Does WMP do this? Ya know, I don't really know, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. And my reaction woulndn't be any different. I am by NO means an Apple fanboy, but I just don't find anything outrageous about this. I just assumed software like iTunes would do this sort of thing, but that's not really the main reason I'm not using it. Corporation tracks what music I listen to on their software? I don't really give a shit. But I still don't use iTunes.
Not that i disagree with you main point at all, but I thuoght another benefit of ABS's ability to prevent skidding was to take advantage of the fact that the coefficient of static friction is generally about 2 times that of kinetic friction? (ie there is potentially more force opposing movement when the two surfaces are not moving relative to each other than when they are) Is that assumption incorrect?
A bit jumpy with the conclusions, aren't we? Just because an activity is illegal by oue (US) laws, or immoral by your standards, doesn't mean there is any mob influence. not saying there definately isn't, but it'd be nice to see conslusions based on, oh, i dunno, evidence.
And I beleive the part of "not actually paying the creators" or music was taken care of by the RIAA well before online music stores or even online filesharing took hold.
Exactly why when I finally convinced myself to get a Mac (yegads!) I decided to go with the (cheaper) iBook rather than anxiously awaiting the new Intel-based Macs. We shall see, I suppose, if the fear of new releases proves to pay off in this choice.
Ya know, I never said anything about science having all the answers either; I think anyone who has their own thoughts and isn't just being anit-religion for the sake of being anti-religion can agree that science doesn't and never will answer every question. My point was merely to point out that there are those that try to justify the perceived dichotomy by saying "science answers how and religion answers why" usually don't really know what they're talking about and are just trying to provide a response that justifies co-existence of what is proven (or at least has a large pool of solidly backed evidence) and what they want to continue to believe.
Science doesn't answer everything. But it is because it only tries to produce answer based on reason and evidence rather than recursively taught blind faith that I give it more credibility.
Funny thing is, whenever I ask a "why" question, regarding the origins of life, God's intentions, etc, to one who professes that religion contains all the answers, the answer I typically get when my questions get deep enough is always along the lines of "we cannot profess to know or understand the motive of God and His infinite wisdom; for to do so would be to place ourselves on His level. We must only have faith in His divine plan." Doesn't seem to answer much of anything, in my opinion.
My guess is that will be up to the site displaying the ads. And for that i'd say you can't fault Google; they'd be losing out on a lot of potential marketshare by not offering graphical ads. If some website wants to get paid to host some ads, it's up to them to decide what type of ads they want to host. And if they want to host banner ads (more money in those, i assume?) and Google can't do anything for them, then they'll just host banner ads through another service (doubleclick, whatever). Google loses out on a potential customer. By offerring graphical ads Google gets to snag those customers, but that does not mean we'll see more annoying popups and banners, it only means those websites that aer willing to subject their readers to that kind of thing in the first place have another option to choose from. We may see some sites that use Google text ads switch to graphical ads; but I think the major change will be Google will steal away customers from doubleclick and the likes--just a change in what service the webstie that already host graphical ads use, not necessarily an increase in the number of sites that use graphical ads.
You could get into a whole moral debate about not offerring a service you fundamnetally disagree with, and that offerring it because "if we don't do it someone else will anyway" is no excuse; but noone ever said (well, Google never said (did they?)) that they're on a moral campaign against graphical ads, just that they recognize that they'll get more users if they don't have them on their own site. If someone else wants to have graphical ads, well that's their own decision to make. I'll just be that much less likely to visit that site, and that's my decision to make.
I support filesharing as a means of distribution and hate the RIAA, but that was a terrible argument.
By offerring people sugar from that which you purchased, you are giving up your own use of that sugar. The company from which you purchased it does not need to take your word for it, there's no way you can still have the sugar if you gave it to someone else.
Likewise, offerring rides to hitchhikers is in no way comparable to copying and distributing a CD. If you instead compared it to letting a friend listen to a CD while you do, then it might have been an appropriate comparison to make. But last time I checked, noone ever got in any trouble for that, at least on the scale that could be comparable to providing individuals with rides in your car. Playing the CD at a public event is another issue, but that's not what's being debated here.
