Generally, I have more important things to care about than if I have to wait an extra minute and a half because 3 people just got in front of me.
Agreed.
How do you feel if its already been an hour, the line up is half way around the block, and people at the back will take an hour just to reach the position you are at now; and there is probably 50+ people and another half our so to wait in front of you.
And then over that period, half a dozen groups of 5+ show up and join their various friends in front of you (we're talking couples meeting other couples, or groups of friends meeting other groups of friends -- not a boyfriend joining his wife, or the driver joining his group after parking here. This effectively adds another 30 people in front of you, pushing you back another 30 minutes, while speeding them up about an hour and a half.
It gets ridiculous, and infuriating.
I remember when the Wii and PS3 were selling out at launch and people were lining up. Some stores instituted one of the best trends I've ever seen to defeat this, and some lines even SELF ORGANIZED into doing this; they had someone give out numbers to the people as they arrived. One person got one number. (And they were limiting it to one unit per customer.) So if a group sends someone over to line up a 1am, and then his 5 friends showed up at 5 minutes to opening, they couldn't effectively cut in and score a Wii or PS3 while guys that had been there for hours lost out entirely.
You are of course welcome to tell me how to set iTunes up that it won't fuck up like that, and I'll admit I was obviously too stupid to find the obvious setting for non-suckage.
1) Set the complilation flag for compilations. That ensures compilation disks are stored together in a single directory:/songs/compilations/album/songs...
2) For albums that are by a particular artist but with a bunch of songs that feature other artists, you need to use the artist, and album artist tags.
Given "the imaginary album "The Great Tunes Of I" from the artist "Da Man", and said album has some tracks where "Da Man" features other artists (as expressed by the ID3 tags), I will get:/Da Man/The Great Tunes Of I/most songs of the album/Da Man feat. One Artist/The Great Tunes Of I/the one song/Da Man feat. Another Artist/The Great Tunes Of I/the other song
You set the album artist to "Da Man" for ALL the songs. You set the artist to "Da Man" for 'most of the songs' You set the artist to "Da Man feat One Artist" for the one song. You set the artist to "Da Man feat Another Artist" for the other song.
That results in all the songs being stored in:/songs/da man/the great tunes of I/all the songs on the album
"Album Artist" was added in itunes 7. You are not stupid for not knowing this, and unfortunately, as I'm SURE you know, a lot of albums and songs are not tagged properly, consistently, or even correctly, so it is some effort to clean things up. But itunes can only work with the information its given... garbage in garbage out and all that.
Itunes does have several flaws still. For example, its handling of multi-genre tracks is poor, and I find its muti-user functionality is weak. My wife and I can have either separate everything, or shared everything. I'd like to share the library between multiple users, but have separate settings. (ie if I add a song to 'my' library, everybody sees it, but we each have our own ratings/playcounts/etc...this doesn't seem doable.)
But its definitely 'above average', all things considered.
4% have 24", 5% have >24". That _doesn't_ mean 9% have 1920x1200 or more. TVs have many inches but not that many pixels.
I am highly skeptical that that many people really have a TV as their primary display, ESPECIALLY a big low res one.
Also, not all 24" is 1920x1200. 1920x1080 24.1" monitors may be entered as 24", but would show up in the 1.39% 'other' resolutions.
Even if you allowed that ALL the 'other' resolutions where 1920x1080 and other 24"+ monitor resolutions it still doesn't add up. And I contend strongly that at least half of those are going to be goofy resolutions below 1680x1050.
Number of inches is probably user specified too, so there is probably some errors in the data.
I think so. And in a 'dick waving contest' like screensize, I can see the numbers getting significantly inflated.
Easily disputed. From the video card section it looks like most gamers don't have the latest graphics cards so are likely to be running games at a reduced resolution to improve performance.
That would make sense if the survey was taken in a game. Its not. It's taken while running your regular desktop.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw some jerkoff running a screen that cost more than my car at 1024x768, why... I'd have nearly ten dollars by now.
Agreed. However, I think, by virtue of being a 'steam user' I think we are selecting from the brighter end of the spectrum, more or less.
1) Most folks are damn morons that don't know the first thing about the hardware they've purchased.
See above.
2) Most folks don't have the 3D hardware to do games on those displays at their native resolution. Hell, I'd be willing to be that many *GAMES* can't run at those resolutions.:/
True, but the survey runs while not in a game. And would be surveying the desktop resolution. I would think that most steam users would run their monitor at native resolution on the desktop. I'm sure even on steam there are a lot of morons... but if even if HALF of 24" screen owners are morons, we should see 5% running at 1920x1200 or higher, we don't even come close to that.
They're using their HDTVs as "monitors" for playing games. HDTVs typically have a native res of 1920x1080. My main computer "monitor" is 37" and 1920x1080.
1) I just plainly don't believe 10% fall into that category. 1% maybe. not 10%
2) If 10% of people really WERE running HDTVs with 1920x1080 native resolution, then why is that than fewer than 2% were running monitors with resolution anywhere near that high. Or do you envision buckets of people hooking up a 37" HDTV capable of 1080p running it at 1440x900? I don't buy that for a second.
Religious nutters coopted marriage, but it far predates the invention of the Christian religion or that of any other god that currently exists in people's minds. It's not their tradition, they have no right to try and define it for other people.
I didn't say marriage belongs to the Christians. I said marriage belongs to religion. Each religion can clamour for it and argue about it. There is no real need for the STATE to recognize "marriage". The state's needs are entirely satisfied by recognizing a "civic-union certificate".
Claiming that we should cede it to them is idiotic
and will only encourage them to demand control of other aspects of people's lives which are none of their damn business.
We didn't give them ANYTHING but the 'word' marriage. Seriously, that doesn't give them "control" of anything; its not even a slippery slope towards more control. What are they going to do? demand other words? Like what? Marriage has an overlapping use in religious and secular contexts; in various religious meanings its a sanctified vow witnessed by god... blah blah... but all the state uses it for is tax features, and for deciding who qualifies for pension, who can visit in the hospital, who defaults to guardian if the other is comatose, etc... there is no bloody reason the state needs to call this statement of legal status a 'marriage'.
