I'm not loosing any sleep over it. Many companies seemed to have done this, as another post stated, and I was aware of it when I acquired the hard drives. I've enjoyed my 2 SATA Segate hard drive that I bought pre '06, from Newegg so I could acquire a receipt. I don't plan to get the compensation. That would just take from their development budget and slightly hinder hard drive competition. I like the competition that's what gives us better products for cheaper.
I've noticed a lot more sites are becoming static, instead of dynamic, because it's the easiest way to obtain cross browser support.
What does server side dynamic pages (PHP, etc) have to do with cross browser support? You can dynamically generate the exact same content you host statically, it just takes more processing power on the server. To clarify I meant static layouts, not static content. For example having the page 900 pixels wide, no matter what size the browser is. Examples of this cnn.com, walmart.com, bestbuy.com. These pages don't even fill the whole browser, except with white space or a repeated background, if you're past that static width.
But I'm a fan of the dynamic pages that fill the pages based on how big your window is.
A proper web browser will reflow the text on any web page static or dynamic. In fact a web designer has to go out of their way to break that behavior by specifying the dimensions of their boxes in pixels. This is true, but like I said I've seen a trend where companies are doing this static layout, because the dynamic way has potential to load differently across browsers. This brings us to the parent saying that this is the wrong survey. I'd like some more insight into this trend other than just my speculations.
As a newly graduated web designer, I completely agree. All I've seen so far is that some myspace pages are horrible and take forever to load, other sites where their navigation bars change based on the page, and other minor things here and there that aren't too happy. I'd assume you want a page to load quickly, be easy to navigate, and look good. However the look good part seems to be subjective. I've noticed a lot more sites are becoming static, instead of dynamic, because it's the easiest way to obtain cross browser support. But I'm a fan of the dynamic pages that fill the pages based on how big your window is. It'd be great to get an over all idea of what people like and dislike with site design.
I mean, a hundred PS3s sure, but 8? I think we are de-valuing the meaning of the word 'super':) If super is under rated we should start using Ultra.
The first Nintendo started out with the NES or a normal computer, then the Super Nintendo. The N64 came next and was going potentially being called the Ultra64. The Game Cube to be called the Dolphin. So following the naming scheme super = teraflop, ultra = petaflop (or 10 or 100 teraflops, however you want to gauge it), dolphin = exaflop.
Obligatory: An Ultra Computer should be good enough for everyone.
A work around would be to have a Windows PC only for games, and another PC with Linux or MacOS for all other applications. That way you can still enjoy games, with Windows, and not have to worry about security. Also if your Windows PC crashes all you have to do is reinstall the games you were playing, get a couple patches/drivers and you're good to go.
A second hard drive is also a potential security net, where the OS is on it's own hard drive and all other files are on the second (cheaper, yet less secure then the former).
I used my Wii for a while right after I got it. Since then it's had it's times of dust building, with the occasional use here and there. I have Wii Sports and Wii Play and I'm set for now. However once Smash Brothers Brawl comes out my Wii will need a new heatsink. That being said the best games normally come out a year or two after the launch. To me Wii Sports is a game that says, "Look what the Wii can do, now do it better." Just like Super Mario Bros. did for the NES.
My guess is that most people that fill it up to the max are sending the 2meg/picture files that their digital camera takes. However the person looking at it doesn't need 3000x2000 resolution, 700x500 would suffice. You can do them as batch files just as easy as setting up a second e-mail with forwarding. If they're too lazy to edit those first before sending them, they're probably too lazy to set up an account, or just ignorant as to how to do either of them. I'm just speculating. My g-mail is at 6% right now. Then again I code websites and have ftp servers to store my stuff, also flickr and photo bucket worked nice before that too, no need to 'send' the images if you can link them. But I digress, I've been up for 30+ hours straight and I'm babbling. I also agree with others that we're just too public these days.
Record companies take so much from the artist that the old $10 - $25 concert tickets are $45* - $75 and up (those prices are for the cheap seats). Secondly a simple t-shirt that says you went to the concert is $40* and a hoodie outrageously $100* (*Prices from a Smashing Pumpkins Concert 7 Oct 07). Promotion is expensive, but they still take too much from the artist.
If you buy the artist CD they'll probably make a dollar. If you buy this over priced ticket or clothing they'll get a lot more from you, to make a guess, 60% or more of the gross profit. This is how things are right now.
