Probably an advance on the several several hundred to thousands of hours of what would otherwise be 'volunteer' time to spend fighting this case over the next several months to years.
It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.
Its also a simple fact that you can't really sue someone to donate a nontrivial sum to charity (WITHOUT any tax benefits) and make a proper public apology. The system just isn't set up for that.
That said, I suspect if the movie theatre offered to settle, to donate 60k to charity in her name, and issue a public apology she'd probably consider it a win and take it.
On the flipside HFS+ isn't any good for booting windows, which you can do now via esata and usb2 on a newer PC (I don't know about F/W -- never tried it, probably FW too.) So really, if you want to -boot- off the external drive, you're FS choice is pretty much dictated by the OS you want to boot.
That said, their is nothing stopping you from having a 50GB HFS+ bootable partition (if you want to boot HFS+ over F/W), and the rest as an ntfs data drive, if you just need windows to access the data partition.
The real downside of macdrive is that it doesn't work with Windows x64 editions. And while the price is reasonable, it becomes prohibitative if you want to use it with multiple machines, or even random machines that belong to other people.
Not sure when that was written, so someone may have figured out 7.
It sounds like 6 can't access the itunes store anymore; but this is certainly a partial solution. And is priobably the avenue to watch -- unlike iTunes (OSX), lots of people are actively working on getting iTunes (Windows) running.
1) The advertisement never says "unlimited time", just "unlimited".
When most people interpret something correctly additional information isn't needed.
2) Other companies with several price plans have "5GB (basic), 10GB (premium), unlimited (super premium)"
Personally I've only seen that in hosting plans, and cellular plans, not basic broadband offerings. And in those cases there is usually an asterisk and some fine print about it being limited by their network infrastructure, where unlimited means there is no hard number, but their is still a limit. Sort of like unlimited bandwidth on dial-up; the infrastructure only goes so fast, so even though we say you can have all you want your not going to get more than 56k at a time.
3) Only in the advertising does it say "unlimited", not in the contract
A contract spells out the limits and obligations. Something that is unlimited doesn't need to be in the contract. If the advertising said "Telecommute from home! Wear whatever you want, work in your underwear even!" their wouldn't be any reason to include any reference to your non-obglication to telecommute, or you freedom to dress however you like.
4) It doesn't say in the Fair Usage Policy "limits may be applied at our discretion over 20GB of usage in any billing month" - just that they can do whatever they like
Fair enough. But the nature of soft-caps is really nebulous. If at the fringe of their service area in some rural backwater the soft-cap is 2GB and in the downtown core the soft-cap is 20GB what are they supposed to put? If they put 20GB they can't deliver on it... if they put 2GB the guys downtown will freak out and jump around how the limit is absurdly low. So instead they leave it intentionally vague, and the actual cap isn't not a 'number' its based on ACTUAL network strain.
So that's what they're telling us. Of course they COULD abuse it, neglect their infrastructure so that it becomes "strained" at ever lower usage, or just start harrassing people at random -- and we SHOULD demand clearer wording from them to prevent that sort of abuse. But in my experience they aren't actually abusing it. So while we SHOULD demand better written terms of service that can't be abused, we SHOULDN'T really be accusing them actually abusing them, IMO.
Bull-fucking-shit. If they calculate that people will use 2 GB per month on average, they can still put 100GB on the ad and come out fine. The problem is they don't want to clutter the ads with useful information, they just want to lie, take your money and serve what they wish.
Traffic congestion is a localized issue. What people do "on average" doesn't amount to squat when it comes to committing to a hard service level agreement. If 20 people in a single neighborhood all start using 100GB per month it doesn't matter for squat that half way across town there is a block where they never log in.
If you really look at the advertising, the big features of broadband are "FASTER" downloads than dial-up, and "ALWAYS ON" vs dial-up.
On dialup there was only so much bandwidth you could get at 56k, or even ISDN, and it was never enough to be a concern to the ISPs. Telco's didn't care about bandwidth, and as someone who deals with cellular data customers almost daily - I can tell you that most people still don't have a clue what bandwidth is, or how much they might need.
The main reason they don't list a hard or soft cap on the advertising is that most customers still don't know what it means, and since most of them don't come anywhere near even the soft caps for bandwidth unless their machine gets infected by a virus putting it on the ads would be more confusing than anything.