There are some religious nutters who want to get into gay peoples lives (and everyone's life for that matter) and control them, but the VAST majority REALLY are perfectly happy to give gay couples pension rights, and hospital visitation rights, etc. They just aren't comfortable giving them the word 'marriage' due to their religious beliefs.
So giving gays all the "legal rights" they want and deserve, but not calling it marriage is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Extremists on both sides still won't like it, but the majority will find it acceptable. And they can fight with eachother over it, which is fine, as long as the state is left out of it.
That's why this country was founded on the principle that religion has no place in the government of a free society. As soon as you introduce religious delusion into your laws you don't have a free society.
And that's precisely why the state needs to entirely extricate itself out of deciding whether people can get "married". Its really NONE of the states business. Religions can decide for themselves and their members. Agnostics/Atheists can decide for themselves. The state just needs to let PEOPLE (gay or straight or asexual or bisexual) register who gets pensions and who gets special rights to visit in the hospital, how taxes get paid, etc.
9% of people using modestly sized flat-panel TV's as monitors while they game would easily explain that.
It would if it were credible. 10% have their PC hooked up to a flat-panel TV while they game? I'd believe 9% may hook up their PC to a big TV from time to time, but not as a rule. Most people simply don't have their PC anywhere near a big TV, and connecting them together means temporarily moving the PC.
In any case it isn't an accurate representation of their PC setup.
I fully suspect that there is no way the survey can know the size of the screen. The resolution yes, but not the size, so they probably rely on user input for that... and just like any other dickwaving content, people inflate the numbers.
"Society" has done no such thing. It's called the "oldest proffesion" for a reason.
Society decided slavery is wrong too. The fact that it only did this recently doesn't change that fact.
Survival sex dramatically declines when prostiution is legalised, at least it did down here in Melbourne Australia where the average pro makes a hell of a lot more than the average Joe. Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.
Which is consistent with my argument. I want to stamp out survival sex, and I explicitly conceded that truly voluntary prostitution perhaps should be legitimate. If we look at places where it has been tried, and things have in fact gotten better for it, then I'm that much more open to the idea.
Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.
I see it as both, but I agree that the majority of the solution is treating the drug problem.
Yes, it handles classical music very badly. Sorting by composer, year (very important because some composers do the same music at different years), orchestra, original composer etc.
You've stuck yourself into a niche before you even got to your argument. Seriously, half the music stores around here don't even HAVE a classical section. I'm not disparaging your taste in music, but to claim iTunes is a poor music player because it doesn't handle a niche market as intelligently as it could is just being intellectually dishonest.
NO ONE said anything about rape. no one. I certainly didn't.
I consider 'survival sex' to be equivalent to 'rape'.
we are talking, here, about business. product (service, really but in the abstract its product) for a fee.
When referring to 'survival sex' we are talking about exploitation, and worse than that sexual exploitation. This is not acceptable 'business'. Just as we've stamped out mine owners from paying people starvation wages to work in coal mines 20 hours a day without safety equipment, we should stamp out the 'survival sex' trade.
you seem to have the view that ALL girls who do this do so involuntarily.
Reread my earlier post. I agreed that girls doing this truly voluntarily, outside of a 'survival sex' context, need not be prevented.
However, I think the word 'voluntarily' is being misused by most of the people responding. Just because someone elects to work in a coal mine 20 hours a day for starvation wages without safety equipment, rather than simply die of starvation does not meet a reasonable definition of 'voluntarily'. Similiarly there is a large class of prostitutes that are 'electing' to sell their bodies in an equivalent context. I don't really call that voluntary. And if its involuntary, then it is really no different than rape.
When the steam 'scanner' gathers data about your computer, where does it get the resolution from? Desktop resolution, or the resolution you play games at?
I've done the survey a couple times. The survey runs when you log on to steam, when you are running their goofy browser app thing, so it should always be at normal desktop resolution while you doing the survey.
Its true a lot of people do drop down the resolution for performance in games, but the survey doesn't measure that.
If it is grabbing the user's desktop resolution, I suspect a lot of users might not run their desktops at the maximum possible resolution, simply because it tends to make the text and GUI elements (buttons, drag-able panel dividers) in many traditional programs *tiny* even with a large monitor.
Its ALL about dot pitch. Pretty much everyone is comfortable at.25mm and higher. Over.31 and and people generally find the pixels 'too big'. Lower than.25 is where difficulty typically sets in with Windows system fonts and graphics widgets. 0.27-0.28 is generally considered the 'sweet spot'.
Your common as dirt panels such as 1280x1024 19" 4:3 panel is 0.294mm. A 21" widescreen 16:10 running at 1680x1050 is 0.269mm. A cheapy 17" 4:3 panel at 1024x768 is 0.337mm, while a higher quality panel at 1280x1024 its 0.264.
And 24" 1920x1200 16:10 at 1920x1200 is a very nice.027mm, and a 25.5" version is 0.287mm. A 30" panel doing 2560x1600 is 0.25 which is getting on the small side, but is still within range. As you can see large hi-res screens aren't really a problem.
The only time its a problem, is when you have something like what you've got, I presume 17" 1920x1200 laptop display... that is 0.19mm, that is over 3 times as far from the 'sweet spot' as a 30" panel, and is deep into 'unusable' territory for a lot of people. (In terms of windows system font and widgets, at least, its still beautiful for video and photos etc).
The point of my long windedness is that, what you are saying about people running LCDs outside of native resolution pretty much only applies to laptops that have crammed panels that would be comfortable at 24" into a 15 or 17 inch display.
Granted elderly people with weaker vision might prefer.3 and even higher dot pitches, but they aren't going to make up a big chunk of 'steam users'.
Although, I suppose the counter argument to that is, if you are going to buy a monitor which supports 2560x1600, you'll probably buy the screaming beast necessary to drive it at decent framerates (can any computers really output frames at such resolution at a consistent 100+ fps?).