If people who made arguments like yours, clearly not having any grasp of he situation, would just shut up, we might stand a chance at giving a unified, logical, sensible argument that could stand to be heard by those in power to make a difference. But perhaps I'm just too optimistic.
Hey look I'm gonna find some completely pointless and irrelevant spelling error made by any posts and point out their stupidity. Cause it makes me feel superior, cause that means I know more than these people.
Get a fucking life. I've seen it spelled both ways, and quite frankly I didn't care enough to check because WHO GIVES A SHIT. It's not exactly a word I'll be using that much in the future. And when i do spell it wrong, clearly the meaning is still understood. Good enough for me.
Or how about someone like the chairopractor I went to once, who graduated from undergrad as a packaging engineer before deciding he wanted to pursue his current profession? He also said once that as an engineer i've been through "like a zillion years of school."
I think 4 years is pretty standard for engineering. There was a 5 year Masters program (for undergrads) at my school. I've also seen plenty of 5-year coop programs in engineering. But for a plain BS in engineering, there's no reason you can't do it in 4 years. It just may require more all-nighters than something like, oh, say, psychology. (No offense, psych majors, but there were far too many psych majors at my school were there for no other reason that it was one of the easier majors to come out with a 4.0 average from. If you went ahead to get a higher education in psych i supopse you may consider yourself exempt from that statement.)
I'd be willnig to bet there are far more scripted reality shows there than has been publically admitted / accepted. I won't go as far as to say they all are, but...i think you get my point.
And I have fallen prey to my horrific typing that has caused me to unknowingly ignore any and all typos, replacing what i have read in my mind with what I interpretted as the intended meaning.
Where weightlessness occurs? I don't know how high typical orbits tend to be for man-made vessels, but the force due to Earth's gravity is not 0. It's why weightlessness occurs (because in orbit you are in a constant freefall, so you, all your internal organs, and the floor beneath you are not exerting any normal forces on each other), not whereit occurs.
As suggested, I don't know nor do I car to look up how high typical orbits are, so I dont' know how small-to-negligeable the force of gravity frmo earth is, but it would be incorrect to say astronauts experience weightlessness bcause of where they are alone. Keep the vessel stationary but still in outer space and there will still be some gravity giving them weight.
If artists start producing content based around this method of distribution, McDonalds has more power than I thought.
I don't see this applying to music/movies, as the movie will have already been released..although perhaps they would make these available before the DVD release? Not really sure if they would be willing to do that though...
And I don't see how it could apply to games unless they were specifically designed around this principle of serial release, which I don't see happening, but maybe i'm just short-sighted. It seems more like you'd have to get all parts to get anything useful, so it wouldn't be that analogous to serial publishing, more like a stamp card that many vendors provide (recieve your 10th haircut free or such promotions). As to whether or not it could generate the motivation to keep customers coming back to get the rest...i don't really know, but I doubt it. It's somewhat moot to debate, though, since the ads alone will generate the initial interest in kids to nag their parents to buy them the latest happy-meal, along with the interest in the media which they may not come back enough to get it through this part-by-part distribution but will now nag their parents to go buy it...and if th parents say no because they've got part of it then they'll just have to take them back to McDonald's now won't they? It's a win-win for the corporations involved, and that's all they need to care about.
Slashdot Mirror
Does WMP do this? Ya know, I don't really know, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did. And my reaction woulndn't be any different. I am by NO means an Apple fanboy, but I just don't find anything outrageous about this. I just assumed software like iTunes would do this sort of thing, but that's not really the main reason I'm not using it. Corporation tracks what music I listen to on their software? I don't really give a shit. But I still don't use iTunes.
Didn't you see their new ad? The new and improved AOL blocks all spyware, foils all hackers, and does you up the butt all with a single mouse click!
Somewhere, everywhere, physics teachers are rolling in their graves.