I still haven't found a way to get it to change. I've done everything suggested, which is, go to concerts and don't buy DRM. In fact I haven't bought a CD, unless bought at a concert, for the last 4 years. I still haven't seen a change. I've only seen it get worse. I've spread the word, posted things like this on slashdot, etc. Has there been change that I just haven't noticed?
I've not bought a Zune nor an Ipod, but I welcome the competition. I've seen improvements now in both and a price drop to go along with it. Currently $10 hand held CD player can do everything I need for my lifestyle, but with the improved storage capacity, lower price, and other features both are getting closer to a point where I'd consider a purchase.
Similarly, I recently went camping with a few friends. I called a friend when I got up there to tell her what's going on and they kept yelling at me "No Phone Zone." I ended up turning it off and didn't turn it back on till I got home the next day 24 hours later. It was so refreshing. I'll definitely have to go on more tech-free vacations like that.
Price Comparison
I have web hosting through globat.com currently and they give me 1000 GB Web Hosting Space + Free Domain for 4.44/mo (granted it's on special right now). So that's just under $54/year for 1Tb of storage, but I'm limited to 1TB Data Transfer per month. In comparison I'd get between 6 and 25GB storage from Google for that cost. Having unlimited transfer rate to and from that storage would definitely increase the value of it, whether they are offer that might be found in RFTA, but it still seems too costly.
Online vs. Offline
Having data saved online, with access to it anywhere, sounds like a good idea. If I went to a friend's house I could just log onto my storage and stream music through their music player, and not have to lug CDs around. Also if they offered data security, like backups, so my data wouldn't be lost, that'd be a plus as well. My house could flood or burn down and I'd still have all my data safe, even though my computer died. Though the security issues of private data online is another thing that could me argued; I'm going to argue for having online storage, even if it's only for backup, but at this price rate I'll pass until it's more competitive with physical storage.
It means that in 20 years, celebrities will be everywhere, but few will be massive, massive stars. It also means that they'll be more like actual, working people, and might have to work on their own distribution, if they want to make a good living from it. I disagree. You use music artists as examples, yet you say entertainers, which is a broader group. I'm just not seeing entertainers, as a whole, making less. Look at pro sports, they're entertainers, and they're making way more money than they ever used to. We're just seeing drought in music right now, but there are still big named movie stars that are making it huge.
The thing is the supply of music has increased. People can produce music in studios in their own homes. People can also distribute it over the net quickly and easily, albeit illegally in some cases. Effectively the supply of musicians is up, and the supply of types of distribution is up, which shrinks the over all demand for music as a form of entertainment.
The problem is music is not regulated enough anymore and instead of pushing for innovation, in this regard, the old chaps at the big record companies are just suing to make up their losses and are effectively giving up on it. Sure music stores online is an innovation, but then they quill it with DRM which pushes people away. They're not giving the customer what they want.
Pro sports is extremely regulated, which is why players are getting greatly compensated. Movies/TV series are regulated, and granted that's slipping a little, but I don't see any celebrities hurting from it. Books are regulated enough to still sell copies. Someone could have easily bought a copy of the new Harry Potter book, posted it online and distributed it as easy as a CD (and someone probably has), but it still sold millions of copies. The problem is that the big names in music don't know how to control music. However the big names in pro sports, movies, books, etc are doing just fine keeping their markets in tack.
They're taking one of the sources of the problem out of the picture. So we can focus all our attention on making the power plans carbon free. I think that gives us the advantage instead of feeling the need to fix both automobiles and power plants simultaneously.
I just got a new laptop and my 8 button mouse has found a new home. I had left my laptop at a friend's house after a LAN party. I forgot that I had done that and invited someone over to watch a movie. My PS2 (Gen 1) had died so all I was left with was my computer and a 19' monitor to watch the movie on. I found an old ISA mouse laying around in the catacombs of my house, probably something we use on the Tandy with a 12" floppy drive way back in the day. I threw that thing on there, it took 3 minutes to recognize the mouse, but it still worked. YAY. My night was saved.
I have a tech degree. The MBA is a business degree. I call it diversifying. I saw it opening more possibilities to me than just coding all day. I don't want to be 40 years old, hating my career, and not feel like I have options.
I disagree. 1. Web Design (BS) 2. Computer Animation (AS) 3. Video and Multimedia (AS) 4. Accounting (Enough skill in Microsoft Office Suite to do that) 5. Restaurant Management (2 years experience) 6. Programming (1 yr) 7. Graphic Design (1 yr)
I may only have a degree in 3 trades, but I still have the skills to do many others.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not loosing any sleep over it. Many companies seemed to have done this, as another post stated, and I was aware of it when I acquired the hard drives. I've enjoyed my 2 SATA Segate hard drive that I bought pre '06, from Newegg so I could acquire a receipt. I don't plan to get the compensation. That would just take from their development budget and slightly hinder hard drive competition. I like the competition that's what gives us better products for cheaper.
