As a distribution medium for a closed games console it makes perfect sense. Compatibility is only interesting when there are other devices that use the data. As no other machine will be designed to run the PSP2 games, nothing is lost. The DS cards are "proprietary", as are any game carts that came before it, and even the DVDs for the PS3, 360 and Wii are proprietary due to the use of encryption and signing technologies.
Since Sony have slowly been warming to SD cards, they might even include a dual SD / memory stick slot for extra storage.
I think the problem is that many junior admins really lack knowledge about verifiability. Not every statement needs a traceable source. Some articles have ridiculously long lists of citations for the most trivial things. And many of them are of dubious quality to begin with. Sometimes it seems that admins are just too lazy to read into a subject itself before questioning the authenticity of every statement.
Seconded. I often find myself browsing older versions to find some useful information. I always find useful links which were removed, as well as uncontrolled deletions of entire sections by someone who clearly has an agenda. It's quite sad really.
Lucas has always been very reluctant to release home video versions. It took like seven years for him to finally let people watch the movies in DVD quality. Yes, in 2004 we were still being forced to violate our eyes with VHS tapes. Other movies had gone through their third or fourth DVD re-release by then.
Many apps in the appstore require iOS4. Problem is iOS4 runs like shit on anything less than a 3GS. And it's not just the major versions. For every update they bring out there are apps that don't work with older versions, such as from 3.1 to 3.1.2 and to 3.1.3. So even though many of these applications are really light-weight and trivial, they refuse to let you download it. Problem is you can't even download older versions which do work anymore, so gradually more and more of the app store becomes inaccessible. With Apple's annual hardware update policy the effect is sweeping indeed.
Say what you want, but compatibility is certainly not a quality of the iPhone.
Trend is actually to computers that are cheaper and more disposable. Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely. Computers are becoming disposable, much in the same way mobile phones are.
Computers have been disposable and cheap because of continuously increasing demands. People wanted bigger drives, more multimedia and better graphics, which meant loud fans and big cases at the cost of design and good thermal engineering. But due to the robust nature of modern microprocessors Computer's have never really been "unreriable", except of course for the operating system.
Nowdays demands have stalled and the majority of people's needs can be satisfied by cheap low-power hardware. People don't feel as much urge to upgrade and are interested in specifically low-power designs like netbooks and nettops.
That seems rather irrelevant, or probably even bad news for Apple. Businesses who work on lower margins make more competitive products and become ubiquitous. If all Apple can do to stay afloat lock-in and market segmentation the future looks bleak for them indeed.
A thriving journalism industry that chose the best tool for the job between 1984-1995.
A small niche and a far cry from the mainstream popularity from their earlier systems.
The return of a CEO with passion for making cool stuff (and yes, bad mice), as oppossed to a CEO who wanted to run a cool company like the soft-drink company he came from.
And you accuse me of revisionist history? Get a grip man.
The Internet.
The Internet.
The Internet.
. News flash...the Mac hasn't lost anything. Have you not been paying attention for the past decade?
Seriously? You're trying to push the renaissance in Mac sales, where I'm talking about the era of failure that came before. That is revisionism. You wanna know what helped Mac sales? The iPod effect. But it's also completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Apple was making *enough* money, and the amount of money Microsoft was making is irrelevant to how much money Apple was making.
What the fuck are you talking about? They were fucking losing money, and many people expected them to go out of business.
There still are hardly any games for the system. That isn't hurting them, nor has it ever hurt them in the past.
Not content with revisionism you're also showing blatant denialism. Of course it has hurt them. It has always hurt them. It will continue to hurt them. There is a large portion of the market out there who will never consider getting a Mac for this reason.
The Mac lost out against the PC. Nobody was interested in Macs. Apple wasn't making a lot of money selling Mac technology like Microsoft was, a lot of software developers ignored it, there were hardly any games for the system. The only thing that saved it from utter irrelevance was, ironically, Microsoft Office. The point is that sometimes there's a real war going on and second-best really isn't enough. Sooner or later competitive exclusion will force one player to the sidelines.
"Win" is market share, market presence and market dominance. Computer systems tend toward homogeneous markets, there being little room for more than one player. When one system is clearly dominant, that attracts interest from developers who then invest much less into the "failing" system, created a vicious circle of failure.
That's just bullcrap sloganism pulled from Mac vs. PC marketing. In what way does an iPhone "just work"? You need to register for iTunes and keep putting in a password whenever you want to download some App. What about some of the basic features that have worked out of the box even on non-smartphones like bluetooth file transfer? Doesn't work. What about some trivial tasks like logging GPS coordinates? Thank's to Apple's ingenious software scheme, the only way to do this is to wade through the piles of shit in the App store to find the least obstrusive, least shitty app that will do the task. Even shit like viewing and saving PDF files requires some special app.