Not that i disagree with you main point at all, but I thuoght another benefit of ABS's ability to prevent skidding was to take advantage of the fact that the coefficient of static friction is generally about 2 times that of kinetic friction? (ie there is potentially more force opposing movement when the two surfaces are not moving relative to each other than when they are) Is that assumption incorrect?
;-)
Oh, and it's panicked
For anyone interested, here is what seems to be a decent reference comparing cpu architectures. But I got bored and didn't read the entire thing.
Man that seems to be a problem for me, I never can focus for long enough to finis
A bit jumpy with the conclusions, aren't we? Just because an activity is illegal by oue (US) laws, or immoral by your standards, doesn't mean there is any mob influence. not saying there definately isn't, but it'd be nice to see conslusions based on, oh, i dunno, evidence.
And I beleive the part of "not actually paying the creators" or music was taken care of by the RIAA well before online music stores or even online filesharing took hold.
Exactly why when I finally convinced myself to get a Mac (yegads!) I decided to go with the (cheaper) iBook rather than anxiously awaiting the new Intel-based Macs. We shall see, I suppose, if the fear of new releases proves to pay off in this choice.
Ya know, I never said anything about science having all the answers either; I think anyone who has their own thoughts and isn't just being anit-religion for the sake of being anti-religion can agree that science doesn't and never will answer every question. My point was merely to point out that there are those that try to justify the perceived dichotomy by saying "science answers how and religion answers why" usually don't really know what they're talking about and are just trying to provide a response that justifies co-existence of what is proven (or at least has a large pool of solidly backed evidence) and what they want to continue to believe.
Science doesn't answer everything. But it is because it only tries to produce answer based on reason and evidence rather than recursively taught blind faith that I give it more credibility.
It's 15 Virginians, you asshole! How dare you defile what we have created!
No? Robin Williams live on Broadway? No?
Funny thing is, whenever I ask a "why" question, regarding the origins of life, God's intentions, etc, to one who professes that religion contains all the answers, the answer I typically get when my questions get deep enough is always along the lines of "we cannot profess to know or understand the motive of God and His infinite wisdom; for to do so would be to place ourselves on His level. We must only have faith in His divine plan." Doesn't seem to answer much of anything, in my opinion.
42 purple monkey dishwashers!
My guess is that will be up to the site displaying the ads. And for that i'd say you can't fault Google; they'd be losing out on a lot of potential marketshare by not offering graphical ads. If some website wants to get paid to host some ads, it's up to them to decide what type of ads they want to host. And if they want to host banner ads (more money in those, i assume?) and Google can't do anything for them, then they'll just host banner ads through another service (doubleclick, whatever). Google loses out on a potential customer. By offerring graphical ads Google gets to snag those customers, but that does not mean we'll see more annoying popups and banners, it only means those websites that aer willing to subject their readers to that kind of thing in the first place have another option to choose from. We may see some sites that use Google text ads switch to graphical ads; but I think the major change will be Google will steal away customers from doubleclick and the likes--just a change in what service the webstie that already host graphical ads use, not necessarily an increase in the number of sites that use graphical ads.
You could get into a whole moral debate about not offerring a service you fundamnetally disagree with, and that offerring it because "if we don't do it someone else will anyway" is no excuse; but noone ever said (well, Google never said (did they?)) that they're on a moral campaign against graphical ads, just that they recognize that they'll get more users if they don't have them on their own site. If someone else wants to have graphical ads, well that's their own decision to make. I'll just be that much less likely to visit that site, and that's my decision to make.
I support filesharing as a means of distribution and hate the RIAA, but that was a terrible argument.
By offerring people sugar from that which you purchased, you are giving up your own use of that sugar. The company from which you purchased it does not need to take your word for it, there's no way you can still have the sugar if you gave it to someone else.
Likewise, offerring rides to hitchhikers is in no way comparable to copying and distributing a CD. If you instead compared it to letting a friend listen to a CD while you do, then it might have been an appropriate comparison to make. But last time I checked, noone ever got in any trouble for that, at least on the scale that could be comparable to providing individuals with rides in your car. Playing the CD at a public event is another issue, but that's not what's being debated here.
