Just seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot by not offering backwards compatibility with the PS2. The PS2 has a huge library and dominated the console market for its generation.
I saw the headline and my first thought was "Yay, time to get a PS3", remembering that I had read previously that (most) PS2 games could be played on the PS3.
Now I'm reading that the newer PS3's do NOT, in fact, play PS2 games. I don't have a huge collection, but there are plenty of games I want to continue to play without having to buy them again (if they are even available in PS3 format).
You just lost a sale there, Sony. I'll hang on to my PS2 thanks.
if I remember correctly they also had a policy of not telling you why you were listed to begin with
AFAIK this is common to all RBLs - if they told you why and you were an evil spammer you could just work around whatever put you on the list and go on with your evil spamming. Of course this makes life difficult if you are trying to track down a problem with a rogue PHP script that is getting you blacklisted and you have no idea what is causing it. I finally found my problem, but even just a hint would have been helpful.
Dihydrogen monoxide is also a major component of acid rain, can kill you if you breathe it, and oxidises/corrodes many metals. It is found in biopsies of pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions.
For a full rundown of the dangers (and - surprisingly - some benefits) of dihydrogen monoxide click here.
Sequels are not necessarily bad. Empire Strikes Back, anyone? Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good. Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels. I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.
As long as Pixar's people are doing the creative work, and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution, I am hopeful that the quality will remain high.
But if your company is, say, a bank, a restaurant chain, or a manufacturer of water pumps, how do you justify your use of company resources to help with some software project?
...
Companies don't give out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it to improve their image.
You've answered your own question here, the difficulty is in convincing them that the longer term benefit to their image is greater from this contribution than to the save-the-baby-whales charities. Even if that doesn't work, you could always throw in the argument that a small donation of resources to improve the software will also directly benefit the company because the free product they *already use* is now faster, better documented, and has more features because of that contribution.
The same thinking can be applied elsewhere - the first thing that comes to mind is television shows. A full 1 hour show sees me either dozing off or losing interest. If they could shorten the show to... I dunno... maybe 43-46 minutes, I would find it much easier to pay attention all the way through.
Sure, they would have to cut out some of the current content, but I'm sure these clever television people could find a way to make that work.
If a large problem with using guns as a method of execution is the stress it causes the executioner, how is this any different from any of the other methods discussed here?
Here we have a situation where a single large country - with too much power and inertia in these matters - is pointedly ignoring what the rest of the world is doing, and forcing the use of an arcane, unwieldy, incompatible standard on the rest of us.
Thank goodness this sort of thing doesn't happen in the IT industry.
They prove that forcing Australian servers to remove links to banned sites is pointless, as the links will just show up elsewhere. Wikipedia is a high-profile site and banning it would attract a great deal of attention to how stupid this whole thing is.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft doesn't allow the licensing benefits to flow into VMWare or Citrix XEN
Does this count as using the leverage of a popular product to push into another market?
There are times when a modicum of pedantry, politely applied, is useful in providing an important correction or 'tweak' to an otherwise accurate post.
Of course, this is not one of those times. GP is a dick.
They won't find it, they are only looking in base 10. Fools.
Yes I could, but my wife doesn't want the lounge room cluttered with redundant electronic devices and the associated cables.
Just seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot by not offering backwards compatibility with the PS2. The PS2 has a huge library and dominated the console market for its generation.
I saw the headline and my first thought was "Yay, time to get a PS3", remembering that I had read previously that (most) PS2 games could be played on the PS3.
Now I'm reading that the newer PS3's do NOT, in fact, play PS2 games. I don't have a huge collection, but there are plenty of games I want to continue to play without having to buy them again (if they are even available in PS3 format).
You just lost a sale there, Sony. I'll hang on to my PS2 thanks.
So long, and thanks for all the fish ...
Did anyone else misread this as 'double-backward somersault'?
Your explanation is clear, but raises the question: if the photoreceptors are pointing the wrong way, how do they receive the light?
The 'sheer volume' of data becomes significantly smaller if you ask the submitter to enter the date that the article appeared.
There is also an inexhaustible supply of stupidity.
It's like a car.
if I remember correctly they also had a policy of not telling you why you were listed to begin with
AFAIK this is common to all RBLs - if they told you why and you were an evil spammer you could just work around whatever put you on the list and go on with your evil spamming. Of course this makes life difficult if you are trying to track down a problem with a rogue PHP script that is getting you blacklisted and you have no idea what is causing it. I finally found my problem, but even just a hint would have been helpful.
Earlier he'd had an asshole transplant, but the asshole rejected him.
Dihydrogen monoxide is also a major component of acid rain, can kill you if you breathe it, and oxidises/corrodes many metals. It is found in biopsies of pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions.
For a full rundown of the dangers (and - surprisingly - some benefits) of dihydrogen monoxide click here.
I wouldn't worry, most people usually comment without reading the articles anyway.
I'm not sure that 'offing' the nasty people is what he had in mind.
Sequels are not necessarily bad. Empire Strikes Back, anyone? Rocky 2 was a brilliant sequel (although they did go downhill after that) and more recently the Shrek 2 and 3 sequels have been, well, adequately good. Toy Story 2 wasn't too bad, and I think there is capacity in some of the Pixar films to do good sequels. I think it's only a problem if the driving force to do a sequel is because the original did well, whereas it should be because they have a decent story to tell.
As long as Pixar's people are doing the creative work, and Disney is only doing the promotion/distribution, I am hopeful that the quality will remain high.
But if your company is, say, a bank, a restaurant chain, or a manufacturer of water pumps, how do you justify your use of company resources to help with some software project?
...
Companies don't give out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it to improve their image.
You've answered your own question here, the difficulty is in convincing them that the longer term benefit to their image is greater from this contribution than to the save-the-baby-whales charities. Even if that doesn't work, you could always throw in the argument that a small donation of resources to improve the software will also directly benefit the company because the free product they *already use* is now faster, better documented, and has more features because of that contribution.
I've heard rumors that their are multiple precognitive algorithms though, and that they don't always agree.
That's not good news. We all know how pissed off AI's can get when they get conflicting instructions.
The people are being led by some ruthless manics. It really doesn't matter what the people think - nobody is going to ask their opinion.
Well, yes, that WAS true - then Obama got in.
The same thinking can be applied elsewhere - the first thing that comes to mind is television shows. A full 1 hour show sees me either dozing off or losing interest. If they could shorten the show to... I dunno... maybe 43-46 minutes, I would find it much easier to pay attention all the way through.
Sure, they would have to cut out some of the current content, but I'm sure these clever television people could find a way to make that work.
What about area 34? That's where the government keeps its huge stash of porn mags...
No, that's Area 69.
If a large problem with using guns as a method of execution is the stress it causes the executioner, how is this any different from any of the other methods discussed here?
Hard to argue for free software when the buyer's bonuses are based on saving % off MSRP (as it is in government contract procurements).
So then wouldn't you just include in the quote something like "Comparable solution using Microsoft Software would cost $x"?
IMO vendors should be doing that anyway.
Here we have a situation where a single large country - with too much power and inertia in these matters - is pointedly ignoring what the rest of the world is doing, and forcing the use of an arcane, unwieldy, incompatible standard on the rest of us.
Thank goodness this sort of thing doesn't happen in the IT industry.
They prove that forcing Australian servers to remove links to banned sites is pointless, as the links will just show up elsewhere. Wikipedia is a high-profile site and banning it would attract a great deal of attention to how stupid this whole thing is.