I live in Knox county (right across from Licking, in fact, as well), and we only have two options: dial-up and satellite. Dial-up you are all familiar with, but satellite has its own problems. While download and upload speeds are alright, there are three major problems: Intense lag (connection goes to space and back), which results in waiting a good five seconds for even the smallest web pages to load; one-way connections only, which means that if I want to upload something I have to make sure that no downloading is occurring, unless I want the rate to be less than 1 kB/s; and worst of all, a bandwidth cap: 169 MB is the cap on this connection (HughesNet/DirecWay). With the advent of YouTube and other similar sites I'm finding myself going over that cap often, and what happens when I do? I can only end up browsing at less than 1 kB/s for a period of over 24 hours until it "refills" my download quota again. Not only can I not play games online (I'm a CS nut, go figure), but it's also costing us way more than it's worth ($50/month).
This is such bullcrap, and I would greatly welcome access to normal broadband Internet.
To register at the Video Game Music Archive Forums you must complete something similar: We have pictures of both Mario and Sonic up, and one is asked to checkmark the pictures of Mario. Additionally, the image sizes are randomly generated each time so the checksums of the image files will differ each time.
No more than anyone did for web browsing on the PSP. Will this question arise every time another form of web browsing appears? Will we someday have to have about a dozen different versions of web pages in order to cater to a dozen different methods of accessing the web? I sure hope not. Complying to web standards should be enough. I dream of a day when browsers have to comply with web standards, not the other way around.
Amen to that. What I find worse, however, is when people deliberately use "u" or something similar just to look "cool" or whatever. I suppose in online gaming it's not too bad, considering one has to type quickly in most situations in order to quickly get back to the game, but whenever I see "lol u r ghey n00b" I cringe.
I'm predominantly a CounterStrike player. In most cases I find voice chat to be incredibly useful as opposed to typing. With one hand on the mouse and the other frantically flying over movement/weapon keys, it'd be pretty difficult to type even simple notifications to other teammates such as "A rush" or "Camper at long." I suppose I could bind those to some keys, but 1) I don't have enough keys to bind such communications to, and 2) it's just so much easier to use voice chat. Now, there are cases where you run across the prepubescent kid who won't stop whining about hackers and cheaters, the karaoke kid, the music spammer, or the drunken frat boys who talk about nonsense throughout the game, but that's what the Ignore function is for. An anonymous person's voice over the Internet isn't too awkward for me to listen to, even if it does get annoying occasionally.
I've asked them several times to delete my number intentionally, as I've not used it in years, yet they say that it's not possible. Now they go ahead and lose hundreds of numbers unintentionally?
If you would ask the common everyday Internet user which video site they visit, it's YouTube. They're not going to switch to another video site with only a fraction of the content that's available on there to begin with. AOL Video is in the same situation.
Simply voting for Republican or Democrat isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's voting for a particular candidate simply because (s)he's a republican/democrat that's what's wrong. I agree that there shouldn't be so much focus on the R's and D's after people's names. I'm fairly certain there are people out there that automatically make biased opinions about what someone is saying/doing simply because they see the (R) or (D) symbol after their name in the news, in the paper, etc., before the politician says anything.
Wrong. The police would have never searched the computer if not for the illegal hacking of the judge's computer in the first place. Since the police would not have searched the photos if not for what the hacker discovered, the evidence is inadmissible.
Like I said, even warrents obtained based on this scenario lead to cases of inadmissable evidence. This evidence in particular has already been dismissed.
Even though the police did not endorse in anyway this illegal form of searching, the fact remains that the evidence was obtained (or at least the warrent to "officially" obtain it) was done so illegally. The evidence is inadmissable.
If it is allowed, however, what's to stop any law enforcement agency when being unable to secure a warrent to hire some nerd to get the evidence for them, then turn around and claim they weren't involved?
While I disagree with the statement regarding the ESRB having to play through the entire game, I do like the idea of having a single rating system across all mediums. Many parents know, for example, the movie rating system well, yet don't have a clue when it comes to the ESRB's ratings (although if they took the time to read what the rating says it shouldn't be a problem, but that's another story). If there were but a single rating system to learn, things would be less confusing.
Clearly the bill has nothing to do with banning social networking sites within Illinois in its entirety. Clearly the title was formatted for sesationalism (pot calling the kettle black, I know).
Computer Science is not the study of how to write a computer program. Computer Science, simply put, is the study of algorithms. If you want to be just a programmer, you could probably get by without a CS degree, but if you want to heighten your chances significantly, getting a degree in Computer Science can really boost your chances, and not just in the stereotypical sitting-in-front-of-a-computer-in-a-cubicle programming job, either. Most big projects are taken care of in groups.
My point is that coding is not the only thing you learn when obtaining a Computer Science degree. You pick it up along the way or learn it yourself as needed, but it is not the sole factor of Computer Science.
