I dunno. Personally, I'll take "mindless summer action flick" over the complete cheese-fest everything Star Trek has been for the last decade. No offense intended to the Trek faithful out there, but I think a lot of them are blinded by their nostalgia for the series. Hold the Star Trek of today up next to something like BSG or Firefly/Serenity and the disparities in quality become pretty obvious.
This new movie may not be the return to former glory that many were hoping for, but at least it's a departure from the path towards obscurity that the series has been headed down for so many years now.
Agreed. Just like shouldn't didn't pick your college based on what's cheapest, you shouldn't pick an internship based on what pays best. You're doing both to boost your future earnings potential, not present earnings.
Networking and exposure to industry practices are far more important. Pick your internship based on these, and consider any pay a bonus.
Perhaps, but his choice of of the Inspiron 13 as the comparison for Dell was a bit poor, and it shows in the feature comparison. The XPS M1330 and the Latitude E4300 are much more comparable machines to the new Macbook, as well as the Sony and Lenovo machines here, both in terms of specs and price.
While I personally don't find Eve the game to be very entertaining, I love to here any new information about it. That's partially because stories like this can only come out of a game like Eve, but also because it's pretty much the only MMO right now that's really doing things their own way and not just following in the footsteps of WoW and Everquest before it.
There are literally thousands of offshore oil platforms in operation that face these obstacles on a daily basis. Something tells me that if the oil companies can deal with them, so can Google.
In the past 24 hours since Chrome launched, the thing that I've found most interesting has been the range of reaction from people around the Web. In a nutshell the reaction can be pretty evenly divided between people who "get it" and people who don't. If you think that Google's purpose for Chrome has anything to do with improving UI or grabbing browser market share then you're in the camp that doesn't get it.
Chrome is more or less a reference design for other browser developers, hence the reason Google is putting so much emphasis on it being open source. There's no money in it for Google to be giving out browsers. What Google is interested in is increasing the capability of the average browser in order to allow them to serve up more robust web-based content for more revenue.
The issue here is not whether or not 250GB is enough today, but whether or not it's enough for a year from now, or even 6 months.
Over the last two years there has been a very clear movement of video distribution from broadcast to online. The clear projection of this movement, that many customers were hoping for, is services that provide enough HD content to finally supplant traditional broadcast mediums as the primary source of video in the home.
A 250GB cap puts a very real limit on what these services can accomplish. Companies like Apple and Netflix are unlikely to roll out HD services if millions of their potential customers do not have the necessary bandwidth for such services.
Similarly a bandwidth cap puts constraints on other innovations. Companies with new bandwidth intensive products and services now face a new constraint on the feasibility of bringing these products and services to market, which in turn means that many new potential innovations in online services will not make it to market here in the US.
Additionally, you're completely neglecting the fact that the average household is not 1 person. A household with two parents and two children will only get 62.5GB per person per month. It should be clear to anyone here on/. how easy it would be for such a household to go over their bandwidth cap using legitimate sources of content.
I agree with this. Here in Denver, I have the same choice between Qwest and Comcast. I've tried Qwest once for ~2 months. Out of the 4-5 different broadband providers I've used in different areas of the country, Qwest is far and away the worst, both in terms of the product and customer service. Even with these bandwidth caps, there is no way in hell I would switch back to Qwest.
mo-nop-o-ly 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
Notice a trend here? I think AT&T (27% market share) and SprintNextel (23% market share) and T-Mobile (11% market share) might have something to say about that whole exclusive bit.
I realize that we're all supposed to hate corporations here on the Internet and bigger inherently equals worse regardless of those pesky exceptions when economies of scale kick in. But can we at least have one of these conversations without people throwing around the "M" word like it applies to any and every situation involving a public corporation?
The problem with this is that in the time that they're holding out for $31, they could have reinvested their proceeds from selling at $30 and earned even more.
This is an assumption that you have absolutely no proof to back up. Perhaps this is what happens, perhaps not. I can easily point to instances where people suffer gaps in consciousness (head trauma, near death experiences, etc...) that refute your point. Needless to say there is no conscious being that you can point to that has been copied to show that copying a consciousness is any different from copying data.