I've replied to 2 or 3 other articles on /. today, so I'll probably get 5: Insightful for this.
6.40 solar masses should be enough for anyone.
What does server side dynamic pages (PHP, etc) have to do with cross browser support? You can dynamically generate the exact same content you host statically, it just takes more processing power on the server. To clarify I meant static layouts, not static content. For example having the page 900 pixels wide, no matter what size the browser is. Examples of this cnn.com, walmart.com, bestbuy.com. These pages don't even fill the whole browser, except with white space or a repeated background, if you're past that static width. But I'm a fan of the dynamic pages that fill the pages based on how big your window is.
A proper web browser will reflow the text on any web page static or dynamic. In fact a web designer has to go out of their way to break that behavior by specifying the dimensions of their boxes in pixels. This is true, but like I said I've seen a trend where companies are doing this static layout, because the dynamic way has potential to load differently across browsers. This brings us to the parent saying that this is the wrong survey. I'd like some more insight into this trend other than just my speculations.
As a newly graduated web designer, I completely agree. All I've seen so far is that some myspace pages are horrible and take forever to load, other sites where their navigation bars change based on the page, and other minor things here and there that aren't too happy. I'd assume you want a page to load quickly, be easy to navigate, and look good. However the look good part seems to be subjective. I've noticed a lot more sites are becoming static, instead of dynamic, because it's the easiest way to obtain cross browser support. But I'm a fan of the dynamic pages that fill the pages based on how big your window is. It'd be great to get an over all idea of what people like and dislike with site design.
Is anyone worried that with these incremental additions to games, that the original game will get smaller and less detailed?
Or
Do you think that it'll raise the quality of games, because if they're not good no one will buy the increments?
The first Nintendo started out with the NES or a normal computer, then the Super Nintendo. The N64 came next and was going potentially being called the Ultra64. The Game Cube to be called the Dolphin. So following the naming scheme super = teraflop, ultra = petaflop (or 10 or 100 teraflops, however you want to gauge it), dolphin = exaflop.
Obligatory: An Ultra Computer should be good enough for everyone.
A work around would be to have a Windows PC only for games, and another PC with Linux or MacOS for all other applications. That way you can still enjoy games, with Windows, and not have to worry about security. Also if your Windows PC crashes all you have to do is reinstall the games you were playing, get a couple patches/drivers and you're good to go.
A second hard drive is also a potential security net, where the OS is on it's own hard drive and all other files are on the second (cheaper, yet less secure then the former).
I used my Wii for a while right after I got it. Since then it's had it's times of dust building, with the occasional use here and there. I have Wii Sports and Wii Play and I'm set for now. However once Smash Brothers Brawl comes out my Wii will need a new heatsink. That being said the best games normally come out a year or two after the launch. To me Wii Sports is a game that says, "Look what the Wii can do, now do it better." Just like Super Mario Bros. did for the NES.
My guess is that most people that fill it up to the max are sending the 2meg/picture files that their digital camera takes. However the person looking at it doesn't need 3000x2000 resolution, 700x500 would suffice. You can do them as batch files just as easy as setting up a second e-mail with forwarding. If they're too lazy to edit those first before sending them, they're probably too lazy to set up an account, or just ignorant as to how to do either of them. I'm just speculating. My g-mail is at 6% right now. Then again I code websites and have ftp servers to store my stuff, also flickr and photo bucket worked nice before that too, no need to 'send' the images if you can link them. But I digress, I've been up for 30+ hours straight and I'm babbling. I also agree with others that we're just too public these days.
When looking for strange places to build your data center there are things to consider first.
I lost track of what was going on. So I was wondering what XCKD.com would have to change it's name to?
I used to follow a delicious cycle a few years back when I lived out of state.
Record companies take so much from the artist that the old $10 - $25 concert tickets are $45* - $75 and up (those prices are for the cheap seats). Secondly a simple t-shirt that says you went to the concert is $40* and a hoodie outrageously $100* (*Prices from a Smashing Pumpkins Concert 7 Oct 07). Promotion is expensive, but they still take too much from the artist.
If you buy the artist CD they'll probably make a dollar. If you buy this over priced ticket or clothing they'll get a lot more from you, to make a guess, 60% or more of the gross profit. This is how things are right now.