THAT, my foul mouthed friend, is why its not on broadband advertising. I'm in the industry, I work with ISPs, I know their marketing people and their technical people. The technical people don't want it because they know that it would be lower than it needs to be and a soft-cap is really the best 'technical' solution -- give the customers as much bandwidth as they can providing it doesn't strain the system - that's what the technical people are trying to deliver (at least around here). The marketing people don't want it because it confuses people and the competition isn't doing it.
However, bandwidth metering with pay-per-GB plans is likely to be the way it goes, *especially* if we get net-neutrality.
"UNLIMITED" with respect to internet access generally refers to your connect time, not your bandwidth usage.
The fact that the service is called 'unlimited' doesn't mean all aspects of the service need to be unlimited.
Suppose you had subscribed to an unlimited service contract - allowing you an unlimited number of support incidents per year for your server. And then in the fine print you read that the service contract only applies to 1 server. Would you jump up and down because they won't provide you the 'unlimited support incidents' for any machine you want -- after all clearly that's a limit!
Do you get mad when you order the 'unlimited buffet' for 9.95 and they won't let you make 20 trips bringing back a plate for everyone in your extended family? That they won't let you bring a cooler and fill it up with marshmallow salad? That you can't come back tomorrow and keep eating?
Of course not!
Moreover, in the case of bandwidth. The reason they don't specify a cap is because if they did it would be much lower than it would need to be. Suppose based on their revenue/expenses/etc they can *afford* to give *everyone* 1GB of bandwidth per month. Now the reality that most people don't come anywhere near needing that so they leave it as a soft cap -- if some people use 5 or 6GB per month, its really no big deal.
Then some guy comes along and uses 20GB per month, and starts straining part of the system so they advise him to throttle back because his usage is 'too high'. Now that guy screams bloody murder - "why didn't you tell me what the cap was in the contract" and the simple answer is that its in the customers best interest for that NOT to happen. If the ISP HAD to specify a cap they'd specify 1GB because that is all they can gaurantee. So if you wanted even 5GB you'd have to be paying extra for that.
Honestly does IMAX make you want to puke? You realise they do 180 deg FOV?
Er... yeah actually... When the camera goes on a roller coaster ride, my stomach tightens in genuine anticipation. That's half the point of IMAX for me.
When Imax first came out they used to give a speech about how to 'just close your eyes if you feel nauseated or disoriented and the feeling will pass'.
The point of this car is that you can make short trips with no gas usage. This is more of an environmental thing rather than economic.
Same difference.
After all 'saving the environment' by burning 4-8 gallons of gas less in a year is pretty minor. Especially after you factor in the additional electricity you'll be using, and the manufacturing cost to the environment of your battery.
My guess is Toyota did their homework and figured out what would make the most people happy.
Yes. Exactly. "Happy" is the perfect word. People will feel good and buy it because it makes them feel good about themselves due to their perception that they are doing something, regardless of any real impact on the economic or environmental situation.
Yeah Ok... so we're talking what 50% normal efficiency? 8 gallons a month? So, 24$/mo (assuming 3$/gal x 12 = 288 dollars a year in savings. (before counting the kwh costs of charging the car daily -- which could EASILY run 5-10 dollars a month, knocking out 20-40% of the savings.
And then you need to factor in any maintenance cost to the battery/system; not to mention the higher initial cost. Really, would this pay for itself before one needed a new vehicle anyway? If you paid even $1000 dollars extra for this prius over a regular one, it would take at LEAST 5 years to break even -- and that assuming the battery system never needs any maintenance. For this to take off ROI has to be under 2 years, and preferably under 1 year.
Is that the one where you are all free to slave away for your whole life trying to save money to buy food and shelter while struggling against price inflation and currency devalutation? Oh wait...
3 miles to work, and 3 more home is all of 30 miles a (5-day work) week for your daily commuting. Given that 30mpg isn't particularly rare, and that translates to 4 gallons a month you'd save. I'd hardly call that a big deal.
This car is more about making a statement than anything else. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
5.9 isn't THAT hard to get. With the recent intel price drops, a $300 core 2 quad CPU, paired with a $300 (say an 8800GTS (320MB) graphics card can get a 5.9.
Now I realize that even $500 on cpu + graphics alone is more than most people spend, but the point is 5.9 'vista's highest possible score' *is* trivially achievable in a $1500 budget using parts from the upper-end of 'mainstream'. It might even be possible at the $1000 price point.