If you use the search term "failure," then our current president's biography will be the first result you see. I know this isn't the same as searching for "George W. Bush" (which brings up whitehouse.gov up as the first result), but it still shows that this sort of tactic has probably been performed in the past many times. It's just finally coming to light now.
Maybe while us users squabble in our own browser war, the development teams actually don't care all that much. Maybe they truly are just glad of how everyone is advancing (as opposed to just trying to one-up each other). I'm not saying that everyone in both companies feel that way, but instead of reading stuff into this surprise present, maybe it was just a good gesture.
Yes, they get your attention. That's the point. They are highly distracting and annoying. When I'm listening to music I don't want advertisement sounds/music blasting out of my speakers on top of it. Not to mention for users on low-end PCs (i.e. the one I presently use to connect to the Internet): It's bad enough that Firefox's extensions have memory issues, but to have video ads playing would slow it down to a crawl.
AVG has been running on this machine for about two years now. It has a very easy interface (easy to understand, etc.) and can be set to automatically update and scan daily.
I can't give my opinion on the other two, as I have not tried them before.
This fall I am entering as a Freshman (right out of high school) into Kent State University to pursue a Computer Science degree. This sounds like great news to me.
Political strategy aside, why are video games the sole target for this ban on violent material? There is a lot of music out there, for example, that does not just have violence. It glorifies violence. There are plenty of films out there which do the same thing. Heck, even television programming is stooping down to that level. Is there really a difference between controlling the action of the main character and seeing it happen anyway?
I remember first watching my older brother playing the original Legend of Zelda. Then I got into it. Man, that game was (is) a blast.
Now for a word from our sponsor.
It's the Legend of Zelda, it's really rad. Those creatures from Ganon are pretty bad. Ocktorocks, Tek-Teks, and leevers, too. And with your help, our hero pulls through. Yeah, go Link."
*Disclaimer: From memory, so it may be a bit off....
I'm such a geek.
I don't believe that a jury would convict a divorced mother of five on the crime of downloading pirated media. If she wins this trial, it'll be a black eye for the RIAA: They're first trial fails to hold water. What would then happen?
ESRB's job is to be a neutral rater, not a censor.
Naturally, it's the parents job to censor games for their own children. Unfortunately, a lot of them do not do so. The ESRB rating system is the closest the average parent is ever going to get in researching the content of the game, and I say the ESRB does a pretty good job at what they do.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you."
I live in Knox county (right across from Licking, in fact, as well), and we only have two options: dial-up and satellite. Dial-up you are all familiar with, but satellite has its own problems. While download and upload speeds are alright, there are three major problems: Intense lag (connection goes to space and back), which results in waiting a good five seconds for even the smallest web pages to load; one-way connections only, which means that if I want to upload something I have to make sure that no downloading is occurring, unless I want the rate to be less than 1 kB/s; and worst of all, a bandwidth cap: 169 MB is the cap on this connection (HughesNet/DirecWay). With the advent of YouTube and other similar sites I'm finding myself going over that cap often, and what happens when I do? I can only end up browsing at less than 1 kB/s for a period of over 24 hours until it "refills" my download quota again. Not only can I not play games online (I'm a CS nut, go figure), but it's also costing us way more than it's worth ($50/month). This is such bullcrap, and I would greatly welcome access to normal broadband Internet.
To register at the Video Game Music Archive Forums you must complete something similar: We have pictures of both Mario and Sonic up, and one is asked to checkmark the pictures of Mario. Additionally, the image sizes are randomly generated each time so the checksums of the image files will differ each time.
No more than anyone did for web browsing on the PSP. Will this question arise every time another form of web browsing appears? Will we someday have to have about a dozen different versions of web pages in order to cater to a dozen different methods of accessing the web? I sure hope not. Complying to web standards should be enough. I dream of a day when browsers have to comply with web standards, not the other way around.
Amen to that. What I find worse, however, is when people deliberately use "u" or something similar just to look "cool" or whatever. I suppose in online gaming it's not too bad, considering one has to type quickly in most situations in order to quickly get back to the game, but whenever I see "lol u r ghey n00b" I cringe.
I'm predominantly a CounterStrike player. In most cases I find voice chat to be incredibly useful as opposed to typing. With one hand on the mouse and the other frantically flying over movement/weapon keys, it'd be pretty difficult to type even simple notifications to other teammates such as "A rush" or "Camper at long." I suppose I could bind those to some keys, but 1) I don't have enough keys to bind such communications to, and 2) it's just so much easier to use voice chat. Now, there are cases where you run across the prepubescent kid who won't stop whining about hackers and cheaters, the karaoke kid, the music spammer, or the drunken frat boys who talk about nonsense throughout the game, but that's what the Ignore function is for. An anonymous person's voice over the Internet isn't too awkward for me to listen to, even if it does get annoying occasionally.
I've asked them several times to delete my number intentionally, as I've not used it in years, yet they say that it's not possible. Now they go ahead and lose hundreds of numbers unintentionally?
