Thirty thousand at relatively low-quality lossy formats - or quite a lot less than that at full quality lossless rates. Besides that, I currently have a couple thousand tracks on this computer, not all of which will fit on my media player simultaneously, and I wish I had both more music and more space for them. I often use my mp3 player to provide music at various events I run, and I like to be able to fulfill requests people make. Whilst the average user might not have any real use for high-capacity portable players, DJs and similar can always use the space.
High performance computing is that which you'd want to throw a huge Beowulf cluster at, or possibly a supercomputer or twenty. Not three small pathetic cores.
Theft involves depriving the victim of what you take.
If I copy a computer program, who have I deprived?
(One can argue whether I've deprived the company of the money I'd have spent buying the product or whether I'd have never bought it all as much as you want, but I have not taken a copy that would have been someone else's, unlike with a car. Piracy is NOT theft.)
I've done a small-scale survey along a similar line, but with music. And I found that around 60% of my respondents say the equivalents of 3, 4, or that there's music that they'd never have tried without downloading it first that they then went and bought. (...which is a situation you left out...)
(Note that these respondents were mostly Uni students with purely convenient sampling, so I'd not rely on it.)
That's a very good way of putting that point of view. It's one I tend to agree with, too: try things out; if they're worth the money then go and buy them, if not don't. It rewards only those companies who deserve rewarding, not just those with market share and hype.
That's taking things a bit too far in the opposite direction, I think...
However, the argument "There's people still doing bad thing X, so we should ignore anyone doing less bad thing Y until people stop doing X" doesn't make sense.
Major problem with your comment: You're saying something similar to saying "People are still being murdered, so we should ignore rape and theft until we've caught all the murderers."
It's not my choice. And some of them do take PCs with nothing on ready for them to install windows. Most of the people we give the linux machines to seem perfectly happy to stick with what we give them, particularly when we point out that it's free. They don't care what they use so long as it works.
I do some volunteering work teaching people how to use the free computers we're giving them. Unless the user has requested them to be blank, the machine they receive runs a linux distro. (Mandrake 9.1 for some mysterious reason, but still...) Every single user seems to get along fine.
I'm currently doing some volunteering work based out of a PC recycling organisation (but separate from it) in the UK. They have HUGE piles of older, completely functional hardware there. So much so that they've had to get a new warehouse area to store some of it. A girl who works there has been putting together her own machine from some of the parts. It's about equal to this box I have here, which is more than enough for all but the most demanding modern games - it should even run Aero without too much trouble. And she's not even using the best hardware available there.
Chicken gets boring fast. Despite the price, a lovely bit of lamb is hard to beat.
It's an interesting method of convincing people that you have there. Major problem with that line of thought in the UK is that there's a lot more people for less animals (in a comparable space), hence a lot of people hunting would really be a bad idea. In the US you have a lot more space with a lot more game.
There is the possibility that legal ownership of such weapons, even by only a few, makes it easier for someone to get their hands on one (by stealing). Whether true or not, I have no idea.
I'm no expert on US gun laws, obviously. I can also see plenty of reason for owning a semi-automatic handgun, and for owning a rifle. Just not for anything in between.
On the other hand, I will admit freely that I've never knowingly shot something living. (It's possible that I've hit the odd worm or insect or something shooting in the garden, but there's only so much damage you can do with an ancient, underpowered.22 air rifle.)
Last time I tried rabbit, I was unimpressed. Same with pheasant, I think.
Quite apart from anything else, when reading text you don't want it to be too wide. 66 characters per line has been shown to be about optimal. When reading text, then, width is pointless.
I'd generally take a "normal" ratio screen to a widescreen one.
Slashdot Mirror
Your average windows user didn't install it.
Thirty thousand at relatively low-quality lossy formats - or quite a lot less than that at full quality lossless rates. Besides that, I currently have a couple thousand tracks on this computer, not all of which will fit on my media player simultaneously, and I wish I had both more music and more space for them. I often use my mp3 player to provide music at various events I run, and I like to be able to fulfill requests people make. Whilst the average user might not have any real use for high-capacity portable players, DJs and similar can always use the space.
