Does this mean that I, as a pedestrian or bicyclist, will now be required to carry a GPS device so that some idiot who's letting his car drive doesn't run me down?
I lifted it from a book by Richard Dawkins titled A Devil's Chaplain. Specifically, it comes from 'The Great Convergence'. There are about 30 pieces in there, from book reviews to lectures, published and unpublished essays, along with a couple of eulogies (including the one he gave for Douglas Adams). Highly recommended reading.
Well, I know that this is a huge surprise for everyone. *rolls eyes* Keep in mind that people who aren't netsavvy have no idea how the internet works at all (big shock!). I've seen many people who open up a browser, get sent to MSNs or AOLs page or wherever the latest hijacked homepage is, then type the address that you give them into the search bar there. They don't realize there's a difference between an address bar and a search field on a page. Every time this happens, one more hit for MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Only people who go out of their way to get to Google (setting it as a homepage, installing Firefox, etc) use it. By these actions alone, it shows that they're more netsavvy. Can't say anything about the affluence part though...
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that the "podjackers" weren't redistributing his work at all. People (well, their podcast software) still had to download the file from his server. What they did was distribute an RSS feed that pointed to his server. In other words, exactly what he signed up for. Boo-fucking-hoo! As a Republican, I would expect you to understand the notion of "personal responsibility". Although, quite frankly, it seems to be something that recent Republicans don't particularly care for, so long as they get their way.
Honestly, I don't know if I particularly feel for the guy. He went to and signed up with a podcast indexing service when he started his podcasts, with the hopes of boosting his listenership. His listenership was boosted. Now he bitches about loss of control because he went and signed up with the service (who asked nothing from him until he started bitching). Yes, the terms may not have been particularly clearly stated in the beginning. However, when he asked to be removed, he was removed. Exactly as he should have been. When he wanted to be reinstated, he got a good look at the terms and cried "extortion". Reminds me of a band that signs with a label without ever looking at the contract, and then cries when they realize they lose some control or don't actually own their songs or whatever. Nothing new here...
Your rationale here makes too much sense. MS should have been able to see that Apple has had longstanding PPC production issues with both Moto and IBM, but their hubris keeps blinding them into thinking that these are problems with Apple itself, and not something that they (MS) wouldn't be able to overcome.
And he has one of those HTIB systems. Speakers placed willy-nilly around the room. Ugh.
I had a roommate who insisted on setting up the left and right speakers (thankfully it was only stereo and not surround) based on where they would be if he were in the TV looking out at the room, rather than respective to the viewers. It drove me absolutely bonkers, yet he kept insisting he was right and wouldn't budge. It was always funny watching a movie where a car goes by from left to right, yet the sound went from right to left. I honestly don't think he could tell that anything was wrong, though.
Because unless there's some fancy algorithms in there to figure out what's supposed to be centered, you'll end up with lots of shots of people talking with missing heads, or close-ups where they're chopped off at the eyeballs. I agree, it's a good idea. I just don't ever see it being done well. That is unless the studios were to broadcast a signal that indicated how 16:9 TVs should be cropping the image.
There was an article on here a year ago about MGM admitting that their widescreen versions of movies were the pan&scan versions with the tops and bottoms chopped off. Here is a blogcritics page detailing the settlement. I was also able to find this page to give some examples of what they're talking about. Can't seem to find the original slashdot article though.
Slashdot Mirror
But how will they prove you're cancer or brain damage was caused by this?
Is that coffee, or something else that grows well on volcanic ash?
Well, I just hope it's sensitive enough to pick up my cat when he's tearing around the neighborhood...
Man, imagine the damage one of these could do to a car!
Does this mean that I, as a pedestrian or bicyclist, will now be required to carry a GPS device so that some idiot who's letting his car drive doesn't run me down?
I liked your .sig. Is that a quote from someone?
