er... legal alternatives to the ipod? There are illegal portable deviceS ??
is at best a wash on features (other than tight integration with iTMS) and is priced much, much more expensive (you pay a significant Apple fanboy premium versus competing players).
A wash on features on its own yes, you would be correct. But that's like comparing a small 30 piece lego car set with a car I carved out of wood myself.
The big feature, at this point, of the ipod (and the lego set) is that it lives in a world designed to connect to it.
The lego set can interact with any other lego set to build almost anything you can imagine.
Likewise the ipod features tight integration with iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, 200 different types of case, and another few supermarket aisles worth of "accessories". Buy an ipod, and you can hook it up to your camera, buy 15 different vanity cases, and find stereos, alarm clocks, remotes, car chargers, car stereos, etc all marketed around their ability to connect to the ipod.
I bought an ipod because the "expanded universe" of things I could do with it gave it extra value over its competition. From the tight integration with iTunes (the application, not the online store) to the many accessories.
I think the main issue is the literally hostile relationship console makers have with the indie scene. I mean, console makers view your average "indie developer" more as a "hacker looking to crack the copy protection scheme" than as a "potential developer of the next runnaway success", and treat them accordingly.
They've erected massive barriers to entry. Historically the development systems have been ridiculously expensive. The NDAs, licenses, royalty agreements are burdensome. Your developing on a highly proprietary system, where there is zilch for community support so you are going to be relying on the manufacturer a LOT. And they don't even want to consider getting involved with an independant or "small company" until they've approved your "proposed game"...
So you pretty much have to have an established track record of successful titles before they'll even look at you. And worst of all you simply can't go it alone without manufacturer cooperation, because you absolutely need their development systems and support (and these days you'd need to have your content digitally signed with their keys too...)
So, government when faced with a need for money (how often does that happen?) sees that billions of e-mails and text messages are being sent and infers they can and should extract a tiny morsel of blood from their constituents, concluding, "it's only a tiny bit". This is insane.
I've got a better idea...
Maybe they should just take all those fractional cents from bank transactions and funnel them into an EU account. Nobody will miss them anyways, and it worked out great in both Superman III and Office Space.
Providing they put the decimal point in the right place...
I *think* he meant non-viable in terms of not being useful at generating fuel, not non-viable as in "not going to survive".
For example, consider a mutation that was better at reproducing but not at all good at generating us electricity/fuel/whatever. It could rapidly "corrupt" the population.
Are you implying what you _want_ is more important than what I _want_?
All I _want_ is to live you insensitve clod.;)
Seriously though; while banning cars and whatnot is impractical, and I _agree_ with you.
But just suppose for a moment that the next 50,000 people to-be-killed in car accidents showed up at your doorstep telling you they want to live. What would your response be... "Well I want to drive to work!"
Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?
Because even when guns are used legally its controversial. Using Hammers and Perl legally is not. It is a perhaps subtle difference but its important. I made another post expanding on this elsewhere in the thread.
When a trespasser is shot in "self defence" there are questions. Was he really a threat to your life? Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified? Not only are these questions asked, but different people beleive the answers are different. Its controversial.
When you hammer a nail, the purpose for which the hammer was made... its simply devoid of moral content.
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but in many U.S states, perhaps even yours, it is perfectly legal to hunt deer with a handgun as long as it meets certain minimum specifications.
Yes I knew that. That is not, however, what they are designed for.
Since you didn't know that I have to assume that you're generally clueless about firearms and have been 'educated' by Anti-Gun propoganda, which is how you formed your "guns are EVIL" opinion.
I did know that, and I am not clueless. And seeing as I specifically said "I am *not* suggesting banning guns", I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm anti-gun. I'm not, not at all, not even a little bit.
Firearms are tools, just like the hypothetical hammer everyone is disussing.
Yes, firearms are tools. No, firearms are not just like hammers. See below for my explanation.
How the tool is used makes no reflection on it's morality or character.
Agreed.
Those properties belong to the user.
Also agreed.
However, suppose a tools intended purpose is to perform immoral acts then there is no real reason to have the tool. For example, if I invented a tool which, upon pointing it at someone and pushing its one button it invariably brainwashed them into becoming a brutal serial rapist and killer; what moral use would such a tool have? What possible reason should it be made available to the general public? Sure the technology might have useful moral applications, but as it stands, can we agree that nobody should be wandering around with one of these things?
Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the case for guns at all, but I AM recognizing that a controversy of this nature surrounds guns. Some beleive it has substantial moral uses, others think its little better than my rape-n-murder-gizmo.