At any rate, you emphatically do NOT need an overclocked bleeding edge CPU with a 1000 Watt P/S and 3 video cards working in tandem.
eve online only has one server, so developing 'dynamic' content that will work regardless of how 'each' server develops is comparatively trivial. All it has to do is work with the one server they've got in the state that its in.
As for being player directed...sure. But its player directed the way the real world is. A few are at the top calling the shots, and the VAST majority work for them, or work for someone who works for them, or are otherwise relatively irrelevant pawns in the game, who have about as much impact on the direction the game takes as they have on the direction the real world takes.
Now don't get me wrong, its entirely -possible- to control a trade empire. Its just utterly unlikely of ever becoming a reality. If 250,000 people log in each day dreaming of controlling a galaxy spanning empire... well, 249,500 of them will never reach their goal. The nature of the power consolidation that is represented by an empire is such that it is controlled by a small number of people. And to be one of the lucky few you have to essentially out-compete nearly everyone else who wants that same empire.
I guess if all you really want is to be a cog in someone elses wheel you'll likely reach that goal in Eve.
And, that, is eve at its hypothetical best... Eve, in my opinion, has been tainted by the devs/gm's who also PLAY. Even when they aren't outright cheating to give their corporations an edge, its pretty much a given that they'll have an information advantage. (Is it merely a coincidence that a corporation/alliance the devs are known to be involved with has been a dominant force in the game?) I don't mind devs playing a pve mmog, but when the game developers are also a competing to win against their own subscribers it sets the stage for scandals... which Eve has seen plenty of.
Correlation does not mean causation... 'nuff said.
Did you RTFA? Or just assume correlation.
It could very well be like many other biological items... like women who spend time together tend to align their menstrual cycles... or do you think that's another 'correlation'?
Perhaps the body takes 'fat cues' from your peer group -- if you spend a lot of time with fat people your that might trigger a biological response to store energy... in the same way that throwing up is 'contagious'... where your body sees others doing something, and this triggers the same survival instinct says that if something the people around you ate is making them sick it might be a good idea to get rid of whatever you ate too, since its likely the same stuff.
I'm not saying its true and even if it is true, I'd expect there are likely other elements at play too -- like if you hang out with people who don't excersie you'll probably be less inclined to exercise yourself -- etc, but just writing it off with a sarcastic 'correlation not causation 'nuff said' post is just close minded and ignorant.
I'd certainly be interested in knowing if there is a biological/biochemical factor to it.
Does the book out anywhere that abandonware is a myth...
A myth you say? Really? Software that the copyright holders won't sell you, and refuse to support to the point that getting them to even acknowledge that it exists and they own it is an accomplishment -- all just a myth like unicorns and pixies?
Seems odd that I have drawers full of the stuff.
Or perhaps you mean a myth that abandonware is legal? That might be a myth if people actually thought that. But they don't really.
We know its illegal; we've just elected not to care because the argument that the copyright holder is being harmed by our infringement is pretty much beyond absurd. And so their is no moral reason not to.
Legally, yes, its against the law. But then so is jaywalking, playing dominoes in alabama on sunday, picking seaweed off the beach in New Hampshire, or leaving your car door open 'longer than necessary' in Oregon.
I have a logitech harmony series remote, and overall... I'm happy with it, much better than anything else I've ever used... but I think its a far cry from what it SHOULD be, partly logitech/harmony's fault... and partly the makers of my OTHER devices. I don't have an 890,
For example - I hate the design/placement of the volume control buttons. I don't like where they are and I don't like the way they feel when you push them, and I don't like how they blend into the other buttons above and below them.
I find many of the other common buttons either difficult to reach with one hand, or difficult to determine by feel alone, or in illogical positions - on mine, mute is a long way from the volume controls, the pvr functions ('info', 'menu', 'exit') are scattered seemingly randomly, etc). Play/Pause/Skip should *feel* different from the skip forward/backward buttons above them, etc.
It looks great, but its not well designed to be used blindly. Granted, I don't have the 890, which is their most expensive handheld model, and I think the 890 is better designed then their lower tier products, but I think the design flaws of the lower tier models are really unforgivable.
I mean, you look at a mac mini, or an apple ibook... they are nowhere near the power of a mac pro or macbook pro, but they are still well designed... its not like they said... this is the cheaper model so lets make some arbitrarily stupid design decisions.
