massive enough to be spherical under its own weight
But even Earth is not completely spherical (the poles are closer than two points on opposite sides of the equator). So exacty how 'spherical' do they have to be and how can one possibly work out if an object outside of the solar system is sufficently so?
Here in Britain our Sky Digital set top boxes, that are (the only) satellite television decoders, have to be plugged into the phone line, according to the contract anyway. The given reason is that it is to allow for pay-per-view broadcasting, but I cant help thinking there is other uses to having the box plugged in 24/7. However, to give fair credit, the equipment, UI and service is excellent and they cant have much personal information other than your viewing habits. Can they?
So, in summary, you think that Vonage had grossly miscalculated, its initial value and therefore the IPO? However, did people make a commitment to buy those shares? If they did, then regardless of how badly Vonage floated itself it has every right to hold them to their commitment, doesn't it?
Can't wait till a company gets so desperate it sues itself. (I bet it's already happened and I get lots of links).
It just so happened three years ago, that Fox News attempted to sue the makers of the Simpsons - http://washingtontimes.com/entertainment/20031029- 091743-7849r.htm, both are of course part of the same company. It just goes to show that too many suits 'Sue first, think later'.
Does this mean that people have promised to buy shares at an agreed price, but because the price has already dropped they will not actually buy those shares? If so, how did they 'promise', if they have done so in writing, then surely Vonage can demand they do buy those shares at that price?
Or is this a case of a company mucking up a floatation, realising that it is now massively in debt to external creditors and is trying to reclaim that money by threatening people?
So, humans have an incredible capacity for ignoring the facts that don't support what they want to believe.
Yes, I remember only a couple of weeks ago reading a forum where people thought that once they stopped smoking their lungs would actually recover to a state better than that of before they started smoking. One poster who claimed to be a doctor told everyone that it could not possibly be true as while you can recover function, some of the damage is permanent. He/she was flamed down, despite being right, most people prefered anecdotal evidence along the lines of "well its 5 months since I quit and my lungs are better than ever". I congratulate these people for quitting but they really had no idea they will always carry the scars.
And on a transport related point, it is just like the people who use a single news story about a train crashing as justification for not using the train, even though so many people (here in the UK) die on the roads that car crashes never make the news. I guess statistics are only lies if the person taking them in wants them to be.
When you assume that everyone is going to do that, it's paranoia.
One of the most well articulated descriptions of why we have paranoia and not security conciousness.
The CIA didn't miss the 9/11 hijackers because they had too little information, they missed them because they had too much.
Is it me or has everyone conviently forgotten the intelligence services could have missed 9/11 simply because they were shit? No really, either they had no idea of 9/11 or they were ignored by their bosses (the government). Despite ramping up security, MI5 (or is it MI6, I get them mixed up) had no idea about the London Underground bombings. 5 years and still we dont know where Osama is, for a while we didn't even know if he was alive. 'Intelligence' told us that Iraq had WMD aplenty and since our invasion we have found none.
I find it amazing that people still believe our security services despite the fact they never get anything right.
Yes, Paula Radcliffe for one. (Yes, I know the big pile of money they pay her has more to do with it).
The running shop I got fitted at found that only a few shoes were compatible with my running style and after trying them all only two were acceptable. These were Nike and Asics and as there was very little difference between them I chose Nike based purely on the look (and I am glad I did, as I have not damaged my knees since, despite training and running in a half-marathon). Nike might be about the fashion and brand name but they do make good performance gear as well.
There is no simple way of releasing tickets for big events. If you go 'first-come first-served' online, then many of the first in line will be scalpers selling on the tickets at very high prices to those who couldn't press refresh quick enough, or were at work. If you allow everyone who wants a ticket to apply and then draw the winners out of a hat (a lottery, used by Wimbledon and other events), many of those in the hat will be scalpers (or touts) and once again those who actually want to be there, have to pay through the nose, because they lost in the ballot. Ticketmaster's new scheme, seems to be to legitimize touting and pricing tickets out of the reach of those who want to attend the event, instead of preventing touting. Some might say that this is just the free market at work, but normal people (more important normal families) wont be able to make it to any major events, under the two schemes above they at least have the chance to be there.