An SLI system, especially if you turn down FSAA, can do it in most games. (Plus, running at 100fps is irrelevant on a device that only refreshes at 60Hz. As long as it stays over 60 during a firefight things are fine.)
But most 30" panels on the market actually suck pretty bad for games. Most are PVA panels with excellent color and viewing angles, but weak pixel transition times (ghosting/blur issues) and high input lag (playing 3+ frames behind your opponents, as well as throwing your timing off), Only the very top end IPS panels are suitable for a competitive gamer, at a significant premium to the already high price of a 30" panel.
You're kidding, right? Most of us have some sort of music or mp3 directories, potentially with any number of subdirectories under it for organization. Personally I have mp3/[Genre]/[Artist] and potentially/[Album] if I ripped the whole thing rather than downloaded particular songs. I'm going to put these files into this structure regardless of how it gets into my music player. To claim I should have just dropped it into iTunes itself is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. I don't want my music strewn all over my system, I want it in one place of my choosing. Of course having my player realize to look there periodically is better than it staring dumbly at me until I tell it to.
Have you ever looked at what itunes does when you tell it to organize your library for you? When you just keep your hands off?
songs/artist/album/song.mp3
if its part of a compilation its: songs/compilations/album/song.mp3
hardly disorganized. Trivial to find anything if you ever need to do it manually. But you don't ever need to. It may not be what you would have chosen but so what? iTunes makes it trivial to sort by genre or artist or whatever you like... if I type 'card' into itunes quick search, it instantly pulls up the Cardigans track from the Romeo+Juliette sound track, along with its appearnace on a compilation disk I got free with some jeans. So the fact that they aren't together on the disk doesn't affect me. I can also browse by album, artist, genre, and trivially filter them.
I can define smart playlists that track how and when I've listened to track and sync it onto my ipod based on that. When I sync my ipod, it automatically rotates a chunk of music I like but have listened to recently with music I like but have not, while keeping my favorites on at all times. I can rerate tracks on the ipod itself, and it syncs back to itunes... etc, etc, etc.
Face it its an above average music player.
The truly sad part about your comment is that Apple could probably have this "advanced" feature added in two hours of work.
I agree they could. They could also add all sorts of pointless dangley bits and features to satisfy people like you, but then it wouldn't be the simple elegant app that it is. I'm not saying your feature idea is bad, but its pretty necessary. Especially since, on OSX at least, its relatively trivial to write an applescript to do what you want here.
You're right. Downloading or ripping the music directly into a destination folder is voodoo magic. ripping music? itunes does this for you. why would you use 2 pieces of software for this? downloading music? you mean using a torrent or something? Yeah, because dragging it to the itunes window is the hard part.
Congratulations. I'm happy you like people making your UI decisions for you, but not everybody agrees. To insult them by pretending that must mean they're 13-year-old goths or have "unhealthy fascination[s]" just makes you an asshat. Period.
Take a good hard look, find me one that's objectively better than itunes from an HCI perspective among their top rated? hell, find one anywhere on the site.
I think gimmick terminology is stupid too, but now could you possibly nitpick for no good reason any more than this? It has to be some sort of a record.
I'm sure I wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been in the summary. That the submitter felt it important enough to mention is what made it important enough to rebut.
At the end of the day I think its great that amarok and songbird are available for OSX; I don't even think it shouldn't be on slashdot... I just don't agree with the submitter with respect to the relative merits of itunes vs the new comers.
So given the choice between having sex to survive, and not surviving at all, you'd rather people chose the latter?
I would like that to be a false dichotomy. I would prefer that nobody is EVER given the choice between 'sex to survive' and 'not surviving'. We should give them more and different options.
You and a bunch of others for about the same reason, but I've decided to reply to you.
MY day job (software) is a place I don't want to be. I am working OUT OF FEAR of not being able to pay the rent. just like you and everyone else.
I know that most people work at their jobs in order to "pay the mortgage".
But if you are seriously going to try and equate a job in software development, or as other posters suggested, a job fixing computers, a job at walmart, or a job on a farm, with being sexually violated you are (all) complete asshats.
how is this ANY different? I'm not held at gunpoint but neither are 'pros'.
You figure it out. Slapping someone across the face vs raping them. How is this ANY different? "Having to write software" vs survival sex is the same disparity.
its not about womens' safety. its all about the modern day puritans and how its 'their business' what others do behind closed doors.
As an agnostic my objection to street hookers is out of compassion for their safety, dignity, and well being.
this is 100.00% about religion. nothing else. remove puritanical religion and sex-for-money has no more 'evil' associated with it.
I'm an agnostic who has rejected organized religion. I still think coerced/survival sex should be banished.
battery (pimps slapping hos) is still battery and THAT should be the issue
It is an issue, but its a separate issue.
same as the ban on same-sex marriage. there is no 'harmed party' in same-sex marriages so why the ban?
Despite your belief to the contrary. They are entirely unrelated. Again as an agnostic I have nothing against gay marriages, and see no reason for a ban.
However I -do- recognize that organized religions have a special tradition of marriage. I believe there is an issue of state separation from religion here. Frankly, out of respect for the sizable religious community I think religion should keep the term and rite of marriage and decide for themselves who qualifies, while the state should simply issue civic-union certificates to any couple that presents themselves for one, that confers upon them all rights and obligations with respect to the state that a 'marriage certificate' confers today.
Then gay couples and straight couples can become 'unioned' under the state. And if they want to push further to get married in a church, that's between them and the church, and the state has no say or interest or stake in the matter.
That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?
Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.
So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.
Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.
There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?
There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.
Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.
But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes.
How exactly is that a basic feature? Music enters itunes 3 basic ways: 1 you rip a Cd with itunes. 2 you buy a song from itunes music store 3 you drag a file from your computer onto the itunes library and one advanced way: 4 you tell itunes to import music from a folder
Setting up itunes to monitor a folder would be number 5, and in the 'advanced feature' category.
Secondly, how exactly do the "latest music files" get into this monitored folder? If you manually dragged them there, then you might as well have just manually dragged them onto the itunes window. If they arrived there through any other means, that just further underscores that its an advanced feature.