Nobody who has used another feature-rich phone would describe the iPhone as "just working". The current situation is a real mess.
Selective sync will solve the issue with large files.
Other than that you are relying on databases and config files generated by Apple's software. As long as you're sure to sync the database files as well you should be alright. Obviously this requires more manual configuration and the more you rely on these kind of systems the less portable your files become.
The economics for gmail work very differently. Whilst it's true that they promise 7 GB, most customers use vastly less than that. Also, dropbox will create higher traffic and use more resources than emails, which usually just sit there while a handful might be pulled at any one time. In contrast dropbox makes moving large files such as video or music very easy.
I'm actually surprised they give away 2GB. Whilst it's not useful as permanent backup for video and music, it certainly makes life so much easier that it's hardly worth paying money for a few GB more.
It's actually more useful than that. When you edit or create a file it updated on your hard drive first and uploads to the server in the background. When you turn on another machine it downloads the changes from their blazing fast server. Because it's then on your hard drive it's much more responsive than other network storage solutions.
So it's godsend if you have a slow or asymmetrical Internet connection, doesn't require an always-on server, will work even without a connection and is generally much more robust. Now, you can of course set up a similar solution with rsync and some non-trivial update scripts on each system but it still wouldn't be as fast as Dropbox.
The problem is that as development has allowed the population to expand, the people alive today are heavily reliant on this technology and infrastructure. Without and enormous supply of energy many regions would be uninhabitable. Without factories and infrastructure we lose our capability of intense farming and many would starve. Common diseases which are perfectly treatable today would kill because of a lack of medical infrastructure. And without sanitation many of the more nasty diseases would return. Child mortality would skyrocket. Those who don't freeze, starve or die of disease would be living from subsistence farming and would have little capability of rebuilding the infrastructure that once was.
In any case, there are such a huge number of unknown and chaotic effects on the development of humans that it's basically impossible to safely predict any outcome
Multiplexing, again, is a different term. Basically all technologies rely on some sort of frequency multiplexing to increase the bitrate including voiceband modems.
It's always a relative question as to what consitutes "broad". A DSL modem which is far away from the DSLAM will not be able to use higher frequencies and thus have a much lower bitrate.
Similarirly the broad spectrum of channels on a UHF cable modem are capable of delivering much higher bitrates than DSL. The same goes for optical fibres and improvements like ADSL2+.
Tying your definition to the destinction between dial-up internet and DSL seems rather arbitrary and useless.
Where did you pull that from? The Bandwidth of an analog signal describes how many frequencies are used in transmission. This correlates to the amount of information the signal can transmit. For digital transmission this means a higher bitrate. Now, for telephone internet connections this could be used as description to distinguish the voiceband modems from DSL modems which use frequencies far above the voiceband.
But I've almost never heard the term used in such a technically correct way, and the term has come to be a synonym of "high bit-rate data connection".
No, what we need is common sense and tolerance of differening opinions. It seems that constitutional challenges are not motivated by genuine concerns about legality but rather often are just a general expression of opposition, either with merit of simply out of ideology. If this is the case the it's a reckless waste of resources and time.
It really makes me wonder about self-respect and honor when there are judges who's decisions seem to be consistently guided by political allegiance and elected politicians have so little respect for democracy that they will sooner filibuster legislation than to accept the validity of the majority vote.
No, it's bullshit technicalities. You can't simply offload responsibility like that. Reasonable people accept the risk and the vast majority of people probably wouldn't see any point in pulling out after the condom has spilled.
If she physically resisted and and Mr. Assange physically subdues her then there's a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Consent isn't some bureaucratic document with loopholes and fine print, it has to do with how people interact and engage with each other.
What a curiously bureaucratic interpretation. You don't lose consent by a technicality. Both partners consent to have sex with the understandings of the risks involved. If the condom breaks it's simply "consensual sex, with a condom, which happens to break".
Never is indeed an exaggeration. But there are useful metrics for determining equality and many of them suggest that we now have a level of inequality last seen in the early twentieth century. Of course as productivity has increased since then the quality of life is indeed much better. But it does nevertheless raise questions about how efficient the economy can be if there is such disparity in how the productive workforce is compensated.
Slashdot Mirror
As a distribution medium for a closed games console it makes perfect sense. Compatibility is only interesting when there are other devices that use the data. As no other machine will be designed to run the PSP2 games, nothing is lost.
The DS cards are "proprietary", as are any game carts that came before it, and even the DVDs for the PS3, 360 and Wii are proprietary due to the use of encryption and signing technologies.
