but it does provide some protection against one form of data loss (hardware failure).
The average consumer stopped caring a long time ago - I don't know any 'average' users with more than 100GB of data. I know lots of people with over 1TB of pirated movies and music, though. It's a legitimate use case for the storage, even if it is illegal.
Yep, overloading the SI prefixes worked well for years. Maybe you and I understand the overloading, but many people don't, and it's unnecessarily confusing. I think the fact that a class action suit was brought against Seagate as a result of this confusion indicates that overloading the SI prefixes hardly 'works well'.
SI is based on 10, but unless there's a good reason to we normally use the units based on 1000 (kilo, mega, giga, tera) because changing units every time you go up an order of magnitude is tedious and unnecessary.
There's technically no reason you can't mix prefixes, but the GP's point was that it's odd to use different units (centiliters and milliliters) to refer to the same volume (0.75 L). It's not wrong, just unusual and confusing for those who aren't familiar with the SI system.
Your math's off - if you're squaring 1km and want to express the answer in square metres, then you need to square the 'kilo' prefix as well, giving you 1 'mega-square metre'. Although it's more conventionally expressed as one square kilometre, like you said.
You seem to be getting awfully upset about this. Perhaps you'd have better luck convincing us if you tried to calmly explain why you disagree, rather than calling us 'morans' (ha).
Yes, 'kilobyte' means 1024 bytes, but the point is that this is abusing the SI prefix 'kilo', which means 1000. We all understand that in CS sometimes 'kilo' means 1000 and sometimes it means 1024, but it's unnecessarily confusing.
Yes, we should expect somebody working with computers to understand when 'kilo' means 1024 and when it means 1000, but it would be nice if we didn't have to.
It makes sense to have a unit that means '1024 bytes', but it doesn't make sense to call it a kilobyte, because anybody who's familiar with SI units will assume that 1 kilobyte = 1000 bytes.
This doesn't have anything to do with SI, this has to do with the inaccuracy inherent in any form of measurement. In scientific contexts you usually provide an uncertainty for your measurements (or that uncertainty is implied by the number of significant figures), so when you say a metal rod is 1.00m long you don't actually mean to say it's precisely 1 meter long, but that the length is closer to 1.00m than 0.99m or 1.01m.
It's not really fair to say that SI is 'wrong' because we understand that measurement is a way of approximating the value of something when we can't count out its exact value. That's the context in which SI units are used, and they're very useful in that context.
This is what causes confusion when comparing download speeds, which are usually represented in KB/s or MB/s (bytes), and line sync speeds, which are represented in Kbps or Mbps (bits).
So you're arguing that Microsoft discovered the RROD problem during testing, ignored it despite knowing they'd lose billions of dollars over it, and then released the product anyway and lost billions of dollars over it? And because of this, you think they should be punished financially and with jail time.
If you actually believe this, I see no point in arguing further with you. You're insane.
You're correct. All this requires is a 'good ear' (ie. relative pitch), which can be learned, unlike absolute pitch.
I think this is only the case if they have a reference note to work from, or absolute pitch, which is quite rare.