There are no plugins
That is certainly not a basic feature either. And its probably the ONLY thing I sort of agree with.
I'd like iTunes to support automatically syncing with non-Apple players. I'd like iTunes to support syncing with programs other than Outlook on Windows.
[There are no] themes.
I call that a feature. I'm not 13 anymore. I am happy to let my programs to feature well designed UI, without delegating the task to other 13 year olds who variously have an unhealthy fascination with celebrities, movies, or just want everything to be some sort of gothic red and black. If anything, I think iTunes on Windows should look MORE like a windows app.
Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available.
Its few faults and many strengths actually. The biggest advantage it has over other players is that it works with =all= ipods/iphones seamlessly.
Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine.
Hardly a ringing endorsement if you look at either of those products.
It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance).
Right, because inventing non-standard gimmick terminology is always a good idea. I'm glad Thunderbird has addons not 'feathers' and firefox...? 'hairs'? 'teeth'? Spare me.
Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to due KDE 4 being ported to OS X. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time.
'reasonably stable' with a KDE4 look on OSX? Yeah that's going to create an army of converts.
Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users,
They won't. They will make a very small niche (self)-satisfied. That's not a bad thing, per se, mind you, but don't make more out of it than is really there.
which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."
See above. It won't. Even though I really do want iTunes to work with Thunderbird instead of Outlook...
It does make you wonder what the 30% "other" is though.
They've got Creative Labs represented at about 3.5% between Audigy 2 ZS, Audigy, and X-Fi. But is that accurately counting all the X-Fi variants? What about the multitude of Audigy 2's that aren't "ZS". Ditto for the diverse original Audigy line. The venerable SoundBlaster "Live" series that preceded the Audigy isn't represented at all. I wouldn't really be raising the question, except that we've got that giant 30% "other" sitting there. I could easily see another 5 or 6 or more percent being various creative labs cards.
In any case, I agree with you that that even gamers aren't buying sound cards the way they used to.
That said, some of those steam numbers look WAY out of whack.
Take a look at 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio monitors, which they claim make up 26% of all monitors. And within widescreen 34% claim 24" or larger (24" @ 15%+ over 24" @ 19%).
That equates to 9% of all users using a 24"+ screen. Yet if you compare that to the primary display resolution table, a mere 2.29% are running 1920x1200 or larger. 1920x1200 is the native resolution on 24"-26" screens, with 30" being 2560x1600 (and not represented at all in the chart).
I'm not saying it would be 'easy', but its not that hard, and just like in Linux, once you've got a working sound card driver, supporting other similiar sound cards is pretty simple.
Note that I'm separating the chip with the hardware, it's like Microsoft needs to have the driver for the wrapper around the chip and Linux instead goes directly after the chip that controls the wrapper.
This simply isn't true. Its simply how -vendors- configure the drivers. The INF file for a windows driver is typically limited to match a single 'vendor id', so multiple OEM products that are internally the same guts still identify individually, and only match their vendors OEM.
With linux, the community writes a driver for a chipset and includes all the vendor-id/device-id pairs that match in the one driver; so a LOT of devices from multiple vendors can work with a single driver.
This can be accomplished in Windows easily enough; you can manually edit the INF to match any hardware from any vendor you like; so if you have an HP camera and the Sony driver, but you know they are the same guts you can can query the camera for its ids and add them to the Sony INF and windows will happily (and even automatically) install the sony driver, and if it really is the same guts it will generally work just fine.
And there are several cases where you can download the 'reference' drivers from the chipset maker and use them even if you can't find the vendor specific drivers.
USB-COM port converters based on FTDI chipsets; and of course video card drivers for Nvidia and Ati cards are good examples that I've personally used. The "generic modem" drivers windows ships with would be another example. And many of the network card drivers are another, where you can use generic chipset drivers bundled with windows instead of the branded drivers on the disk.
Some times they are the same, sometimes the branded drivers offer more features, sometimes they are shit and the generic drivers work better, but the point is, that windows drivers really are as flexible as Linux ones. Its just that vendors provided drivers only support their hardware.
Conversely, if Sony were to release official linux drivers for something, you can bet your ass they would only work with the sony product, even if an HP had the same guts... at least until somone hacked them to add the ids for the HP unit. So its not that linux can 'ignore vendor branding and go right for the chipset' its just how the community has set up the matching.
That's just being silly. It should be -obvious- that constructing some taxicab geometry with different properties has no bearing on the discussion except to be annoying.
Show me a square circle in standard euclidean geometry then.
And don't try and get fancy by claiming that in taxicab english the word square means round, or that in taxicab slashdot its opposite day and I asked you to provide a NOT square circle...etc ad nauseum...
What's 'inherently impossible' about either outcome...
It boils down to comparing two infinitely large integers. The heaviest rock he could 'make' vis the heaviest rock he could 'lift'.
There is no limit to either, and its meaningless to compare them to see which is bigger.
What the paradox likely demonstrates is that the concept of 'omnipotence' as we typically understand the word is internally inconsistent.
Its not a paradox at all. Its just mathematical nonsense. We might as well be asking whether God can find a integer so great that even he can't find one that is greater.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, I have more important things to care about than if I have to wait an extra minute and a half because 3 people just got in front of me.
Agreed.
How do you feel if its already been an hour, the line up is half way around the block, and people at the back will take an hour just to reach the position you are at now; and there is probably 50+ people and another half our so to wait in front of you.
And then over that period, half a dozen groups of 5+ show up and join their various friends in front of you (we're talking couples meeting other couples, or groups of friends meeting other groups of friends -- not a boyfriend joining his wife, or the driver joining his group after parking here. This effectively adds another 30 people in front of you, pushing you back another 30 minutes, while speeding them up about an hour and a half.
It gets ridiculous, and infuriating.
I remember when the Wii and PS3 were selling out at launch and people were lining up. Some stores instituted one of the best trends I've ever seen to defeat this, and some lines even SELF ORGANIZED into doing this; they had someone give out numbers to the people as they arrived. One person got one number. (And they were limiting it to one unit per customer.) So if a group sends someone over to line up a 1am, and then his 5 friends showed up at 5 minutes to opening, they couldn't effectively cut in and score a Wii or PS3 while guys that had been there for hours lost out entirely.