Since Sony have slowly been warming to SD cards, they might even include a dual SD / memory stick slot for extra storage.
I think the problem is that many junior admins really lack knowledge about verifiability. Not every statement needs a traceable source. Some articles have ridiculously long lists of citations for the most trivial things. And many of them are of dubious quality to begin with. Sometimes it seems that admins are just too lazy to read into a subject itself before questioning the authenticity of every statement.
Seconded. I often find myself browsing older versions to find some useful information. I always find useful links which were removed, as well as uncontrolled deletions of entire sections by someone who clearly has an agenda. It's quite sad really.
Lucas has always been very reluctant to release home video versions. It took like seven years for him to finally let people watch the movies in DVD quality. Yes, in 2004 we were still being forced to violate our eyes with VHS tapes.
Other movies had gone through their third or fourth DVD re-release by then.
Many apps in the appstore require iOS4. Problem is iOS4 runs like shit on anything less than a 3GS. And it's not just the major versions. For every update they bring out there are apps that don't work with older versions, such as from 3.1 to 3.1.2 and to 3.1.3.
So even though many of these applications are really light-weight and trivial, they refuse to let you download it. Problem is you can't even download older versions which do work anymore, so gradually more and more of the app store becomes inaccessible.
With Apple's annual hardware update policy the effect is sweeping indeed.
Say what you want, but compatibility is certainly not a quality of the iPhone.
Trend is actually to computers that are cheaper and more disposable. Once upon a time more companies were trying to release more reliable machines, but the costs were high - Enter Dell, eMachines, Acer and Gateway (the latter three now one and the same), and their business models of inexpensive PC's that aren't necessarily solid broke the market entirely. Computers are becoming disposable, much in the same way mobile phones are.
Computers have been disposable and cheap because of continuously increasing demands. People wanted bigger drives, more multimedia and better graphics, which meant loud fans and big cases at the cost of design and good thermal engineering. But due to the robust nature of modern microprocessors Computer's have never really been "unreriable", except of course for the operating system.
Nowdays demands have stalled and the majority of people's needs can be satisfied by cheap low-power hardware. People don't feel as much urge to upgrade and are interested in specifically low-power designs like netbooks and nettops.
That seems rather irrelevant, or probably even bad news for Apple. Businesses who work on lower margins make more competitive products and become ubiquitous. If all Apple can do to stay afloat lock-in and market segmentation the future looks bleak for them indeed.
A thriving journalism industry that chose the best tool for the job between 1984-1995.
A small niche and a far cry from the mainstream popularity from their earlier systems.
The return of a CEO with passion for making cool stuff (and yes, bad mice), as oppossed to a CEO who wanted to run a cool company like the soft-drink company he came from.
And you accuse me of revisionist history? Get a grip man.
The Internet.
The Internet.
The Internet.
. News flash...the Mac hasn't lost anything. Have you not been paying attention for the past decade?
Seriously? You're trying to push the renaissance in Mac sales, where I'm talking about the era of failure that came before. That is revisionism.
You wanna know what helped Mac sales? The iPod effect.
But it's also completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Apple was making *enough* money, and the amount of money Microsoft was making is irrelevant to how much money Apple was making.
What the fuck are you talking about? They were fucking losing money, and many people expected them to go out of business.
There still are hardly any games for the system. That isn't hurting them, nor has it ever hurt them in the past.
Not content with revisionism you're also showing blatant denialism. Of course it has hurt them. It has always hurt them. It will continue to hurt them. There is a large portion of the market out there who will never consider getting a Mac for this reason.
The Mac lost out against the PC. Nobody was interested in Macs. Apple wasn't making a lot of money selling Mac technology like Microsoft was, a lot of software developers ignored it, there were hardly any games for the system. The only thing that saved it from utter irrelevance was, ironically, Microsoft Office.
The point is that sometimes there's a real war going on and second-best really isn't enough. Sooner or later competitive exclusion will force one player to the sidelines.
"Win" is market share, market presence and market dominance. Computer systems tend toward homogeneous markets, there being little room for more than one player. When one system is clearly dominant, that attracts interest from developers who then invest much less into the "failing" system, created a vicious circle of failure.
That's just bullcrap sloganism pulled from Mac vs. PC marketing. In what way does an iPhone "just work"? You need to register for iTunes and keep putting in a password whenever you want to download some App.
What about some of the basic features that have worked out of the box even on non-smartphones like bluetooth file transfer? Doesn't work.
What about some trivial tasks like logging GPS coordinates? Thank's to Apple's ingenious software scheme, the only way to do this is to wade through the piles of shit in the App store to find the least obstrusive, least shitty app that will do the task.
Even shit like viewing and saving PDF files requires some special app.