Anyhow, on the flipside, and not harmonies fault is the perversity of the rest of my components. My TV, for example, requires you to press menu -> input -> and then scroll through a menu -> then enter to change video sources... or you can just press next-input repeatedly until it arrives. This is hellish to automate, because its all relative to what input you are on, and worse, what peripherals are on... if my Wii is off, it will automatically skip Component-2 in the cycle and its greyed out in the menu. So the logitech has to maintain an internal record of the 'state' of the system. And to its credit is does very well... but inevitably it gets out of sync. if you point the remote the wrong way while the macro is running, or if someone messes with the equipment directly. (But again to its credit, its pretty easy to resync the remote.)
But really -- what idiot designs a $5000 TV that's remote system doesn't accept direct select commands like "goto component 2", "goto hdmi 1", "turn off", etc. Instead it just supports 'toggle power', and 'cycle input' -- and those commands are fine. But for smart remotes it would be a LOT easier to write a macro:
Turn On (gets ignored if its already on) GoTo HDMI 1 (switches to hdmi 1, regardless of its current setting)
Instead of an 'intelligent state-aware macro:
is state[TV-power] = off then Toggle Power case state[input]
hdmi 1 - distance=0
hdmi 2 - distance=1
component 1 - distance = 5...
etc
while (distance > 0)
distance --
Next Input end while
Oops...screen is black someone turned the TV on manually - so the above system just shut it off - gotta run the help and answer a bunch of questions to resync...
(Actually, after experimenting with the various commands it seems the TV does accept direct select for at least SOME of its inputs (but not others or the logitech command database doesn't include them)... so now to watch PVR, and play Wii its setup with direct select functions but because I can't seem to direct select the HDMI ports, its set to direct select DVI2, and then press 'next input' once (which you can do with the 'advanced' setup features in the logitech hardware -- so overall its pretty good... but its not nearly as good as it really should be.)
All these ideas are neat, but ultimately losers. MOVE TO ANOTHER PROVIDER TODAY.
Why should I do that if I don't know the ISP is modifying the web pages in flight? Maybe I need a tool that could somehow detect that? That would sure be useful. Oh wait...Isn't that what this discussion is about?
Perhaps an attention to detail and a familiarity with logic? The number of people who can be fooled with blatant logical fallacies is amazing.
And you think plumbers, vets, accountants, and mechanics lack attention to detail or logic?
I mean, I agree, with you that perhaps being a fry guy at McDonalds or the progeny of a former president shouldn't be qualifications to run the country, but there are a lot of individuals who are not hardcore 'scientists' who are more than capable.
In particular, diplomacy and politics is largly a social game where charisma and charm count, and strong background in history, psychology, economic theory, and experience running a business and organizational theory would all be more valuable skills than a formal training in the properties of real numbers, fluid dynamics, stochastic processes, and applied cryptography.;)
This is desirable because, after all, scientists are good at science,
Some of them. You don't really have to be good at 'science' to get a degree, having good a understanding of the politics and systems within the academic community is just as important... perhaps moreso.
so they must also be good at setting policy.
How does that figure?
What makes a mathematician (even a good one) any more qualified to negotiate with peace with Iran, immigration with Mexico, trade with Canada, resolve questions on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, etc, etc -- than a plumber, a veterinarian, an accountant, or a mechanic?
I WISH we had hourly pricing options here. I'd play WoW and other MMORPGs under that system. As it is everytime I look at another mmorpg... its a proposition of either either cancelling the game I'm already playing and enjoying, or splitting my time between two games -- but paying full rate for both... meaning my effective value/hour is halved... and I end up resenting it. If I could pay-as-you-go I'd happily play 2-4 games on a regular basis.
Altenratively, these guys (especially the smaller ones) should team up and offer multi-game subscriptions. I'd pay an extra 10-20% more for access to multiple titles.
Slashdot Mirror
What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?
Probably an advance on the several several hundred to thousands of hours of what would otherwise be 'volunteer' time to spend fighting this case over the next several months to years.
It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.
Its also a simple fact that you can't really sue someone to donate a nontrivial sum to charity (WITHOUT any tax benefits) and make a proper public apology. The system just isn't set up for that.
That said, I suspect if the movie theatre offered to settle, to donate 60k to charity in her name, and issue a public apology she'd probably consider it a win and take it.
Whoosh!