It will not be you. It will be a copy. You will still be the one that dies afterwards. This assumes that "you" are something more than your memories and the appropriate intellect to process those memories, an assumption that a lot of people like to take for granted without any proof whatsoever.
Even then the copy will be subject to mechanical breakdowns, loss of sensation, and other issues interacting with the real world.
Would they want to interact with normal world? Would they prefer a virtual world? This seems a very shortsighted view of the future. If we're assuming that a society has the ability to create a computer capable of containing an exact copy of your consciousness, it's not much of a stretch to think that they would be capable of interacting with the real world with just as much sensation as the human body, or creating virtual worlds with as much detail as the real.
It also assumes that it would somehow be bad or wrong if such a person preferred a virtual world to the real.
Interesting idea. However, there is one problem with that. As you decelerate the vehicle you're raising its center of gravity and increasing the likelihood that it will tip in an abrupt stop.
Where the hell do you get 3 times? A quick look at VGChartz shows 18.35M for XBox and 11.92M for PS3 Those are worldwide numbers.
All you fanboys need to chill out. Go back and read the actual discussion and you'll see that we're not talking about "teh console warz". We're talking about whether or not the introduction of the PS3 video download service will affect US net neutrality policy.
Now, I realize I might not have been spot on with 3 times as many consoles as you have all been so eager to point out. However the point of my argument remains the same whether there are 1.8 times as many, 2.5 times as many, or 3 times as many: there are more Xbox 360's in American homes with hard drives and Internet connections that are already being used for video download than the PS3 will introduce. Additionally services like Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon handle just as much, if not more, downloads than the 360 as it is. What this means is that the PS3 video download service will have little effect on the amount of bandwidth being used for video and therefore no impact on the net neutrality discussion in the US.
I'm sorry, but this is just inaccurate. Most 15" laptops have a resolution of 1280x800, higher than a 720p television screen, and most 17" laptops have an even higher resolution. Some gaming laptops (which is what they said they have) even go as high as 1920x1200.
I would probably agree that just buying a console would be a better option for them, but not because of anything to do with the resolution of the screen.
If they don't want to spend a lot of new money on a console, a PS2 might be a great choice for them. Obviously the graphics won't be as slick as any of the current gen machines, but it has a massive library of cheap games to choose from and you can easily find a used one for under $100.
Wider than the Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple combined? I think you guys are drinking a little too much of the Sony Koolaide. Obviously Sony's entrance into the online video market is a significant move, but do you honestly think that Sony alone is going to cause lawmakers to rethink their stance on net neutrality? If this were the available for the PS2 I could see your point, but I think you're significantly overestimating the position that the PS3 is currently in.
Oh, and you're wrong about the 360's online video rentals/purchases, they are available to anyone with an Internet connection (as is all content on the XBL marketplace), no yearly subscription required.
A) True, not all 360's have hard drives. However, there have been 3 times more 360's sold than PS3's and approximately 80% of 360's do have hard drives, so there are still more 360's with hard drives out there than there are PS3's.
B) People may prefer watching shows on their TV to their PC, but that doesn't mean they won't settle for their PC is services for their TV aren't available, which is currently the case. According to Job's Jan 2008 keynote, Apple has sold 125 million TV shows and 7 million movies. That's a lot of content for just those 200k Apple TV's out there.
Why would this be the one to put it in perspective? Xbox Live Video Marketplace has been out for over a year, and there are more Xbox 360's in homes than there are PS3's. If lawmakers and lobbyists chose to ignore the Xbox 360 (not to mention the plethora of other online video providers) as a legitimate use of heavy bandwidth, the PS3 isn't even going to register as a blip on their radar.
Why would bandwidth be any more of a problem for the PS3 than it is for Xbox Live, iTunes Store, Netflix, Amazon Unbox, or any of the other contenders in the space?