Nobody who has used another feature-rich phone would describe the iPhone as "just working". The current situation is a real mess.
That which you cannot spell, you may not be able to read.
Bslluhit weasel wiordng. Raiedng ablitiy dpeends on wrod rgnitecoion.
It's a valid point. Multiplication tables are trivial memorization.
There is no interesting algorithm involved whatsoever.
Selective sync will solve the issue with large files.
Other than that you are relying on databases and config files generated by Apple's software. As long as you're sure to sync the database files as well you should be alright.
Obviously this requires more manual configuration and the more you rely on these kind of systems the less portable your files become.
The economics for gmail work very differently. Whilst it's true that they promise 7 GB, most customers use vastly less than that.
Also, dropbox will create higher traffic and use more resources than emails, which usually just sit there while a handful might be pulled at any one time.
In contrast dropbox makes moving large files such as video or music very easy.
I'm actually surprised they give away 2GB. Whilst it's not useful as permanent backup for video and music, it certainly makes life so much easier that it's hardly worth paying money for a few GB more.
It's actually more useful than that. When you edit or create a file it updated on your hard drive first and uploads to the server in the background. When you turn on another machine it downloads the changes from their blazing fast server. Because it's then on your hard drive it's much more responsive than other network storage solutions.
So it's godsend if you have a slow or asymmetrical Internet connection, doesn't require an always-on server, will work even without a connection and is generally much more robust.
Now, you can of course set up a similar solution with rsync and some non-trivial update scripts on each system but it still wouldn't be as fast as Dropbox.
The problem is that as development has allowed the population to expand, the people alive today are heavily reliant on this technology and infrastructure. Without and enormous supply of energy many regions would be uninhabitable. Without factories and infrastructure we lose our capability of intense farming and many would starve. Common diseases which are perfectly treatable today would kill because of a lack of medical infrastructure. And without sanitation many of the more nasty diseases would return. Child mortality would skyrocket. Those who don't freeze, starve or die of disease would be living from subsistence farming and would have little capability of rebuilding the infrastructure that once was.
In any case, there are such a huge number of unknown and chaotic effects on the development of humans that it's basically impossible to safely predict any outcome
Multiplexing, again, is a different term. Basically all technologies rely on some sort of frequency multiplexing to increase the bitrate including voiceband modems.
It's always a relative question as to what consitutes "broad". A DSL modem which is far away from the DSLAM will not be able to use higher frequencies and thus have a much lower bitrate.
Similarirly the broad spectrum of channels on a UHF cable modem are capable of delivering much higher bitrates than DSL. The same goes for optical fibres and improvements like ADSL2+.
Tying your definition to the destinction between dial-up internet and DSL seems rather arbitrary and useless.
Next they'll be telling us their weight depends on their energy too.
Where did you pull that from? The Bandwidth of an analog signal describes how many frequencies are used in transmission. This correlates to the amount of information the signal can transmit. For digital transmission this means a higher bitrate.
Now, for telephone internet connections this could be used as description to distinguish the voiceband modems from DSL modems which use frequencies far above the voiceband.
But I've almost never heard the term used in such a technically correct way, and the term has come to be a synonym of "high bit-rate data connection".
Who gets to decide what constitutes the "general Welfare of the United States"?
Congress. Duh!
What if the people authorized to make that decision are wrong?
Nothing much.
Reading comprehension FAIL.
No, what we need is common sense and tolerance of differening opinions.
It seems that constitutional challenges are not motivated by genuine concerns about legality but rather often are just a general expression of opposition, either with merit of simply out of ideology. If this is the case the it's a reckless waste of resources and time.
It really makes me wonder about self-respect and honor when there are judges who's decisions seem to be consistently guided by political allegiance and elected politicians have so little respect for democracy that they will sooner filibuster legislation than to accept the validity of the majority vote.
No, it's bullshit technicalities. You can't simply offload responsibility like that. Reasonable people accept the risk and the vast majority of people probably wouldn't see any point in pulling out after the condom has spilled.
If she physically resisted and and Mr. Assange physically subdues her then there's a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Consent isn't some bureaucratic document with loopholes and fine print, it has to do with how people interact and engage with each other.
What a curiously bureaucratic interpretation. You don't lose consent by a technicality. Both partners consent to have sex with the understandings of the risks involved. If the condom breaks it's simply "consensual sex, with a condom, which happens to break".
Never is indeed an exaggeration. But there are useful metrics for determining equality and many of them suggest that we now have a level of inequality last seen in the early twentieth century. Of course as productivity has increased since then the quality of life is indeed much better. But it does nevertheless raise questions about how efficient the economy can be if there is such disparity in how the productive workforce is compensated.