It seems to me that the most obvious way of making sure that there is a minimum of black market activity (you will never eliminate it) is to sell the tickets with the intended recipients name and check ID on entry to ensure the name of the person taking the seat is the one on the ticket.
Budget and time constraints? I know it is fashionable to highlight the usual NASA-related budget cuts but a quote from TFA
Investigators also raised issues with the mission's management style, saying that lack of training and experience caused the DART design team to shun expert advice. They also found that internal checks and balances were inadequate in uncovering the mission's shortcomings"
This to me sounds like an underfunded team rushing to meet deadlines. Or were they just simply unlucky/inept?
Or how much heed was paid to Blair's request to have steel import quotas not be applied to the UK
Good example of using the EU as an effective power, because the UK alone didn't have any sway over the Americans deciding to eliminate free trade (and how hypocritical was that) but the EU was able to get the US to stop - by threatening to tarrif Orange imports from the US. This displayed that the UK alone was too weak to have any influence on the US but the EU was too big and strong to not have an influence.
If only Brussels realised and exercised this muscle with the US more, someone has to keep Washington in check.
Especially odius is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".
Freedom fighters don't kill children and old people.
So how would you define the IRA? - they killed children and old people but they received funding from the US, as many in Congress/Senate (not sure which) considered them 'freedom fighters'.
It is true that the two are often clearly defined (Al-Quieda could not possibly be argued as 'freedom fighers'), but sometimes it really does depend on which side you are on as to whether a group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, hence the phrase you hate has a great deal of truth.
almost everybody who was playing for the first time... o first month in some cases... actually moved phisically the controller
You must be one of the more evolved gamers as myself and many others still do this (especially driving/rallying games). Just this weekend on MOH I ducked a couple of times. And I have been playing games regularly since the SNES was around.
Some of us are just 'wired' for hand & arm to eye co-ordination.
Thanks for the info innot. So then if the doors stay closed, then the plane is still in international territory? Do you need to open the doors to refuel a plane?
I can't help thinking that it must be a truely awful procedure for the grandparent to think of spending time in Hawaii as a bad experience. But then as I have never been, perhaps it is just all hype.
This really sets a dangerous precedent, to punish a company for an extension to a product that they have not made. It is exactly as stupid as Marvel (I think it was) suing the makers of 'City Of Heroes' because the users could create characters of their choice. You might as well censor school textbook publishers because of all the penis cartoons 'third-parties' have added.
I have to admit I am shocked, I didin't think they had any right to do so.
I thought that runways were a kind-of international territory? Thereby allowing people to get transferring flights without going through passport control (which acts as the the offical border) and be a passenger on a plane that refuels without getting visas for the land in which they are only sitting on a runway. Does the US government really have the right to do this? I mean they couldn't stop a plane flying from Canada to Mexico because the people inside dont have entry visas for the US or havent taken US mandated security procedures, could they?
As far as I'm concerned, the airline industry can rot in hell for giving in to government pressure.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 9/11 bombers use US internal airlines because the security was so poor? A situation caused by the airline companies not agreeing to previous government calls for tighter security due to concerns that people might be put off flying.
I dont like all the pointless security either but some of it is defintely neccessary, and that wasn't the case on US internal airlines pre-September 2001. And anyway people need to see security at airports/on planes, in order to allievate fear of flying, which many people had after 9/11 and which would of course impact on the number of passengers.
Not that I am doing a job selling the Beeb, but you should still be able to get BBC radio anywhere in the world. For news it would be the institution that is Radio4, although that isn't quite as unbiased now as it was pre-Hutton report. IMO the Beeb has always been slightly pro-government (whoever was in power at the time) after all the BBC does have a charter that is up for renewal soon http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/charter/charter.sht ml. So the BBC will always lean, albeit only slightly, towards those who have the power to destroy it (currently T.Blair). A former editor of the Sun, Kelvin Mackenzie, always said that BBC stood for "Blair's Broadcasting Corporation", but then he was editor of the Sun, which doesn't deserve any respect and which is far more of a mouthpiece for New Labour.