You are of course welcome to tell me how to set iTunes up that it won't fuck up like that, and I'll admit I was obviously too stupid to find the obvious setting for non-suckage.
1) Set the complilation flag for compilations. That ensures compilation disks are stored together in a single directory: /songs/compilations/album/songs...
2) For albums that are by a particular artist but with a bunch of songs that feature other artists, you need to use the artist, and album artist tags.
Given "the imaginary album "The Great Tunes Of I" from the artist "Da Man", and said album has some tracks where "Da Man" features other artists (as expressed by the ID3 tags), I will get: /Da Man/The Great Tunes Of I/most songs of the album /Da Man feat. One Artist/The Great Tunes Of I/the one song /Da Man feat. Another Artist/The Great Tunes Of I/the other song
You set the album artist to "Da Man" for ALL the songs.
You set the artist to "Da Man" for 'most of the songs'
You set the artist to "Da Man feat One Artist" for the one song.
You set the artist to "Da Man feat Another Artist" for the other song.
That results in all the songs being stored in: /songs/da man/the great tunes of I/all the songs on the album
"Album Artist" was added in itunes 7. You are not stupid for not knowing this, and unfortunately, as I'm SURE you know, a lot of albums and songs are not tagged properly, consistently, or even correctly, so it is some effort to clean things up. But itunes can only work with the information its given... garbage in garbage out and all that.
Itunes does have several flaws still. For example, its handling of multi-genre tracks is poor, and I find its muti-user functionality is weak. My wife and I can have either separate everything, or shared everything. I'd like to share the library between multiple users, but have separate settings. (ie if I add a song to 'my' library, everybody sees it, but we each have our own ratings/playcounts/etc...this doesn't seem doable.)
But its definitely 'above average', all things considered.
4% have 24", 5% have >24". That _doesn't_ mean 9% have 1920x1200 or more. TVs have many inches but not that many pixels.
I am highly skeptical that that many people really have a TV as their primary display, ESPECIALLY a big low res one.
Also, not all 24" is 1920x1200. 1920x1080 24.1" monitors may be entered as 24", but would show up in the 1.39% 'other' resolutions.
Even if you allowed that ALL the 'other' resolutions where 1920x1080 and other 24"+ monitor resolutions it still doesn't add up. And I contend strongly that at least half of those are going to be goofy resolutions below 1680x1050.
Number of inches is probably user specified too, so there is probably some errors in the data.
I think so. And in a 'dick waving contest' like screensize, I can see the numbers getting significantly inflated.
Easily disputed. From the video card section it looks like most gamers don't have the latest graphics cards so are likely to be running games at a reduced resolution to improve performance.
That would make sense if the survey was taken in a game. Its not. It's taken while running your regular desktop.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw some jerkoff running a screen that cost more than my car at 1024x768, why... I'd have nearly ten dollars by now.
Agreed. However, I think, by virtue of being a 'steam user' I think we are selecting from the brighter end of the spectrum, more or less.
1) Most folks are damn morons that don't know the first thing about the hardware they've purchased.
See above.
2) Most folks don't have the 3D hardware to do games on those displays at their native resolution. Hell, I'd be willing to be that many *GAMES* can't run at those resolutions. :/
True, but the survey runs while not in a game. And would be surveying the desktop resolution. I would think that most steam users would run their monitor at native resolution on the desktop. I'm sure even on steam there are a lot of morons... but if even if HALF of 24" screen owners are morons, we should see 5% running at 1920x1200 or higher, we don't even come close to that.
They're using their HDTVs as "monitors" for playing games. HDTVs typically have a native res of 1920x1080. My main computer "monitor" is 37" and 1920x1080.
1) I just plainly don't believe 10% fall into that category. 1% maybe. not 10%
2) If 10% of people really WERE running HDTVs with 1920x1080 native resolution, then why is that than fewer than 2% were running monitors with resolution anywhere near that high. Or do you envision buckets of people hooking up a 37" HDTV capable of 1080p running it at 1440x900? I don't buy that for a second.
Religious nutters coopted marriage, but it far predates the invention of the Christian religion or that of any other god that currently exists in people's minds. It's not their tradition, they have no right to try and define it for other people.
I didn't say marriage belongs to the Christians. I said marriage belongs to religion. Each religion can clamour for it and argue about it. There is no real need for the STATE to recognize "marriage". The state's needs are entirely satisfied by recognizing a "civic-union certificate".
Claiming that we should cede it to them is idiotic
and will only encourage them to demand control of other aspects of people's lives which are none of their damn business.
We didn't give them ANYTHING but the 'word' marriage. Seriously, that doesn't give them "control" of anything; its not even a slippery slope towards more control. What are they going to do? demand other words? Like what? Marriage has an overlapping use in religious and secular contexts; in various religious meanings its a sanctified vow witnessed by god... blah blah... but all the state uses it for is tax features, and for deciding who qualifies for pension, who can visit in the hospital, who defaults to guardian if the other is comatose, etc... there is no bloody reason the state needs to call this statement of legal status a 'marriage'.
There are some religious nutters who want to get into gay peoples lives (and everyone's life for that matter) and control them, but the VAST majority REALLY are perfectly happy to give gay couples pension rights, and hospital visitation rights, etc. They just aren't comfortable giving them the word 'marriage' due to their religious beliefs.
So giving gays all the "legal rights" they want and deserve, but not calling it marriage is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Extremists on both sides still won't like it, but the majority will find it acceptable. And they can fight with eachother over it, which is fine, as long as the state is left out of it.
That's why this country was founded on the principle that religion has no place in the government of a free society. As soon as you introduce religious delusion into your laws you don't have a free society.
And that's precisely why the state needs to entirely extricate itself out of deciding whether people can get "married". Its really NONE of the states business. Religions can decide for themselves and their members. Agnostics/Atheists can decide for themselves. The state just needs to let PEOPLE (gay or straight or asexual or bisexual) register who gets pensions and who gets special rights to visit in the hospital, how taxes get paid, etc.