If you would ask the common everyday Internet user which video site they visit, it's YouTube. They're not going to switch to another video site with only a fraction of the content that's available on there to begin with. AOL Video is in the same situation.
Simply voting for Republican or Democrat isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's voting for a particular candidate simply because (s)he's a republican/democrat that's what's wrong. I agree that there shouldn't be so much focus on the R's and D's after people's names. I'm fairly certain there are people out there that automatically make biased opinions about what someone is saying/doing simply because they see the (R) or (D) symbol after their name in the news, in the paper, etc., before the politician says anything.
Wrong. The police would have never searched the computer if not for the illegal hacking of the judge's computer in the first place. Since the police would not have searched the photos if not for what the hacker discovered, the evidence is inadmissible.
Like I said, even warrents obtained based on this scenario lead to cases of inadmissable evidence. This evidence in particular has already been dismissed.
Even though the police did not endorse in anyway this illegal form of searching, the fact remains that the evidence was obtained (or at least the warrent to "officially" obtain it) was done so illegally. The evidence is inadmissable. If it is allowed, however, what's to stop any law enforcement agency when being unable to secure a warrent to hire some nerd to get the evidence for them, then turn around and claim they weren't involved?
While I disagree with the statement regarding the ESRB having to play through the entire game, I do like the idea of having a single rating system across all mediums. Many parents know, for example, the movie rating system well, yet don't have a clue when it comes to the ESRB's ratings (although if they took the time to read what the rating says it shouldn't be a problem, but that's another story). If there were but a single rating system to learn, things would be less confusing.
Clearly the bill has nothing to do with banning social networking sites within Illinois in its entirety. Clearly the title was formatted for sesationalism (pot calling the kettle black, I know).
They can summarize the article however they want, as long as they don't forget the question mark.
Computer Science is not the study of how to write a computer program. Computer Science, simply put, is the study of algorithms. If you want to be just a programmer, you could probably get by without a CS degree, but if you want to heighten your chances significantly, getting a degree in Computer Science can really boost your chances, and not just in the stereotypical sitting-in-front-of-a-computer-in-a-cubicle programming job, either. Most big projects are taken care of in groups.
My point is that coding is not the only thing you learn when obtaining a Computer Science degree. You pick it up along the way or learn it yourself as needed, but it is not the sole factor of Computer Science.
If you use the search term "failure," then our current president's biography will be the first result you see. I know this isn't the same as searching for "George W. Bush" (which brings up whitehouse.gov up as the first result), but it still shows that this sort of tactic has probably been performed in the past many times. It's just finally coming to light now.
Maybe while us users squabble in our own browser war, the development teams actually don't care all that much. Maybe they truly are just glad of how everyone is advancing (as opposed to just trying to one-up each other). I'm not saying that everyone in both companies feel that way, but instead of reading stuff into this surprise present, maybe it was just a good gesture.
According to Nintendo, the price of the Wii in the United States "will not exceed $250 in America."
I'm definitely getting my hands on this baby this fall.
Yes, they get your attention. That's the point. They are highly distracting and annoying. When I'm listening to music I don't want advertisement sounds/music blasting out of my speakers on top of it. Not to mention for users on low-end PCs (i.e. the one I presently use to connect to the Internet): It's bad enough that Firefox's extensions have memory issues, but to have video ads playing would slow it down to a crawl.
Thank goodness for Adblock Plus!
AVG has been running on this machine for about two years now. It has a very easy interface (easy to understand, etc.) and can be set to automatically update and scan daily. I can't give my opinion on the other two, as I have not tried them before.
This fall I am entering as a Freshman (right out of high school) into Kent State University to pursue a Computer Science degree. This sounds like great news to me.
Political strategy aside, why are video games the sole target for this ban on violent material? There is a lot of music out there, for example, that does not just have violence. It glorifies violence. There are plenty of films out there which do the same thing. Heck, even television programming is stooping down to that level. Is there really a difference between controlling the action of the main character and seeing it happen anyway?
I remember first watching my older brother playing the original Legend of Zelda. Then I got into it. Man, that game was (is) a blast. Now for a word from our sponsor. It's the Legend of Zelda, it's really rad. Those creatures from Ganon are pretty bad. Ocktorocks, Tek-Teks, and leevers, too. And with your help, our hero pulls through. Yeah, go Link." *Disclaimer: From memory, so it may be a bit off. ...
I'm such a geek.
I don't believe that a jury would convict a divorced mother of five on the crime of downloading pirated media. If she wins this trial, it'll be a black eye for the RIAA: They're first trial fails to hold water. What would then happen?
ESRB's job is to be a neutral rater, not a censor.
Naturally, it's the parents job to censor games for their own children. Unfortunately, a lot of them do not do so. The ESRB rating system is the closest the average parent is ever going to get in researching the content of the game, and I say the ESRB does a pretty good job at what they do.