Apparently you haven't read 1984, or it would seem, even heard of it.
On the flipside HFS+ isn't any good for booting windows, which you can do now via esata and usb2 on a newer PC (I don't know about F/W -- never tried it, probably FW too.) So really, if you want to -boot- off the external drive, you're FS choice is pretty much dictated by the OS you want to boot.
That said, their is nothing stopping you from having a 50GB HFS+ bootable partition (if you want to boot HFS+ over F/W), and the rest as an ntfs data drive, if you just need windows to access the data partition.
The real downside of macdrive is that it doesn't work with Windows x64 editions. And while the price is reasonable, it becomes prohibitative if you want to use it with multiple machines, or even random machines that belong to other people.
All I want is iTunes compatibility.
n es-in-linux-not-any-time-soon/
Seeing as iTunes has been ported to windows, have you explored running the Windows version of iTunes on Linux instead of the OSX version?
It seems that iTunes 6 at least has been successfully done...
http://pimpyourlinux.com/linux-feature-review/itu
Not sure when that was written, so someone may have figured out 7.
It sounds like 6 can't access the itunes store anymore; but this is certainly a partial solution. And is priobably the avenue to watch -- unlike iTunes (OSX), lots of people are actively working on getting iTunes (Windows) running.
1) The advertisement never says "unlimited time", just "unlimited".
When most people interpret something correctly additional information isn't needed.
2) Other companies with several price plans have "5GB (basic), 10GB (premium), unlimited (super premium)"
Personally I've only seen that in hosting plans, and cellular plans, not basic broadband offerings. And in those cases there is usually an asterisk and some fine print about it being limited by their network infrastructure, where unlimited means there is no hard number, but their is still a limit. Sort of like unlimited bandwidth on dial-up; the infrastructure only goes so fast, so even though we say you can have all you want your not going to get more than 56k at a time.
3) Only in the advertising does it say "unlimited", not in the contract
A contract spells out the limits and obligations. Something that is unlimited doesn't need to be in the contract. If the advertising said "Telecommute from home! Wear whatever you want, work in your underwear even!" their wouldn't be any reason to include any reference to your non-obglication to telecommute, or you freedom to dress however you like.
4) It doesn't say in the Fair Usage Policy "limits may be applied at our discretion over 20GB of usage in any billing month" - just that they can do whatever they like
Fair enough. But the nature of soft-caps is really nebulous. If at the fringe of their service area in some rural backwater the soft-cap is 2GB and in the downtown core the soft-cap is 20GB what are they supposed to put? If they put 20GB they can't deliver on it... if they put 2GB the guys downtown will freak out and jump around how the limit is absurdly low. So instead they leave it intentionally vague, and the actual cap isn't not a 'number' its based on ACTUAL network strain.
So that's what they're telling us. Of course they COULD abuse it, neglect their infrastructure so that it becomes "strained" at ever lower usage, or just start harrassing people at random -- and we SHOULD demand clearer wording from them to prevent that sort of abuse. But in my experience they aren't actually abusing it. So while we SHOULD demand better written terms of service that can't be abused, we SHOULDN'T really be accusing them actually abusing them, IMO.
Bull-fucking-shit. If they calculate that people will use 2 GB per month on average, they can still put 100GB on the ad and come out fine. The problem is they don't want to clutter the ads with useful information, they just want to lie, take your money and serve what they wish.
Traffic congestion is a localized issue. What people do "on average" doesn't amount to squat when it comes to committing to a hard service level agreement. If 20 people in a single neighborhood all start using 100GB per month it doesn't matter for squat that half way across town there is a block where they never log in.
If you really look at the advertising, the big features of broadband are "FASTER" downloads than dial-up, and "ALWAYS ON" vs dial-up.
On dialup there was only so much bandwidth you could get at 56k, or even ISDN, and it was never enough to be a concern to the ISPs. Telco's didn't care about bandwidth, and as someone who deals with cellular data customers almost daily - I can tell you that most people still don't have a clue what bandwidth is, or how much they might need.
The main reason they don't list a hard or soft cap on the advertising is that most customers still don't know what it means, and since most of them don't come anywhere near even the soft caps for bandwidth unless their machine gets infected by a virus putting it on the ads would be more confusing than anything.