9% of people using modestly sized flat-panel TV's as monitors while they game would easily explain that.
It would if it were credible. 10% have their PC hooked up to a flat-panel TV while they game? I'd believe 9% may hook up their PC to a big TV from time to time, but not as a rule. Most people simply don't have their PC anywhere near a big TV, and connecting them together means temporarily moving the PC.
In any case it isn't an accurate representation of their PC setup.
I fully suspect that there is no way the survey can know the size of the screen. The resolution yes, but not the size, so they probably rely on user input for that... and just like any other dickwaving content, people inflate the numbers.
"Society" has done no such thing. It's called the "oldest proffesion" for a reason.
Society decided slavery is wrong too. The fact that it only did this recently doesn't change that fact.
Survival sex dramatically declines when prostiution is legalised, at least it did down here in Melbourne Australia where the average pro makes a hell of a lot more than the average Joe. Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.
Which is consistent with my argument. I want to stamp out survival sex, and I explicitly conceded that truly voluntary prostitution perhaps should be legitimate. If we look at places where it has been tried, and things have in fact gotten better for it, then I'm that much more open to the idea.
Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.
I see it as both, but I agree that the majority of the solution is treating the drug problem.
Yes, it handles classical music very badly. Sorting by composer, year (very important because some composers do the same music at different years), orchestra, original composer etc.
You've stuck yourself into a niche before you even got to your argument. Seriously, half the music stores around here don't even HAVE a classical section. I'm not disparaging your taste in music, but to claim iTunes is a poor music player because it doesn't handle a niche market as intelligently as it could is just being intellectually dishonest.
NO ONE said anything about rape. no one. I certainly didn't.
I consider 'survival sex' to be equivalent to 'rape'.
we are talking, here, about business. product (service, really but in the abstract its product) for a fee.
When referring to 'survival sex' we are talking about exploitation, and worse than that sexual exploitation. This is not acceptable 'business'. Just as we've stamped out mine owners from paying people starvation wages to work in coal mines 20 hours a day without safety equipment, we should stamp out the 'survival sex' trade.
you seem to have the view that ALL girls who do this do so involuntarily.
Reread my earlier post. I agreed that girls doing this truly voluntarily, outside of a 'survival sex' context, need not be prevented.
However, I think the word 'voluntarily' is being misused by most of the people responding. Just because someone elects to work in a coal mine 20 hours a day for starvation wages without safety equipment, rather than simply die of starvation does not meet a reasonable definition of 'voluntarily'. Similiarly there is a large class of prostitutes that are 'electing' to sell their bodies in an equivalent context. I don't really call that voluntary. And if its involuntary, then it is really no different than rape.
When the steam 'scanner' gathers data about your computer, where does it get the resolution from? Desktop resolution, or the resolution you play games at?
I've done the survey a couple times. The survey runs when you log on to steam, when you are running their goofy browser app thing, so it should always be at normal desktop resolution while you doing the survey.
Its true a lot of people do drop down the resolution for performance in games, but the survey doesn't measure that.
If it is grabbing the user's desktop resolution, I suspect a lot of users might not run their desktops at the maximum possible resolution, simply because it tends to make the text and GUI elements (buttons, drag-able panel dividers) in many traditional programs *tiny* even with a large monitor.
Its ALL about dot pitch. Pretty much everyone is comfortable at .25mm and higher. Over .31 and and people generally find the pixels 'too big'. Lower than .25 is where difficulty typically sets in with Windows system fonts and graphics widgets. 0.27-0.28 is generally considered the 'sweet spot'.
Your common as dirt panels such as 1280x1024 19" 4:3 panel is 0.294mm. A 21" widescreen 16:10 running at 1680x1050 is 0.269mm. A cheapy 17" 4:3 panel at 1024x768 is 0.337mm, while a higher quality panel at 1280x1024 its 0.264.
And 24" 1920x1200 16:10 at 1920x1200 is a very nice .027mm, and a 25.5" version is 0.287mm. A 30" panel doing 2560x1600 is 0.25 which is getting on the small side, but is still within range. As you can see large hi-res screens aren't really a problem.
The only time its a problem, is when you have something like what you've got, I presume 17" 1920x1200 laptop display... that is 0.19mm, that is over 3 times as far from the 'sweet spot' as a 30" panel, and is deep into 'unusable' territory for a lot of people. (In terms of windows system font and widgets, at least, its still beautiful for video and photos etc).
The point of my long windedness is that, what you are saying about people running LCDs outside of native resolution pretty much only applies to laptops that have crammed panels that would be comfortable at 24" into a 15 or 17 inch display.
Granted elderly people with weaker vision might prefer .3 and even higher dot pitches, but they aren't going to make up a big chunk of 'steam users'.
Although, I suppose the counter argument to that is, if you are going to buy a monitor which supports 2560x1600, you'll probably buy the screaming beast necessary to drive it at decent framerates (can any computers really output frames at such resolution at a consistent 100+ fps?).
An SLI system, especially if you turn down FSAA, can do it in most games. (Plus, running at 100fps is irrelevant on a device that only refreshes at 60Hz. As long as it stays over 60 during a firefight things are fine.)
But most 30" panels on the market actually suck pretty bad for games. Most are PVA panels with excellent color and viewing angles, but weak pixel transition times (ghosting/blur issues) and high input lag (playing 3+ frames behind your opponents, as well as throwing your timing off), Only the very top end IPS panels are suitable for a competitive gamer, at a significant premium to the already high price of a 30" panel.
You're kidding, right? Most of us have some sort of music or mp3 directories, potentially with any number of subdirectories under it for organization. Personally I have mp3/[Genre]/[Artist] and potentially /[Album] if I ripped the whole thing rather than downloaded particular songs. I'm going to put these files into this structure regardless of how it gets into my music player. To claim I should have just dropped it into iTunes itself is disengenuous fanboi rationalization. I don't want my music strewn all over my system, I want it in one place of my choosing. Of course having my player realize to look there periodically is better than it staring dumbly at me until I tell it to.