Slashdot Mirror
The statement could be read to be inclusive of retired outposts like MIR and Skylab, in which case it would be correct.
I dunno. Personally, I'll take "mindless summer action flick" over the complete cheese-fest everything Star Trek has been for the last decade. No offense intended to the Trek faithful out there, but I think a lot of them are blinded by their nostalgia for the series. Hold the Star Trek of today up next to something like BSG or Firefly/Serenity and the disparities in quality become pretty obvious.
This new movie may not be the return to former glory that many were hoping for, but at least it's a departure from the path towards obscurity that the series has been headed down for so many years now.
Agreed. Just like shouldn't didn't pick your college based on what's cheapest, you shouldn't pick an internship based on what pays best. You're doing both to boost your future earnings potential, not present earnings.
Networking and exposure to industry practices are far more important. Pick your internship based on these, and consider any pay a bonus.
Perhaps, but his choice of of the Inspiron 13 as the comparison for Dell was a bit poor, and it shows in the feature comparison. The XPS M1330 and the Latitude E4300 are much more comparable machines to the new Macbook, as well as the Sony and Lenovo machines here, both in terms of specs and price.
Guess we now all know why it's still in Beta.
While I personally don't find Eve the game to be very entertaining, I love to here any new information about it. That's partially because stories like this can only come out of a game like Eve, but also because it's pretty much the only MMO right now that's really doing things their own way and not just following in the footsteps of WoW and Everquest before it.
There are literally thousands of offshore oil platforms in operation that face these obstacles on a daily basis. Something tells me that if the oil companies can deal with them, so can Google.
Running, Vista x64, iTunes 8, with an iPhone 3G. No problems so far.
In the past 24 hours since Chrome launched, the thing that I've found most interesting has been the range of reaction from people around the Web. In a nutshell the reaction can be pretty evenly divided between people who "get it" and people who don't. If you think that Google's purpose for Chrome has anything to do with improving UI or grabbing browser market share then you're in the camp that doesn't get it.
Chrome is more or less a reference design for other browser developers, hence the reason Google is putting so much emphasis on it being open source. There's no money in it for Google to be giving out browsers. What Google is interested in is increasing the capability of the average browser in order to allow them to serve up more robust web-based content for more revenue.
The issue here is not whether or not 250GB is enough today, but whether or not it's enough for a year from now, or even 6 months.
Over the last two years there has been a very clear movement of video distribution from broadcast to online. The clear projection of this movement, that many customers were hoping for, is services that provide enough HD content to finally supplant traditional broadcast mediums as the primary source of video in the home.
A 250GB cap puts a very real limit on what these services can accomplish. Companies like Apple and Netflix are unlikely to roll out HD services if millions of their potential customers do not have the necessary bandwidth for such services.
Similarly a bandwidth cap puts constraints on other innovations. Companies with new bandwidth intensive products and services now face a new constraint on the feasibility of bringing these products and services to market, which in turn means that many new potential innovations in online services will not make it to market here in the US.
Additionally, you're completely neglecting the fact that the average household is not 1 person. A household with two parents and two children will only get 62.5GB per person per month. It should be clear to anyone here on /. how easy it would be for such a household to go over their bandwidth cap using legitimate sources of content.
I agree with this. Here in Denver, I have the same choice between Qwest and Comcast. I've tried Qwest once for ~2 months. Out of the 4-5 different broadband providers I've used in different areas of the country, Qwest is far and away the worst, both in terms of the product and customer service. Even with these bandwidth caps, there is no way in hell I would switch back to Qwest.
Notice a trend here? I think AT&T (27% market share) and SprintNextel (23% market share) and T-Mobile (11% market share) might have something to say about that whole exclusive bit.
I realize that we're all supposed to hate corporations here on the Internet and bigger inherently equals worse regardless of those pesky exceptions when economies of scale kick in. But can we at least have one of these conversations without people throwing around the "M" word like it applies to any and every situation involving a public corporation?
The problem with this is that in the time that they're holding out for $31, they could have reinvested their proceeds from selling at $30 and earned even more.