THAT, my foul mouthed friend, is why its not on broadband advertising. I'm in the industry, I work with ISPs, I know their marketing people and their technical people. The technical people don't want it because they know that it would be lower than it needs to be and a soft-cap is really the best 'technical' solution -- give the customers as much bandwidth as they can providing it doesn't strain the system - that's what the technical people are trying to deliver (at least around here). The marketing people don't want it because it confuses people and the competition isn't doing it.
However, bandwidth metering with pay-per-GB plans is likely to be the way it goes, *especially* if we get net-neutrality.
"UNLIMITED" with respect to internet access generally refers to your connect time, not your bandwidth usage.
The fact that the service is called 'unlimited' doesn't mean all aspects of the service need to be unlimited.
Suppose you had subscribed to an unlimited service contract - allowing you an unlimited number of support incidents per year for your server. And then in the fine print you read that the service contract only applies to 1 server. Would you jump up and down because they won't provide you the 'unlimited support incidents' for any machine you want -- after all clearly that's a limit!
Do you get mad when you order the 'unlimited buffet' for 9.95 and they won't let you make 20 trips bringing back a plate for everyone in your extended family? That they won't let you bring a cooler and fill it up with marshmallow salad? That you can't come back tomorrow and keep eating?
Of course not!
Moreover, in the case of bandwidth. The reason they don't specify a cap is because if they did it would be much lower than it would need to be. Suppose based on their revenue/expenses/etc they can *afford* to give *everyone* 1GB of bandwidth per month. Now the reality that most people don't come anywhere near needing that so they leave it as a soft cap -- if some people use 5 or 6GB per month, its really no big deal.
Then some guy comes along and uses 20GB per month, and starts straining part of the system so they advise him to throttle back because his usage is 'too high'. Now that guy screams bloody murder - "why didn't you tell me what the cap was in the contract" and the simple answer is that its in the customers best interest for that NOT to happen. If the ISP HAD to specify a cap they'd specify 1GB because that is all they can gaurantee. So if you wanted even 5GB you'd have to be paying extra for that.
Honestly does IMAX make you want to puke? You realise they do 180 deg FOV?
Er... yeah actually... When the camera goes on a roller coaster ride, my stomach tightens in genuine anticipation. That's half the point of IMAX for me.
When Imax first came out they used to give a speech about how to 'just close your eyes if you feel nauseated or disoriented and the feeling will pass'.
The point of this car is that you can make short trips with no gas usage. This is more of an environmental thing rather than economic.
Same difference.
After all 'saving the environment' by burning 4-8 gallons of gas less in a year is pretty minor. Especially after you factor in the additional electricity you'll be using, and the manufacturing cost to the environment of your battery.
My guess is Toyota did their homework and figured out what would make the most people happy.
Yes. Exactly. "Happy" is the perfect word. People will feel good and buy it because it makes them feel good about themselves due to their perception that they are doing something, regardless of any real impact on the economic or environmental situation.
Yeah Ok... so we're talking what 50% normal efficiency? 8 gallons a month? So, 24$/mo (assuming 3$/gal x 12 = 288 dollars a year in savings. (before counting the kwh costs of charging the car daily -- which could EASILY run 5-10 dollars a month, knocking out 20-40% of the savings.
And then you need to factor in any maintenance cost to the battery/system; not to mention the higher initial cost.
Really, would this pay for itself before one needed a new vehicle anyway? If you paid even $1000 dollars extra for this prius over a regular one, it would take at LEAST 5 years to break even -- and that assuming the battery system never needs any maintenance. For this to take off ROI has to be under 2 years, and preferably under 1 year.
Is that the one where you are all free to slave away for your whole life trying to save money to buy food and shelter while struggling against price inflation and currency devalutation? Oh wait...
What's next Robotech?
One can only hope. An update without an awful plotline involving infatuation with a ridiculous pop-star would be quite welcome.
3 miles to work, and 3 more home is all of 30 miles a (5-day work) week for your daily commuting. Given that 30mpg isn't particularly rare, and that translates to 4 gallons a month you'd save. I'd hardly call that a big deal.
This car is more about making a statement than anything else. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
5.9 isn't THAT hard to get. With the recent intel price drops, a $300 core 2 quad CPU, paired with a $300 (say an 8800GTS (320MB) graphics card can get a 5.9.
Now I realize that even $500 on cpu + graphics alone is more than most people spend, but the point is 5.9 'vista's highest possible score' *is* trivially achievable in a $1500 budget using parts from the upper-end of 'mainstream'. It might even be possible at the $1000 price point.