And THAT is why hammers are different from guns. There is no controversy about whether hammers have moral uses: putting nails into wood is universally acceptable.
There is, however, a great deal of controversy with respect to using guns. "Killing trespassers", "killing in self defense", "killing car-jackers", and even "hunting" and "target practice (practice killing)" are controversial. A lot people don't beleive ANY use of a gun to kill or practice killing is acceptable, which is why the tool itself is surrounded in controversy.
Hammers *can* be used to bash heads in sure, but there is no controversy at all about its 'normal' uses. There is no automatic police investigation when ever a nail is hammered to make sure it was legally justified.
The same simply is not true for guns, and its a false comparison to say banning guns is like banning hammers.
The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.) Many people buy these guns for their ability to shoot people, even if they *never* intend to use it in that capacity.
Now suppose there was a magical way to prevent guns from shooting people. I predict that the NRA would, for the most part, lose interest in guns. And demand for them in general would drop off sharply as all the "self-defense", or "home invasion/tresspassing", or "deterrent/security" arguments go out the window if the gun can't shoot at people.
However, if the same magical system could be applied to hammers preventing them from being used for bashing heads the market for hammers would be completely unaffected.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm *not* suggesting we should ban guns. But I am saying its wrong to equate the gun controversy with a similiar view on hammers or perl.
Its a false comparison. Most guns have no other purpose. Even people who simply collect guns would likely find themselves uninterested in collecting guns that couldn't be used to shoot people. On some level they just wouldn't be guns anymore.
Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?
That would help. However, sooner or later they are going to open an attachment, or download something dumb off the web or via p2p. A good firewall (2 way) will help, and abolishing IE will help, but it will just delay not prevent -- and sooner or later when services.exe or winlogon is trying access the network what do you? Give it a pass? or Deny?
I think that if most Windows users just used to use Windows in a safe way (and read the fucking dialog boxes that came up instead of reflexively clicking "OK" to everything), a lot of the "unreliable" and "virus-laden" views of it would start to dissipate.
That is the crux of it. The natural and easy way to use windows is unsafe, while the natural and easy way to use linux (or OS X) is safe. That's the pretty much the point. Windows is like a chainsaw - its safe if you use it in a safe way, but its damned easy to take a limb off with it if you have a moment of bad judgement.
The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.
Exactly. And users aren't going to get generally smarter. And even smart users occasionally click the wrong button.
I also stream Sirius over EVDO all the time, with no problem.
All the unlimited plans I've ever seen are soft-capped at 1OO MB, 250MB, or half a gig. Streaming music for any length of time is going to chew through it pretty quick.
I know more than a few people who've had data bills in the thousands. The carriers seem to be pretty reasonable about waiving them for first-timer "OMG I had no idea" types, but I know several people with large monthly data bills.
For high users its far far far far far far.... cheaper to get get a sirius receiver than to stream it (at least around here).
it clearly appears that whatever their actual terms of service are, they don't actually block ports or such to utilize such services.
Could be... but in that case they could (and should) have just let the manager go, and cut costs to nearly where they are now, AND had 3 people onsite... far far better than what they accomplished with outsourcing.
The real question is why they had 4 people collectively making 500k (that's 125k EACH, on average) for the sort of drudge work that could even be outsourced in the first place.
The idea of marking a surface with color is extradinarily useful... "OK we'll all meet in the cave I painted a big brown splotch next to." Or "I painted red stripes on the tree near the blueberry bushes - you can't miss it."
Separately the ability to map real world objects to abstract representations of them is extraordinarily useful. -- e.g. expressing the plan for driving mammoths off cliffs. "OK, so this big rock is the mammoth... and these pebbles here is you guys...I'm the stick over there... "
Combining the two abilities lets you draw maps, and is the beginning of pictograph writing... "I drew a man hunting mammoth near the hunting grounds...If you see the rock with the man picking fruit painted on it you've gone too far, but there are some apple trees there so if you end up out there bring back some apples."
Of course, a problem with evolution is that its far too easy to make rationalizations.:)
For instance, if you want to connect to the folks that are on AOL, they may mandate that if their user want to connect to your service, they want a cut. After all, it is costing them money to allow users to connect to your service.
Perhaps Google, Microsoft and other companies being victimized by this extortion tactic ought to band together and return in kind. Any ISP that demands payment for packets would receive a counter demand for payment for access. After all it costs Microsoft et al money to allow AOL users to connect to their service. Shouldn't AOL pay them?
e.g. AOL threatens Google or Microsoft with throttled traffic to its users unless it pays. Microsoft, Google (et al) ought to respond by collectively cutting off all traffic to AOL until it pays THEM.