Whenever I am away from the UK and watch BBC World I am reminded of just how good and balanced their news is. It's such a shame they are giving so many people the sack.
It's a business model that works, though folks in the U.K. grumble about it.
To be honest not many of us grumble about it, just the usual Daily Mail rant about filth on TV "Our license fee money pays for that!". My main gripe is that they (a few years ago) increased the number of their between show trailers, which are often basically advertising. All the Beeb needs to do when it has a charter renual is to trot out Sir David Attenborugh, Michael Palin and Have I Got News For You and ask the powers that be "How else are you going to make these"
I must point out though that you seem to be forgetting another form of TV revenue, subscription (such as satellite or cable). I would pay a few pounds more for my Sky subscription if they removed ads, which of course they can as they are getting revenue. Mr Murdoch however, disagrees and actually puts adverts on pay-per-view satellite broadcasts, you pay the subscription, then you pay the box office fee for the game, then you still get adverts. Fortuantely the (reluctant admission) superb Sky+ box still lets you bypass the ads, just pause the live program for 10 minutes at the start, then watch normally, skipping the adverts as you go.
Not for half the planet, it isn't. You know there is a 'Southern' hemisphere, right? I hear people there wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
But one guesses that maybe the media will then come with something that recognizes that model number and refuses to play in high def. Not sure if they could get away with that as it would piss off some consumers.
Not to mention the manufacturer, I cant imagine Sony being too happy when Fox puts a "cannot be played on Sony xxxxxx players" on its media, as consumers may buy another player instead. If this was to be attempted then we could see a wonderful end to the HDCP madness as Sony (or another player maker, of course) would send in their lawyers to stop anyone "blacklisting specifically their equipment".
And of course, I can only hope this happens as the only way to prevent all erosion of our consumer rights is to let the big corps fight amongst themselves. The battle between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is one example (I hope they both lose).
The civil service is being run by consultants, blame them, they cost more and its the civil servants who get sacked while they hire more consultants to advise.
This will be made by EDS, in a poorly thought out 'Public Private Partnership' and will cost three times as much, arrive in 2010 and be obsolete when it does. If you think I am being too cynical, just look at their track record. The CSA computer system, the air traffic control system, etc
What amazes me is that they still get more work. Surely even New Labour have a limit to how far a bribe can take them.
Sorry to confuse with reference to playing older sports games, but the point was to that even for sports games (where EA seems to think the only thing everyone wants is fully licensed teams, accurate facial simulations and slick presentation) the truth is that good gameplay is more important than good graphics.
Graphics are critical for such [sports] games to reproduce the realism of a real sports event
Really, so the graphically superior FIFA games are better games than than their rival Pro Evolution Soccer?
No, sports games just like any other are about game play as opposed to good graphics. EAsports seems to have fallen into the "realism is good graphics" trap a few years back and in many of its sports games (such as FIFA) it has been overtaken by games that are more fun to play.
The biggest issue with a sports game is making a satisfactory model of the game that can be played, mapping controls to actions in a sufficently intuitive manner is a major issue. Therefore the Revolution may or may not have an advantage with its new controller if it turns out that it is easier or more difficult to map such actions. This is particulary an issue for such sports as Rugby Union as there are different parts of the game happening at the same time, one control for running actions another for rucking/mauling, only one Jonah Lomu Rugby has been able to stop a rugby game becoming 'lotteries' or unwinnable with poorer teams. And 10 years down the line my friends still play this one, despite its poor graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Britain our Sky Digital set top boxes, that are (the only) satellite television decoders, have to be plugged into the phone line, according to the contract anyway.
The given reason is that it is to allow for pay-per-view broadcasting, but I cant help thinking there is other uses to having the box plugged in 24/7. However, to give fair credit, the equipment, UI and service is excellent and they cant have much personal information other than your viewing habits. Can they?
So, in summary, you think that Vonage had grossly miscalculated, its initial value and therefore the IPO?
However, did people make a commitment to buy those shares? If they did, then regardless of how badly Vonage floated itself it has every right to hold them to their commitment, doesn't it?