At any rate, you emphatically do NOT need an overclocked bleeding edge CPU with a 1000 Watt P/S and 3 video cards working in tandem.
eve online only has one server, so developing 'dynamic' content that will work regardless of how 'each' server develops is comparatively trivial. All it has to do is work with the one server they've got in the state that its in.
As for being player directed...sure. But its player directed the way the real world is. A few are at the top calling the shots, and the VAST majority work for them, or work for someone who works for them, or are otherwise relatively irrelevant pawns in the game, who have about as much impact on the direction the game takes as they have on the direction the real world takes.
Now don't get me wrong, its entirely -possible- to control a trade empire. Its just utterly unlikely of ever becoming a reality. If 250,000 people log in each day dreaming of controlling a galaxy spanning empire... well, 249,500 of them will never reach their goal. The nature of the power consolidation that is represented by an empire is such that it is controlled by a small number of people. And to be one of the lucky few you have to essentially out-compete nearly everyone else who wants that same empire.
I guess if all you really want is to be a cog in someone elses wheel you'll likely reach that goal in Eve.
And, that, is eve at its hypothetical best... Eve, in my opinion, has been tainted by the devs/gm's who also PLAY. Even when they aren't outright cheating to give their corporations an edge, its pretty much a given that they'll have an information advantage. (Is it merely a coincidence that a corporation/alliance the devs are known to be involved with has been a dominant force in the game?) I don't mind devs playing a pve mmog, but when the game developers are also a competing to win against their own subscribers it sets the stage for scandals... which Eve has seen plenty of.
Correlation does not mean causation... 'nuff said.
Did you RTFA? Or just assume correlation.
It could very well be like many other biological items... like women who spend time together tend to align their menstrual cycles... or do you think that's another 'correlation'?
Perhaps the body takes 'fat cues' from your peer group -- if you spend a lot of time with fat people your that might trigger a biological response to store energy... in the same way that throwing up is 'contagious'... where your body sees others doing something, and this triggers the same survival instinct says that if something the people around you ate is making them sick it might be a good idea to get rid of whatever you ate too, since its likely the same stuff.
I'm not saying its true and even if it is true, I'd expect there are likely other elements at play too -- like if you hang out with people who don't excersie you'll probably be less inclined to exercise yourself -- etc, but just writing it off with a sarcastic 'correlation not causation 'nuff said' post is just close minded and ignorant.
I'd certainly be interested in knowing if there is a biological/biochemical factor to it.
reach into your wordbag? how quaint...
Didn't you see the article on 'containerization'??
Nowadays we just make up new words rather than look to see if an existing one might already be a pefect fit.
"annoying"? bah... I'd suggest this scrabble crowd pleaser: 'vexizing' -- you just need a free G to latch onto!
Does the book out anywhere that abandonware is a myth...
A myth you say? Really? Software that the copyright holders won't sell you, and refuse to support to the point that getting them to even acknowledge that it exists and they own it is an accomplishment -- all just a myth like unicorns and pixies?
Seems odd that I have drawers full of the stuff.
Or perhaps you mean a myth that abandonware is legal? That might be a myth if people actually thought that. But they don't really.
We know its illegal; we've just elected not to care because the argument that the copyright holder is being harmed by our infringement is pretty much beyond absurd. And so their is no moral reason not to.
Legally, yes, its against the law. But then so is jaywalking, playing dominoes in alabama on sunday, picking seaweed off the beach in New Hampshire, or leaving your car door open 'longer than necessary' in Oregon.
I have a logitech harmony series remote, and overall... I'm happy with it, much better than anything else I've ever used... but I think its a far cry from what it SHOULD be, partly logitech/harmony's fault... and partly the makers of my OTHER devices. I don't have an 890,
... its not like they said... this is the cheaper model so lets make some arbitrarily stupid design decisions.
... if my Wii is off, it will automatically skip Component-2 in the cycle and its greyed out in the menu. So the logitech has to maintain an internal record of the 'state' of the system. And to its credit is does very well... but inevitably it gets out of sync. if you point the remote the wrong way while the macro is running, or if someone messes with the equipment directly. (But again to its credit, its pretty easy to resync the remote.)
...
For example - I hate the design/placement of the volume control buttons. I don't like where they are and I don't like the way they feel when you push them, and I don't like how they blend into the other buttons above and below them.