I lifted it from a book by Richard Dawkins titled A Devil's Chaplain. Specifically, it comes from 'The Great Convergence'. There are about 30 pieces in there, from book reviews to lectures, published and unpublished essays, along with a couple of eulogies (including the one he gave for Douglas Adams). Highly recommended reading.
So if the webmaster can convince Charlize Theron to participate, he can have a threesome!
Go back to your commie hole in the ground, you anti-american terrorist! : p
Buddy, the "terrorists" won a long time ago...
Interesting that the guy in the article compared it to the Red Sea, as that is considered to be a failed ocean rift.
Even the semi-computer illerteate people...
I think we all can work a bit harder to help people become more computer lerteate.
Well, I know that this is a huge surprise for everyone. *rolls eyes* Keep in mind that people who aren't netsavvy have no idea how the internet works at all (big shock!). I've seen many people who open up a browser, get sent to MSNs or AOLs page or wherever the latest hijacked homepage is, then type the address that you give them into the search bar there. They don't realize there's a difference between an address bar and a search field on a page. Every time this happens, one more hit for MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc. Only people who go out of their way to get to Google (setting it as a homepage, installing Firefox, etc) use it. By these actions alone, it shows that they're more netsavvy. Can't say anything about the affluence part though...
Who's to say which is "correct"?
I prefer to crack my eggs on the big end, and all the little endians should be killed!
see sig. nuff said. thanks dawkins.
I tried that before. She didn't have that nice chickeny taste I've come to enjoy...
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that the "podjackers" weren't redistributing his work at all. People (well, their podcast software) still had to download the file from his server. What they did was distribute an RSS feed that pointed to his server. In other words, exactly what he signed up for. Boo-fucking-hoo! As a Republican, I would expect you to understand the notion of "personal responsibility". Although, quite frankly, it seems to be something that recent Republicans don't particularly care for, so long as they get their way.
Honestly, I don't know if I particularly feel for the guy. He went to and signed up with a podcast indexing service when he started his podcasts, with the hopes of boosting his listenership. His listenership was boosted. Now he bitches about loss of control because he went and signed up with the service (who asked nothing from him until he started bitching). Yes, the terms may not have been particularly clearly stated in the beginning. However, when he asked to be removed, he was removed. Exactly as he should have been. When he wanted to be reinstated, he got a good look at the terms and cried "extortion". Reminds me of a band that signs with a label without ever looking at the contract, and then cries when they realize they lose some control or don't actually own their songs or whatever. Nothing new here...
*looks up* WTF was that?
Your rationale here makes too much sense. MS should have been able to see that Apple has had longstanding PPC production issues with both Moto and IBM, but their hubris keeps blinding them into thinking that these are problems with Apple itself, and not something that they (MS) wouldn't be able to overcome.
You were in ROTC, college, and graduate school all before you were 18?!? Quite impressive. And how old are you now, may I ask?
And he has one of those HTIB systems. Speakers placed willy-nilly around the room. Ugh.
I had a roommate who insisted on setting up the left and right speakers (thankfully it was only stereo and not surround) based on where they would be if he were in the TV looking out at the room, rather than respective to the viewers. It drove me absolutely bonkers, yet he kept insisting he was right and wouldn't budge. It was always funny watching a movie where a car goes by from left to right, yet the sound went from right to left. I honestly don't think he could tell that anything was wrong, though.
Because unless there's some fancy algorithms in there to figure out what's supposed to be centered, you'll end up with lots of shots of people talking with missing heads, or close-ups where they're chopped off at the eyeballs. I agree, it's a good idea. I just don't ever see it being done well. That is unless the studios were to broadcast a signal that indicated how 16:9 TVs should be cropping the image.
Silly slashdotter, it's wireless! There aren't supposed to be any cables...
I think I have an idea of what the mysterious #2 item is...The hard part is actually getting one...
There was an article on here a year ago about MGM admitting that their widescreen versions of movies were the pan&scan versions with the tops and bottoms chopped off. Here is a blogcritics page detailing the settlement. I was also able to find this page to give some examples of what they're talking about. Can't seem to find the original slashdot article though.