It just goes to show that too many suits 'Sue first, think later'.
I have read TFA, but I still dont understand.
Does this mean that people have promised to buy shares at an agreed price, but because the price has already dropped they will not actually buy those shares?
If so, how did they 'promise', if they have done so in writing, then surely Vonage can demand they do buy those shares at that price?
Or is this a case of a company mucking up a floatation, realising that it is now massively in debt to external creditors and is trying to reclaim that money by threatening people?
Can someone please clear this up for me?
I congratulate these people for quitting but they really had no idea they will always carry the scars.
And on a transport related point, it is just like the people who use a single news story about a train crashing as justification for not using the train, even though so many people (here in the UK) die on the roads that car crashes never make the news.
I guess statistics are only lies if the person taking them in wants them to be.
Is it me or has everyone conviently forgotten the intelligence services could have missed 9/11 simply because they were shit?
No really, either they had no idea of 9/11 or they were ignored by their bosses (the government).
Despite ramping up security, MI5 (or is it MI6, I get them mixed up) had no idea about the London Underground bombings. 5 years and still we dont know where Osama is, for a while we didn't even know if he was alive.
'Intelligence' told us that Iraq had WMD aplenty and since our invasion we have found none.
I find it amazing that people still believe our security services despite the fact they never get anything right.
Yes,
Paula Radcliffe for one. (Yes, I know the big pile of money they pay her has more to do with it).
The running shop I got fitted at found that only a few shoes were compatible with my running style and after trying them all only two were acceptable. These were Nike and Asics and as there was very little difference between them I chose Nike based purely on the look (and I am glad I did, as I have not damaged my knees since, despite training and running in a half-marathon). Nike might be about the fashion and brand name but they do make good performance gear as well.
There is no simple way of releasing tickets for big events. If you go 'first-come first-served' online, then many of the first in line will be scalpers selling on the tickets at very high prices to those who couldn't press refresh quick enough, or were at work. If you allow everyone who wants a ticket to apply and then draw the winners out of a hat (a lottery, used by Wimbledon and other events), many of those in the hat will be scalpers (or touts) and once again those who actually want to be there, have to pay through the nose, because they lost in the ballot.
Ticketmaster's new scheme, seems to be to legitimize touting and pricing tickets out of the reach of those who want to attend the event, instead of preventing touting.
Some might say that this is just the free market at work, but normal people (more important normal families) wont be able to make it to any major events, under the two schemes above they at least have the chance to be there.
It seems to me that the most obvious way of making sure that there is a minimum of black market activity (you will never eliminate it) is to sell the tickets with the intended recipients name and check ID on entry to ensure the name of the person taking the seat is the one on the ticket.
I know it is fashionable to highlight the usual NASA-related budget cuts but a quote from TFA This to me sounds like an underfunded team rushing to meet deadlines. Or were they just simply unlucky/inept?
Good example of using the EU as an effective power, because the UK alone didn't have any sway over the Americans deciding to eliminate free trade (and how hypocritical was that) but the EU was able to get the US to stop - by threatening to tarrif Orange imports from the US. This displayed that the UK alone was too weak to have any influence on the US but the EU was too big and strong to not have an influence.
If only Brussels realised and exercised this muscle with the US more, someone has to keep Washington in check.
It is true that the two are often clearly defined (Al-Quieda could not possibly be argued as 'freedom fighers'), but sometimes it really does depend on which side you are on as to whether a group is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, hence the phrase you hate has a great deal of truth.
Some of us are just 'wired' for hand & arm to eye co-ordination.
Thanks for the info innot. So then if the doors stay closed, then the plane is still in international territory? Do you need to open the doors to refuel a plane?
I can't help thinking that it must be a truely awful procedure for the grandparent to think of spending time in Hawaii as a bad experience. But then as I have never been, perhaps it is just all hype.
Can someone make a disgusting MOD for this- http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/americasarmyopera tions/index.html game.
I just love the idea of the US Army product getting a newer harsher rating because of a third party 'gay unclefucker gimp soldier' skin.