Have you ever looked at what itunes does when you tell it to organize your library for you? When you just keep your hands off?
songs/artist/album/song.mp3
if its part of a compilation its:
songs/compilations/album/song.mp3
hardly disorganized. Trivial to find anything if you ever need to do it manually. But you don't ever need to. It may not be what you would have chosen but so what? iTunes makes it trivial to sort by genre or artist or whatever you like... if I type 'card' into itunes quick search, it instantly pulls up the Cardigans track from the Romeo+Juliette sound track, along with its appearnace on a compilation disk I got free with some jeans. So the fact that they aren't together on the disk doesn't affect me. I can also browse by album, artist, genre, and trivially filter them.
I can define smart playlists that track how and when I've listened to track and sync it onto my ipod based on that. When I sync my ipod, it automatically rotates a chunk of music I like but have listened to recently with music I like but have not, while keeping my favorites on at all times. I can rerate tracks on the ipod itself, and it syncs back to itunes... etc, etc, etc.
Face it its an above average music player.
The truly sad part about your comment is that Apple could probably have this "advanced" feature added in two hours of work.
I agree they could. They could also add all sorts of pointless dangley bits and features to satisfy people like you, but then it wouldn't be the simple elegant app that it is. I'm not saying your feature idea is bad, but its pretty necessary. Especially since, on OSX at least, its relatively trivial to write an applescript to do what you want here.
You're right. Downloading or ripping the music directly into a destination folder is voodoo magic.
ripping music? itunes does this for you. why would you use 2 pieces of software for this?
downloading music? you mean using a torrent or something? Yeah, because dragging it to the itunes window is the hard part.
Congratulations. I'm happy you like people making your UI decisions for you, but not everybody agrees. To insult them by pretending that must mean they're 13-year-old goths or have "unhealthy fascination[s]" just makes you an asshat. Period.
I take it you haven't browsed the extensive library of Winamp themes?
http://www.winamp.com/skins/browse/2
Take a good hard look, find me one that's objectively better than itunes from an HCI perspective among their top rated? hell, find one anywhere on the site.
I think gimmick terminology is stupid too, but now could you possibly nitpick for no good reason any more than this? It has to be some sort of a record.
I'm sure I wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been in the summary. That the submitter felt it important enough to mention is what made it important enough to rebut.
At the end of the day I think its great that amarok and songbird are available for OSX; I don't even think it shouldn't be on slashdot... I just don't agree with the submitter with respect to the relative merits of itunes vs the new comers.
So given the choice between having sex to survive, and not surviving at all, you'd rather people chose the latter?
I would like that to be a false dichotomy. I would prefer that nobody is EVER given the choice between 'sex to survive' and 'not surviving'. We should give them more and different options.
I call BS on this.
You and a bunch of others for about the same reason, but I've decided to reply to you.
MY day job (software) is a place I don't want to be. I am working OUT OF FEAR of not being able to pay the rent. just like you and everyone else.
I know that most people work at their jobs in order to "pay the mortgage".
But if you are seriously going to try and equate a job in software development, or as other posters suggested, a job fixing computers, a job at walmart, or a job on a farm, with being sexually violated you are (all) complete asshats.
how is this ANY different? I'm not held at gunpoint but neither are 'pros'.
You figure it out. Slapping someone across the face vs raping them. How is this ANY different? "Having to write software" vs survival sex is the same disparity.
its not about womens' safety. its all about the modern day puritans and how its 'their business' what others do behind closed doors.
As an agnostic my objection to street hookers is out of compassion for their safety, dignity, and well being.
this is 100.00% about religion. nothing else. remove puritanical religion and sex-for-money has no more 'evil' associated with it.
I'm an agnostic who has rejected organized religion. I still think coerced/survival sex should be banished.
battery (pimps slapping hos) is still battery and THAT should be the issue
It is an issue, but its a separate issue.
same as the ban on same-sex marriage. there is no 'harmed party' in same-sex marriages so why the ban?
Despite your belief to the contrary. They are entirely unrelated. Again as an agnostic I have nothing against gay marriages, and see no reason for a ban.
However I -do- recognize that organized religions have a special tradition of marriage. I believe there is an issue of state separation from religion here. Frankly, out of respect for the sizable religious community I think religion should keep the term and rite of marriage and decide for themselves who qualifies, while the state should simply issue civic-union certificates to any couple that presents themselves for one, that confers upon them all rights and obligations with respect to the state that a 'marriage certificate' confers today.
Then gay couples and straight couples can become 'unioned' under the state. And if they want to push further to get married in a church, that's between them and the church, and the state has no say or interest or stake in the matter.
That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?
Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.
So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.
Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.
There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?
There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.
Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.
But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.
Yeah, but is it 'warm' and 'punchy'?
The truth is, iTunes is an average music player.
itunes is significantly better than average.
A feature as basic as monitoring a folder and adding the latest music files to the library is unavailable in iTunes.
How exactly is that a basic feature? Music enters itunes 3 basic ways:
1 you rip a Cd with itunes.
2 you buy a song from itunes music store
3 you drag a file from your computer onto the itunes library
and one advanced way:
4 you tell itunes to import music from a folder
Setting up itunes to monitor a folder would be number 5, and in the 'advanced feature' category.
Secondly, how exactly do the "latest music files" get into this monitored folder? If you manually dragged them there, then you might as well have just manually dragged them onto the itunes window. If they arrived there through any other means, that just further underscores that its an advanced feature.
There are no plugins
That is certainly not a basic feature either. And its probably the ONLY thing I sort of agree with.
I'd like iTunes to support automatically syncing with non-Apple players. I'd like iTunes to support syncing with programs other than Outlook on Windows.
[There are no] themes.
I call that a feature. I'm not 13 anymore. I am happy to let my programs to feature well designed UI, without delegating the task to other 13 year olds who variously have an unhealthy fascination with celebrities, movies, or just want everything to be some sort of gothic red and black. If anything, I think iTunes on Windows should look MORE like a windows app.