I still haven't found a way to get it to change. I've done everything suggested, which is, go to concerts and don't buy DRM. In fact I haven't bought a CD, unless bought at a concert, for the last 4 years. I still haven't seen a change. I've only seen it get worse. I've spread the word, posted things like this on slashdot, etc. Has there been change that I just haven't noticed?
I've not bought a Zune nor an Ipod, but I welcome the competition. I've seen improvements now in both and a price drop to go along with it. Currently $10 hand held CD player can do everything I need for my lifestyle, but with the improved storage capacity, lower price, and other features both are getting closer to a point where I'd consider a purchase.
Similarly, I recently went camping with a few friends. I called a friend when I got up there to tell her what's going on and they kept yelling at me "No Phone Zone." I ended up turning it off and didn't turn it back on till I got home the next day 24 hours later. It was so refreshing. I'll definitely have to go on more tech-free vacations like that.
S4dlee thye st1ll tALk lIke diS.
One of my younger friends that does this knows the grammar rules and intentionally breaks them. However I can pretty much assure she's and outlier.
I miss the good old days of arguing with my sister about song lyrics. Some times we never found out who was even right.
even these new stem cells.
Price Comparison
I have web hosting through globat.com currently and they give me 1000 GB Web Hosting Space + Free Domain for 4.44/mo (granted it's on special right now). So that's just under $54/year for 1Tb of storage, but I'm limited to 1TB Data Transfer per month. In comparison I'd get between 6 and 25GB storage from Google for that cost. Having unlimited transfer rate to and from that storage would definitely increase the value of it, whether they are offer that might be found in RFTA, but it still seems too costly.
Online vs. Offline
Having data saved online, with access to it anywhere, sounds like a good idea. If I went to a friend's house I could just log onto my storage and stream music through their music player, and not have to lug CDs around. Also if they offered data security, like backups, so my data wouldn't be lost, that'd be a plus as well. My house could flood or burn down and I'd still have all my data safe, even though my computer died. Though the security issues of private data online is another thing that could me argued; I'm going to argue for having online storage, even if it's only for backup, but at this price rate I'll pass until it's more competitive with physical storage.
The thing is the supply of music has increased. People can produce music in studios in their own homes. People can also distribute it over the net quickly and easily, albeit illegally in some cases. Effectively the supply of musicians is up, and the supply of types of distribution is up, which shrinks the over all demand for music as a form of entertainment.
The problem is music is not regulated enough anymore and instead of pushing for innovation, in this regard, the old chaps at the big record companies are just suing to make up their losses and are effectively giving up on it. Sure music stores online is an innovation, but then they quill it with DRM which pushes people away. They're not giving the customer what they want.
Pro sports is extremely regulated, which is why players are getting greatly compensated. Movies/TV series are regulated, and granted that's slipping a little, but I don't see any celebrities hurting from it. Books are regulated enough to still sell copies. Someone could have easily bought a copy of the new Harry Potter book, posted it online and distributed it as easy as a CD (and someone probably has), but it still sold millions of copies. The problem is that the big names in music don't know how to control music. However the big names in pro sports, movies, books, etc are doing just fine keeping their markets in tack.
They're taking one of the sources of the problem out of the picture. So we can focus all our attention on making the power plans carbon free. I think that gives us the advantage instead of feeling the need to fix both automobiles and power plants simultaneously.
I think patents shouldn't hold weight unless they're being used in one way or another. So what is this company doing with their patent?
I just got a new laptop and my 8 button mouse has found a new home. I had left my laptop at a friend's house after a LAN party. I forgot that I had done that and invited someone over to watch a movie. My PS2 (Gen 1) had died so all I was left with was my computer and a 19' monitor to watch the movie on. I found an old ISA mouse laying around in the catacombs of my house, probably something we use on the Tandy with a 12" floppy drive way back in the day. I threw that thing on there, it took 3 minutes to recognize the mouse, but it still worked. YAY. My night was saved.
I have a tech degree. The MBA is a business degree. I call it diversifying. I saw it opening more possibilities to me than just coding all day. I don't want to be 40 years old, hating my career, and not feel like I have options.
I disagree.
1. Web Design (BS)
2. Computer Animation (AS)
3. Video and Multimedia (AS)
4. Accounting (Enough skill in Microsoft Office Suite to do that)
5. Restaurant Management (2 years experience)
6. Programming (1 yr)
7. Graphic Design (1 yr)
I may only have a degree in 3 trades, but I still have the skills to do many others.