If people who made arguments like yours, clearly not having any grasp of he situation, would just shut up, we might stand a chance at giving a unified, logical, sensible argument that could stand to be heard by those in power to make a difference. But perhaps I'm just too optimistic.
Your poor grammar speaks to why you might not yet have grasped this.
As stated numerous times in previous posts, ID is not a falsifiable theory, and therefore cannot be treated as a scientific theory.
I was going to go further, but I read a few more comments and found one that says everything I was going to and more: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171719 &cid=14299952
Happy reading!
Anyone else find that a little odd given the style used in the page?
Hey look I'm gonna find some completely pointless and irrelevant spelling error made by any posts and point out their stupidity. Cause it makes me feel superior, cause that means I know more than these people.
Get a fucking life. I've seen it spelled both ways, and quite frankly I didn't care enough to check because WHO GIVES A SHIT. It's not exactly a word I'll be using that much in the future. And when i do spell it wrong, clearly the meaning is still understood. Good enough for me.
8'b1;
If your post overflows you have to change the bit-width of all previous posts.
(Sometimes that seems to be the attitude at my job...let's hear it for code maintainability!)
Or how about someone like the chairopractor I went to once, who graduated from undergrad as a packaging engineer before deciding he wanted to pursue his current profession? He also said once that as an engineer i've been through "like a zillion years of school."
I haven't been to a chairopractor since.
I think 4 years is pretty standard for engineering. There was a 5 year Masters program (for undergrads) at my school. I've also seen plenty of 5-year coop programs in engineering. But for a plain BS in engineering, there's no reason you can't do it in 4 years. It just may require more all-nighters than something like, oh, say, psychology. (No offense, psych majors, but there were far too many psych majors at my school were there for no other reason that it was one of the easier majors to come out with a 4.0 average from. If you went ahead to get a higher education in psych i supopse you may consider yourself exempt from that statement.)
Sorry, I forgot to include the tag.
I'd be willnig to bet there are far more scripted reality shows there than has been publically admitted / accepted. I won't go as far as to say they all are, but...i think you get my point.
Thanks for clarifying that. I figured as much but I wasn't sure and didn't want to assume.
A scripted reality TV show??? You just rocked my world...
And I have fallen prey to my horrific typing that has caused me to unknowingly ignore any and all typos, replacing what i have read in my mind with what I interpretted as the intended meaning.
I really should do something about that.
Where weightlessness occurs? I don't know how high typical orbits tend to be for man-made vessels, but the force due to Earth's gravity is not 0. It's why weightlessness occurs (because in orbit you are in a constant freefall, so you, all your internal organs, and the floor beneath you are not exerting any normal forces on each other), not whereit occurs.
As suggested, I don't know nor do I car to look up how high typical orbits are, so I dont' know how small-to-negligeable the force of gravity frmo earth is, but it would be incorrect to say astronauts experience weightlessness bcause of where they are alone. Keep the vessel stationary but still in outer space and there will still be some gravity giving them weight.
If artists start producing content based around this method of distribution, McDonalds has more power than I thought.
I don't see this applying to music/movies, as the movie will have already been released..although perhaps they would make these available before the DVD release? Not really sure if they would be willing to do that though...
And I don't see how it could apply to games unless they were specifically designed around this principle of serial release, which I don't see happening, but maybe i'm just short-sighted. It seems more like you'd have to get all parts to get anything useful, so it wouldn't be that analogous to serial publishing, more like a stamp card that many vendors provide (recieve your 10th haircut free or such promotions). As to whether or not it could generate the motivation to keep customers coming back to get the rest...i don't really know, but I doubt it. It's somewhat moot to debate, though, since the ads alone will generate the initial interest in kids to nag their parents to buy them the latest happy-meal, along with the interest in the media which they may not come back enough to get it through this part-by-part distribution but will now nag their parents to go buy it...and if th parents say no because they've got part of it then they'll just have to take them back to McDonald's now won't they? It's a win-win for the corporations involved, and that's all they need to care about.