This is an assumption that you have absolutely no proof to back up. Perhaps this is what happens, perhaps not. I can easily point to instances where people suffer gaps in consciousness (head trauma, near death experiences, etc...) that refute your point. Needless to say there is no conscious being that you can point to that has been copied to show that copying a consciousness is any different from copying data.
Would they want to interact with normal world? Would they prefer a virtual world? This seems a very shortsighted view of the future. If we're assuming that a society has the ability to create a computer capable of containing an exact copy of your consciousness, it's not much of a stretch to think that they would be capable of interacting with the real world with just as much sensation as the human body, or creating virtual worlds with as much detail as the real.
It also assumes that it would somehow be bad or wrong if such a person preferred a virtual world to the real.
Interesting idea. However, there is one problem with that. As you decelerate the vehicle you're raising its center of gravity and increasing the likelihood that it will tip in an abrupt stop.
All you fanboys need to chill out. Go back and read the actual discussion and you'll see that we're not talking about "teh console warz". We're talking about whether or not the introduction of the PS3 video download service will affect US net neutrality policy.
Now, I realize I might not have been spot on with 3 times as many consoles as you have all been so eager to point out. However the point of my argument remains the same whether there are 1.8 times as many, 2.5 times as many, or 3 times as many: there are more Xbox 360's in American homes with hard drives and Internet connections that are already being used for video download than the PS3 will introduce. Additionally services like Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon handle just as much, if not more, downloads than the 360 as it is. What this means is that the PS3 video download service will have little effect on the amount of bandwidth being used for video and therefore no impact on the net neutrality discussion in the US.
Aww, it's so cute when people think they know how to run other people's lives.
$80-$90? Maybe in Australia. In the states, Xbox 360 and PS3 games retail for $60 and Wii and PC games typically retail for $50 at launch.
I'm sorry, but this is just inaccurate. Most 15" laptops have a resolution of 1280x800, higher than a 720p television screen, and most 17" laptops have an even higher resolution. Some gaming laptops (which is what they said they have) even go as high as 1920x1200.
I would probably agree that just buying a console would be a better option for them, but not because of anything to do with the resolution of the screen.
If they don't want to spend a lot of new money on a console, a PS2 might be a great choice for them. Obviously the graphics won't be as slick as any of the current gen machines, but it has a massive library of cheap games to choose from and you can easily find a used one for under $100.
Wider than the Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple combined? I think you guys are drinking a little too much of the Sony Koolaide. Obviously Sony's entrance into the online video market is a significant move, but do you honestly think that Sony alone is going to cause lawmakers to rethink their stance on net neutrality? If this were the available for the PS2 I could see your point, but I think you're significantly overestimating the position that the PS3 is currently in.
Oh, and you're wrong about the 360's online video rentals/purchases, they are available to anyone with an Internet connection (as is all content on the XBL marketplace), no yearly subscription required.
A) True, not all 360's have hard drives. However, there have been 3 times more 360's sold than PS3's and approximately 80% of 360's do have hard drives, so there are still more 360's with hard drives out there than there are PS3's.
B) People may prefer watching shows on their TV to their PC, but that doesn't mean they won't settle for their PC is services for their TV aren't available, which is currently the case. According to Job's Jan 2008 keynote, Apple has sold 125 million TV shows and 7 million movies. That's a lot of content for just those 200k Apple TV's out there.
Why would this be the one to put it in perspective? Xbox Live Video Marketplace has been out for over a year, and there are more Xbox 360's in homes than there are PS3's. If lawmakers and lobbyists chose to ignore the Xbox 360 (not to mention the plethora of other online video providers) as a legitimate use of heavy bandwidth, the PS3 isn't even going to register as a blip on their radar.
Why would bandwidth be any more of a problem for the PS3 than it is for Xbox Live, iTunes Store, Netflix, Amazon Unbox, or any of the other contenders in the space?
Because there are a lot of exercises that still require a lot more dexterity and range of motion than equipment like a forklift can offer.