It won't take even a dense AOLer long to see that their internet is suddenly 'broken' as his msn messenger, yahoo, gmail, google search, msn search, yahoo search etc are all non-functional, and he'll blame AOL when he sees that nobody else is having the problem.
AOL can't win a war of attrition with the big content providers. Users want that content, and they'll switch ISPs to get it.
True, however, the reach of the FDA *is* surprisingly broad. For example contact lenses and tampons are regulated by the FDA... and they are neither food nor drugs.
Similiarly the FDA's scope reaches into approving materials (e.g. plastics) and so forth that might be used in the packaging of food or drugs, or even used in the presence of food or drugs, or even used in a facility where packaging of food or drugs is taking place.
e.g. the FDA would be interested in the presence of asbestos in a facility that makes the plastic used in the packaging of tampons. (which again are neither food nor drugs).
Anyhow, with that kind of scope its reasonable to be watching for 'harmful' elements in clothing and wheels -- as these shirts and wheels might be on staff or forklifts in facilities that manufacture or transport food and drugs...
Once you realize that "nanotechnology" plays a part in almost every part of your daily life, from the clothes you wear, to the wheels your car rides on, to the TV you watch, to, well... you get my drift.
If by getting your drift you mean that evidently the FDA also plays a part in almost every part of your daily life.;)
You do NOT need an HDMI cable/connection to view high def (1080p). [unless you buy]...a tv with only hdmi connectors or a DRM burdened Blu-Ray movie that only allows a HDMI connection.
So you are saying you don't need it unless you do need it. And given we don't know whether analog hidef tvs or unprotected blu-ray discs will even be available a few years from now, how can we decide if we do or do not need it?
No wonder people are confused.:)
Given that we know the mpaa is trying to close the analog hole, and wants to enable the hdmi requirement who in their right mind would gamble on not having hdmi support on their blu-ray player -- unless they anticipate replacing their blu-ray player before they see themselves buying any blu-ray content or an hdtv anyway...( and for those people there is no point to the ps3 even having blu-ray).
It doesn't even have to faked to be a bullshit demo.
First:
Running a video outside its native resolution, especially on an lcd screen is a biased test out of the gates. We aren't *just* seeing the difference in quality. We seeing (for example) a 1920x1080 picture on a 1920x1080 pixel device next to a 720x480 picture displayed on a 1920x1080 pixel device. The latter *can't* be displayed properly and must be scaled and interpolated. That is going to add artifacts to the second picture. (And PC based DVD upscalers are DISMAL compared to whats available in mid-range hd equipment, nevermind high-end stuff.
It would be far more fair to compare them on a multiscan CRT. Of course you'd still be able to discern the difference, HD *IS* better, but it would be harder, and you'd have to get closer. (equals a less impressive demo)
Next, this is a company sponsored demo aimed at convincing us we need to buy blu-ray. Credibility should be zero here. Can we honestly expect to see the very best picture that DVD is capable of vs the the very best of blu-ray? Or are we likely to be spoon fed a dismal DVD with numerous visible encoding and compression artifacts against an hd clip that someone went over and polished frame by frame? (We've all seen the Disney "before and after" shots when marketing their restored classics on dvd). Hell, for all we know, the "DVD" clip may have been deliberately further degraded -- it was on a dvd+r after all.
`(A) to `circumvent a technological protection measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological protection measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
Without the authority is the key phrase here. Sony can descramble/bypass the encryption on their own work until they are blue (or blu-ray) in the face and they are okay. Ditto you or me on our own works.
Right but Sony isn't a single entitity its a mega corporation with enough subsidiaries and whatnot to fill a library of congress with "independant legal persons".:)
"Sony" is NOT "Sony Pictures" is NOT "Sony Blue-Ray" anymore than a two siblings and their parent in a close family are the same person.
Asserting that any sony subsidiary implicitly has the authority and permission to use the IP of any other subsidiary is absurd, although it would be fair to assert that its highly likely they could get permission for the asking, and even if they failed to ask its highly unlikly another subsidiary would "come after them".
That said, two emplyees hacking an encrypted company-owned filesystem to retrieve dmca protected content for use in a demonstration has a distinctly different feel to it vis a vis "two employees requested and were granted access to encrypted content to display in a demo".
I could easily see "two employees" being fired for the former, even if they would have gotten permission had they asked.:)
So the ROI is definitely there, if you know how to make the case for it.