Despite the many faults, many of us continued to use iTunes because of the lack of options available.
Its few faults and many strengths actually. The biggest advantage it has over other players is that it works with =all= ipods/iphones seamlessly.
Songbird: An open source music player which has been in the works for more than 2 years has finally released its 1.0 Release Candidate builds. The team behind Songbird has members who previously developed for both Winamp and the Yahoo Music Engine.
Hardly a ringing endorsement if you look at either of those products.
It has support for extensions and themes ('feathers' in Songbird parlance).
Right, because inventing non-standard gimmick terminology is always a good idea. I'm glad Thunderbird has addons not 'feathers' and firefox...? 'hairs'? 'teeth'? Spare me.
Amarok: The undisputed champion among Linux music players is finally coming to OS X, thanks to due KDE 4 being ported to OS X. Amarok developer Leo Franchi has been able to run a Amarok on OS X natively. So we can expect a reasonably stable Amarok to hit OS X in a few months' time.
'reasonably stable' with a KDE4 look on OSX? Yeah that's going to create an army of converts.
Hopefully these players will gain traction among OS X users,
They won't. They will make a very small niche (self)-satisfied. That's not a bad thing, per se, mind you, but don't make more out of it than is really there.
which will finally force Apple to either step up in terms of features or open up iTunes for extensions."
See above. It won't. Even though I really do want iTunes to work with Thunderbird instead of Outlook...
Not even gamers buy sound cards anymore.
It does make you wonder what the 30% "other" is though.
They've got Creative Labs represented at about 3.5% between Audigy 2 ZS, Audigy, and X-Fi. But is that accurately counting all the X-Fi variants? What about the multitude of Audigy 2's that aren't "ZS". Ditto for the diverse original Audigy line. The venerable SoundBlaster "Live" series that preceded the Audigy isn't represented at all. I wouldn't really be raising the question, except that we've got that giant 30% "other" sitting there. I could easily see another 5 or 6 or more percent being various creative labs cards.
In any case, I agree with you that that even gamers aren't buying sound cards the way they used to.
That said, some of those steam numbers look WAY out of whack.
Take a look at 16:9 (widescreen) aspect ratio monitors, which they claim make up 26% of all monitors. And within widescreen 34% claim 24" or larger (24" @ 15%+ over 24" @ 19%).
That equates to 9% of all users using a 24"+ screen. Yet if you compare that to the primary display resolution table, a mere 2.29% are running 1920x1200 or larger. 1920x1200 is the native resolution on 24"-26" screens, with 30" being 2560x1600 (and not represented at all in the chart).
I call bullshit.
I am sure that the community will write all the drivers once we have full source to the OS to know the right way to do so....
Or you know, you could just read the documentation:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/Devtools/wdk/default.mspx
Complete with tutorials and samples.
I'm not saying it would be 'easy', but its not that hard, and just like in Linux, once you've got a working sound card driver, supporting other similiar sound cards is pretty simple.
Note that I'm separating the chip with the hardware, it's like Microsoft needs to have the driver for the wrapper around the chip and Linux instead goes directly after the chip that controls the wrapper.
This simply isn't true. Its simply how -vendors- configure the drivers. The INF file for a windows driver is typically limited to match a single 'vendor id', so multiple OEM products that are internally the same guts still identify individually, and only match their vendors OEM.
With linux, the community writes a driver for a chipset and includes all the vendor-id/device-id pairs that match in the one driver; so a LOT of devices from multiple vendors can work with a single driver.
This can be accomplished in Windows easily enough; you can manually edit the INF to match any hardware from any vendor you like; so if you have an HP camera and the Sony driver, but you know they are the same guts you can can query the camera for its ids and add them to the Sony INF and windows will happily (and even automatically) install the sony driver, and if it really is the same guts it will generally work just fine.
And there are several cases where you can download the 'reference' drivers from the chipset maker and use them even if you can't find the vendor specific drivers.
USB-COM port converters based on FTDI chipsets; and of course video card drivers for Nvidia and Ati cards are good examples that I've personally used. The "generic modem" drivers windows ships with would be another example. And many of the network card drivers are another, where you can use generic chipset drivers bundled with windows instead of the branded drivers on the disk.
Some times they are the same, sometimes the branded drivers offer more features, sometimes they are shit and the generic drivers work better, but the point is, that windows drivers really are as flexible as Linux ones. Its just that vendors provided drivers only support their hardware.
Conversely, if Sony were to release official linux drivers for something, you can bet your ass they would only work with the sony product, even if an HP had the same guts... at least until somone hacked them to add the ids for the HP unit. So its not that linux can 'ignore vendor branding and go right for the chipset' its just how the community has set up the matching.
That's just being silly. It should be -obvious- that constructing some taxicab geometry with different properties has no bearing on the discussion except to be annoying.
Show me a square circle in standard euclidean geometry then.
And don't try and get fancy by claiming that in taxicab english the word square means round, or that in taxicab slashdot its opposite day and I asked you to provide a NOT square circle...etc ad nauseum...
What's 'inherently impossible' about either outcome...
It boils down to comparing two infinitely large integers. The heaviest rock he could 'make' vis the heaviest rock he could 'lift'.
There is no limit to either, and its meaningless to compare them to see which is bigger.
What the paradox likely demonstrates is that the concept of 'omnipotence' as we typically understand the word is internally inconsistent.
Its not a paradox at all. Its just mathematical nonsense. We might as well be asking whether God can find a integer so great that even he can't find one that is greater.
It's 20,000 hours. Short, but that's 250 8-hour days of continuous use.
Your math is off. 20,000 / 8 is 2500 8-hour days of continuous use, nearly 7 years.
A non-replaceable lamp on an LCD projector? No thanks.
Given that its a "10,000 hour LED" it should last over a year of continuous use. At 8 hours a day every day it will last 3 years.
At more realistic (but still high) levels of usage... say, 4 hours 4 times per week, we're looking at 12 years.
In other words, you'll probably have upgraded multiple times before the bulb burns out.