I find many of the other common buttons either difficult to reach with one hand, or difficult to determine by feel alone, or in illogical positions - on mine, mute is a long way from the volume controls, the pvr functions ('info', 'menu', 'exit') are scattered seemingly randomly, etc). Play/Pause/Skip should *feel* different from the skip forward/backward buttons above them, etc.
It looks great, but its not well designed to be used blindly. Granted, I don't have the 890, which is their most expensive handheld model, and I think the 890 is better designed then their lower tier products, but I think the design flaws of the lower tier models are really unforgivable.
I mean, you look at a mac mini, or an apple ibook... they are nowhere near the power of a mac pro or macbook pro, but they are still well designed
Anyhow, on the flipside, and not harmonies fault is the perversity of the rest of my components. My TV, for example, requires you to press menu -> input -> and then scroll through a menu -> then enter to change video sources... or you can just press next-input repeatedly until it arrives. This is hellish to automate, because its all relative to what input you are on, and worse, what peripherals are on
But really -- what idiot designs a $5000 TV that's remote system doesn't accept direct select commands like "goto component 2", "goto hdmi 1", "turn off", etc. Instead it just supports 'toggle power', and 'cycle input' -- and those commands are fine. But for smart remotes it would be a LOT easier to write a macro:
Turn On (gets ignored if its already on)
GoTo HDMI 1 (switches to hdmi 1, regardless of its current setting)
Instead of an 'intelligent state-aware macro:
is state[TV-power] = off then Toggle Power
case state[input]
hdmi 1 - distance=0
hdmi 2 - distance=1
component 1 - distance = 5
etc
while (distance > 0)
distance --
Next Input
end while
Oops...screen is black someone turned the TV on manually - so the above system just shut it off - gotta run the help and answer a bunch of questions to resync...
(Actually, after experimenting with the various commands it seems the TV does accept direct select for at least SOME of its inputs (but not others or the logitech command database doesn't include them)... so now to watch PVR, and play Wii its setup with direct select functions but because I can't seem to direct select the HDMI ports, its set to direct select DVI2, and then press 'next input' once (which you can do with the 'advanced' setup features in the logitech hardware -- so overall its pretty good... but its not nearly as good as it really should be.)
All these ideas are neat, but ultimately losers.
MOVE TO ANOTHER PROVIDER TODAY.
Why should I do that if I don't know the ISP is modifying the web pages in flight? Maybe I need a tool that could somehow detect that? That would sure be useful. Oh wait...Isn't that what this discussion is about?
Probably, but then it would be a $200 laptop....
Perhaps an attention to detail and a familiarity with logic? The number of people who can be fooled with blatant logical fallacies is amazing.
;)
And you think plumbers, vets, accountants, and mechanics lack attention to detail or logic?
I mean, I agree, with you that perhaps being a fry guy at McDonalds or the progeny of a former president shouldn't be qualifications to run the country, but there are a lot of individuals who are not hardcore 'scientists' who are more than capable.
In particular, diplomacy and politics is largly a social game where charisma and charm count, and strong background in history, psychology, economic theory, and experience running a business and organizational theory would all be more valuable skills than a formal training in the properties of real numbers, fluid dynamics, stochastic processes, and applied cryptography.
This is desirable because, after all, scientists are good at science,
Some of them. You don't really have to be good at 'science' to get a degree, having good a understanding of the politics and systems within the academic community is just as important... perhaps moreso.
so they must also be good at setting policy.
How does that figure?
What makes a mathematician (even a good one) any more qualified to negotiate with peace with Iran, immigration with Mexico, trade with Canada, resolve questions on abortion, gay rights, and gun control, etc, etc -- than a plumber, a veterinarian, an accountant, or a mechanic?
I WISH we had hourly pricing options here. I'd play WoW and other MMORPGs under that system. As it is everytime I look at another mmorpg... its a proposition of either either cancelling the game I'm already playing and enjoying, or splitting my time between two games -- but paying full rate for both... meaning my effective value/hour is halved... and I end up resenting it. If I could pay-as-you-go I'd happily play 2-4 games on a regular basis.
Altenratively, these guys (especially the smaller ones) should team up and offer multi-game subscriptions. I'd pay an extra 10-20% more for access to multiple titles.
What you may not do, is to distribute them for your gains.
'for your gains' is not a required condition.