i don't know what is more worrying, your knowledge of star trek
or the fact you know the exact episode this happened I'd assume he googled it, only this is slashdot, and Google might be annoyed with my choice of verb.
Why they changed it, I can't say.
People just liked it better that way. They changed it from Constantinople because it was the Roman name (after the emperor Constantine, who built it on the site of old Byzantium). Why they chose to name it Istanbul, I don't know. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
Someone remind me why I need to "upgrade" to an OS where everything is slower and comes with a restriction for pretty much anything. Not to mention it's not really more secure than a fully patched XP anyway. AND it requires me to upgrade my RAM to do less. How's that making any sense?
Digital sales of individual songs this year have risen 54% from a year earlier to 173.4 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that's nowhere near enough to offset the 20% decline from a year ago in CD sales to 81.5 million units. Overall, sales of all music -- digital and physical -- are down 10% this year.
Sure they're down 10% overall, but as someone else mentioned, how are the Indi bands doing? I'd say they're up.
Music industry needs to spend less time blaming P2P and pirates (Arrhhh!), and way less time recording dicks like K-Fed. Thank you for that - though I must say I'm shocked to see a slashdotter reading TFA. Anyway, those figures claim that there's a 10% decline in sales, but an overall increase in the number of units sold. Perhaps people are just happier to buy the two or three good songs on an album... perish the thought.
that for the most part, purely digital formats are much easier to acquire and can be done so (almost) on demand, is this really unexpected? CD sales are (probably) going down at about the same rate that digital sales are going up. Exactly, this information is worthless without the legal download sales figures.
They mean to blacklist devices that do not support DRM. Eventually your cable company would have to turn off your signal under penalty of law and tell you that they are not allowed to serve a customer that is using a device which allows recording.
Not only would the act be illegal, but allowing the act to be possible would also be The TV stations are going to die in the next couple of decades. DVD box sales, torrents and other forms of content on demand is going to wipe the floor with the traditional 'you will watch what we have on' model. All of this sort of thing is just a symptom of them seeing that they're losing control of the audience. Unfortunately, it's likely to be a very annoying symptom in the medium term.
I think it's worse than that. I think they'll settle out of court and wind up with an exclusive deal for Viacom's stuff... net result is Google has the content legally, and only Google.
Google has been skirting on the edge on copyright law for a while now, especially with Google Books (which I can't imagine is actually legal, but is moral IMO). Can they win this? I don't see grounds for defense. On the other hand, how is that figure justified?
Robots are defeated by aiming at the bright, red (sometimes yellow) light that is hidden by thick armor which is unpenetrable by any weapon in the world, but which opens for long amounts of time every once in a while so you can fire at it.
Reminds me of this Robot Chicken Star Wars sketch. "Oh, oh, I'm sorry. I thought my dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only two metres wide."
That's just what I need: Tesco X-raying my head every time I walk into the store to direct me to specials on items I might want. It'll break as soon as I develop super-powers from all the X-rays though.
When you take a photo through a crappy optical system like the human eye (it's a ball of jelly, give it a break!) or the atmosphere, the smallest feature you can pick up is limited. It's explained well here. For ground-based astronomy, it's really important.
I guess you could use the blurry picture and match that, but it'd be more prone to false matches. Put it this way, assume we've a fairly similar skin colour. If you blur your face and mine enough, you couldn't tell us apart. The more similar we look, the less blurring we could allow before a computer couldn't tell us apart.
I think both are in use, but it certainly seems reasonable to prefer the iris. It's much easier to photograph. The distortion induced by the lens and internals of the eye mean that you have to use adaptive optics to get a decent resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
And somewhere on Earth, in an unknown fortress, a stranger from planet Jadar knows fear...
If only they'd named it Jarjarite.or the fact you know the exact episode this happened I'd assume he googled it, only this is slashdot, and Google might be annoyed with my choice of verb.
People just liked it better that way. They changed it from Constantinople because it was the Roman name (after the emperor Constantine, who built it on the site of old Byzantium). Why they chose to name it Istanbul, I don't know. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
Someone remind me why I need to "upgrade" to an OS where everything is slower and comes with a restriction for pretty much anything. Not to mention it's not really more secure than a fully patched XP anyway. AND it requires me to upgrade my RAM to do less. How's that making any sense?
Shiny!!
Not shiny, it's a piece of fei-oo.Sure they're down 10% overall, but as someone else mentioned, how are the Indi bands doing? I'd say they're up.
Music industry needs to spend less time blaming P2P and pirates (Arrhhh!), and way less time recording dicks like K-Fed. Thank you for that - though I must say I'm shocked to see a slashdotter reading TFA. Anyway, those figures claim that there's a 10% decline in sales, but an overall increase in the number of units sold. Perhaps people are just happier to buy the two or three good songs on an album... perish the thought.
They mean to blacklist devices that do not support DRM. Eventually your cable company would have to turn off your signal under penalty of law and tell you that they are not allowed to serve a customer that is using a device which allows recording.
Not only would the act be illegal, but allowing the act to be possible would also be The TV stations are going to die in the next couple of decades. DVD box sales, torrents and other forms of content on demand is going to wipe the floor with the traditional 'you will watch what we have on' model. All of this sort of thing is just a symptom of them seeing that they're losing control of the audience. Unfortunately, it's likely to be a very annoying symptom in the medium term.
I think it's worse than that. I think they'll settle out of court and wind up with an exclusive deal for Viacom's stuff... net result is Google has the content legally, and only Google.
Google has been skirting on the edge on copyright law for a while now, especially with Google Books (which I can't imagine is actually legal, but is moral IMO). Can they win this? I don't see grounds for defense. On the other hand, how is that figure justified?
Whoa. I don't believe you.
Oh, that Amazon. I was wondering what Google Earth and Amazon.com had to do with one another.
Good luck with that.
It's been a while since a post on here actually made me shudder. Thanks for the image.
Not troll, read his post history.
That's just what I need: Tesco X-raying my head every time I walk into the store to direct me to specials on items I might want. It'll break as soon as I develop super-powers from all the X-rays though.
When you take a photo through a crappy optical system like the human eye (it's a ball of jelly, give it a break!) or the atmosphere, the smallest feature you can pick up is limited. It's explained well here. For ground-based astronomy, it's really important.
I guess you could use the blurry picture and match that, but it'd be more prone to false matches. Put it this way, assume we've a fairly similar skin colour. If you blur your face and mine enough, you couldn't tell us apart. The more similar we look, the less blurring we could allow before a computer couldn't tell us apart.
I think both are in use, but it certainly seems reasonable to prefer the iris. It's much easier to photograph. The distortion induced by the lens and internals of the eye mean that you have to use adaptive optics to get a decent resolution.
Tomorrow on Slashdot: Face Recognition - Real or Science Fiction? (Tag: dupe)
Friday on Slashdot: Spoons - Real or Science Fiction? (Tag: isnospoon)