This really sets a dangerous precedent, to punish a company for an extension to a product that they have not made. It is exactly as stupid as Marvel (I think it was) suing the makers of 'City Of Heroes' because the users could create characters of their choice. You might as well censor school textbook publishers because of all the penis cartoons 'third-parties' have added.
I have to admit I am shocked, I didin't think they had any right to do so.
I thought that runways were a kind-of international territory? Thereby allowing people to get transferring flights without going through passport control (which acts as the the offical border) and be a passenger on a plane that refuels without getting visas for the land in which they are only sitting on a runway. Does the US government really have the right to do this? I mean they couldn't stop a plane flying from Canada to Mexico because the people inside dont have entry visas for the US or havent taken US mandated security procedures, could they?
I dont like all the pointless security either but some of it is defintely neccessary, and that wasn't the case on US internal airlines pre-September 2001. And anyway people need to see security at airports/on planes, in order to allievate fear of flying, which many people had after 9/11 and which would of course impact on the number of passengers.
Not that I am doing a job selling the Beeb, but you should still be able to get BBC radio anywhere in the world. For news it would be the institution that is Radio4, although that isn't quite as unbiased now as it was pre-Hutton report.t ml. So the BBC will always lean, albeit only slightly, towards those who have the power to destroy it (currently T.Blair).
IMO the Beeb has always been slightly pro-government (whoever was in power at the time) after all the BBC does have a charter that is up for renewal soon http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/charter/charter.sh
A former editor of the Sun, Kelvin Mackenzie, always said that BBC stood for "Blair's Broadcasting Corporation", but then he was editor of the Sun, which doesn't deserve any respect and which is far more of a mouthpiece for New Labour.
Whenever I am away from the UK and watch BBC World I am reminded of just how good and balanced their news is. It's such a shame they are giving so many people the sack.
My main gripe is that they (a few years ago) increased the number of their between show trailers, which are often basically advertising.
All the Beeb needs to do when it has a charter renual is to trot out Sir David Attenborugh, Michael Palin and Have I Got News For You and ask the powers that be "How else are you going to make these"
I must point out though that you seem to be forgetting another form of TV revenue, subscription (such as satellite or cable). I would pay a few pounds more for my Sky subscription if they removed ads, which of course they can as they are getting revenue. Mr Murdoch however, disagrees and actually puts adverts on pay-per-view satellite broadcasts, you pay the subscription, then you pay the box office fee for the game, then you still get adverts. Fortuantely the (reluctant admission) superb Sky+ box still lets you bypass the ads, just pause the live program for 10 minutes at the start, then watch normally, skipping the adverts as you go.
I hear people there wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
And of course, I can only hope this happens as the only way to prevent all erosion of our consumer rights is to let the big corps fight amongst themselves. The battle between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is one example (I hope they both lose).
This will be made by EDS, in a poorly thought out 'Public Private Partnership' and will cost three times as much, arrive in 2010 and be obsolete when it does.
If you think I am being too cynical, just look at their track record. The CSA computer system, the air traffic control system, etc
What amazes me is that they still get more work. Surely even New Labour have a limit to how far a bribe can take them.
Sorry to confuse with reference to playing older sports games, but the point was to that even for sports games (where EA seems to think the only thing everyone wants is fully licensed teams, accurate facial simulations and slick presentation) the truth is that good gameplay is more important than good graphics.
No, sports games just like any other are about game play as opposed to good graphics. EAsports seems to have fallen into the "realism is good graphics" trap a few years back and in many of its sports games (such as FIFA) it has been overtaken by games that are more fun to play.
The biggest issue with a sports game is making a satisfactory model of the game that can be played, mapping controls to actions in a sufficently intuitive manner is a major issue. Therefore the Revolution may or may not have an advantage with its new controller if it turns out that it is easier or more difficult to map such actions. This is particulary an issue for such sports as Rugby Union as there are different parts of the game happening at the same time, one control for running actions another for rucking/mauling, only one Jonah Lomu Rugby has been able to stop a rugby game becoming 'lotteries' or unwinnable with poorer teams. And 10 years down the line my friends still play this one, despite its poor graphics.