So are they going for alphabetical(ish) order then? They didn't start off doing so.
I think you misunderstand what HPC actually is.
High performance computing is that which you'd want to throw a huge Beowulf cluster at, or possibly a supercomputer or twenty. Not three small pathetic cores.
Theft involves depriving the victim of what you take.
If I copy a computer program, who have I deprived?
(One can argue whether I've deprived the company of the money I'd have spent buying the product or whether I'd have never bought it all as much as you want, but I have not taken a copy that would have been someone else's, unlike with a car. Piracy is NOT theft.)
I've done a small-scale survey along a similar line, but with music. And I found that around 60% of my respondents say the equivalents of 3, 4, or that there's music that they'd never have tried without downloading it first that they then went and bought. (...which is a situation you left out...)
(Note that these respondents were mostly Uni students with purely convenient sampling, so I'd not rely on it.)
That's a very good way of putting that point of view. It's one I tend to agree with, too: try things out; if they're worth the money then go and buy them, if not don't. It rewards only those companies who deserve rewarding, not just those with market share and hype.
*shudders*
I did say I didn't want to know!
I really don't think I want to know how a handjob would be punishment.
It took me to the intro page for the XPS specification.
Now that's a much better way of putting it.
That's taking things a bit too far in the opposite direction, I think...
However, the argument "There's people still doing bad thing X, so we should ignore anyone doing less bad thing Y until people stop doing X" doesn't make sense.
Major problem with your comment:
You're saying something similar to saying "People are still being murdered, so we should ignore rape and theft until we've caught all the murderers."
Well, they've always have the choice between various images and text formats before from Google. I doubt this will be any different.
The article says that apparently google's video ads will have to be clicked to play by the user anyway.
If his Python is only adequate, some of the ladies might prefer something a little more...
The ones who are planning to put Windows on generally take a blank machine, not a linux machine. We give them the option.
It's not my choice. And some of them do take PCs with nothing on ready for them to install windows. Most of the people we give the linux machines to seem perfectly happy to stick with what we give them, particularly when we point out that it's free. They don't care what they use so long as it works.
Regardless of what some people love to say, linux - or any other option - is NOT for everybody.
On the other hand, it is for a lot more people than those people believe, I'd say.
I do some volunteering work teaching people how to use the free computers we're giving them. Unless the user has requested them to be blank, the machine they receive runs a linux distro. (Mandrake 9.1 for some mysterious reason, but still...) Every single user seems to get along fine.
I'm currently doing some volunteering work based out of a PC recycling organisation (but separate from it) in the UK. They have HUGE piles of older, completely functional hardware there. So much so that they've had to get a new warehouse area to store some of it. A girl who works there has been putting together her own machine from some of the parts. It's about equal to this box I have here, which is more than enough for all but the most demanding modern games - it should even run Aero without too much trouble. And she's not even using the best hardware available there.
My work involves giving them away.
As far as I understand, they don't track where you go at all. They track that someone went there, but they don't link it to anyone in particular.
Chicken gets boring fast. Despite the price, a lovely bit of lamb is hard to beat.
It's an interesting method of convincing people that you have there. Major problem with that line of thought in the UK is that there's a lot more people for less animals (in a comparable space), hence a lot of people hunting would really be a bad idea. In the US you have a lot more space with a lot more game.
There is the possibility that legal ownership of such weapons, even by only a few, makes it easier for someone to get their hands on one (by stealing). Whether true or not, I have no idea.
.22 air rifle.)
I'm no expert on US gun laws, obviously. I can also see plenty of reason for owning a semi-automatic handgun, and for owning a rifle. Just not for anything in between.
On the other hand, I will admit freely that I've never knowingly shot something living. (It's possible that I've hit the odd worm or insect or something shooting in the garden, but there's only so much damage you can do with an ancient, underpowered
Last time I tried rabbit, I was unimpressed. Same with pheasant, I think.
What's wrong with preferring a taller screen?
Quite apart from anything else, when reading text you don't want it to be too wide. 66 characters per line has been shown to be about optimal. When reading text, then, width is pointless.
I'd generally take a "normal" ratio screen to a widescreen one.