Right, but merely "shooting for compliance" and "actually getting there" can be the same thing as far as most of those roi benefits.
In other words, if compliance is an objective, and you actively endeavour to achieve it, even if you miss the green "your page is 100% valid" result, you usually reap most of the roi benefits you refer to, whether you fix all the "errors" or not.
Its sort of like ISO9000 and other "organizational" status symbols of achievement. Merely trying your best to run an ISO9000 compliant organization will reap you the benefits (e.g. "improved business performance" and "good quality controls"); but actually getting the certification itself is really only relevant if your clients literally require it. (e.g. FDA approved labs, military contractors, etc).
Simply shooting for ISO9000 compliance, just like shooting for W3C standards compliance gets you most of the roi. Actually getting the certifications by tying up every loose end and detail is a rapidly diminishing return unless you have some compelling client requirement to achieve it.
In this way, people who have the older computers could easily get a copy of the older versions of Windows.
But then they wouldn't need to upgrade to new computers with new operating systems!!
And what about people with brand new computers? For a great many people Windows 2000 Professional would be a perfectly acceptable choice, especially if it was free.
Tack on the fact that with windows you aren't just paying for the "source", there are licenses all over the place... 2kpro "includes" a TSCAL for 2k terminal server for example, how do you open source that? Not to mention a pile of other software that's probably licensed or 3rd party closed source -- codecs etc where their may be royalty payments involved...
I can't see Microsoft open-sourcing or even giving away anything newer than Windows 95-A.
It should be no surprise that different VOIP providers offer different levels of support, service and infrastructure.
I don't know about rogers per se, but if Roger's voip is anything like what its counterpart Shaw is offering, it deserves to be more expensive, its run on a dedicated network, separate from their broadband internet service -- meaning it doesn't rely on your internet being up!
This dedicated network is also independantly powered and with backup, right down to including a battery backup for your voip modem, meaning you can even make or receive a call during a power outage! Its really almost at the same level as POTS, and light years beyond what other voip providers can even theoretically provide in terms of infrastructure and reliability.
Of course you *do* pay a premium for it but it really is competing with POTS from the local telecom on a completely separate level from what you'd see from a Skype or Vonage. Its not for everyone, some of us don't need that level of infrastructure, fault tolerance, or reliability. Some of us do.
Now, I use a MacBook Pro, but it wouldn't matter if I had a PC... I'd have a machine with a keywork, mouse, monitor, and box. Upgrades? Everything is on-board, USB/Firewire peripherals add my expansion. Do I need to upgrade a video card? Why bother, when you can get an entire computer for $400-$600 why do I need replacable parts? Only on laptops where a $2k-$3k replacement cost may matter do I even think about how nice it would be for a speed up.
This doesn't quite add up.
You argue that you would never need to upgrade because you can get an entire computer for $400-600, but you use a macbook pro which is 4x that amount, and will easily cost $2000+ to replace, when you want to upgrade, hardly a whole new computer for $400.
Tell you what, 2 years from now, you go and "upgrade" your mbp laptop with a 400 dell. Let us know how that works out for ya.:)
Serioulsy though; I'd much rather have a 3 year old Athlon XP 2500+, with a new nvidia 7800 than a brand new $400 dell.
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to legal alternatives, the iPod
er... legal alternatives to the ipod? There are illegal portable deviceS ??
is at best a wash on features (other than tight integration with iTMS) and is priced much, much more expensive (you pay a significant Apple fanboy premium versus competing players).
A wash on features on its own yes, you would be correct. But that's like comparing a small 30 piece lego car set with a car I carved out of wood myself.
The big feature, at this point, of the ipod (and the lego set) is that it lives in a world designed to connect to it.
The lego set can interact with any other lego set to build almost anything you can imagine.
Likewise the ipod features tight integration with iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, 200 different types of case, and another few supermarket aisles worth of "accessories". Buy an ipod, and you can hook it up to your camera, buy 15 different vanity cases, and find stereos, alarm clocks, remotes, car chargers, car stereos, etc all marketed around their ability to connect to the ipod.
I bought an ipod because the "expanded universe" of things I could do with it gave it extra value over its competition. From the tight integration with iTunes (the application, not the online store) to the many accessories.
I think the main issue is the literally hostile relationship console makers have with the indie scene. I mean, console makers view your average "indie developer" more as a "hacker looking to crack the copy protection scheme" than as a "potential developer of the next runnaway success", and treat them accordingly.
They've erected massive barriers to entry. Historically the development systems have been ridiculously expensive. The NDAs, licenses, royalty agreements are burdensome. Your developing on a highly proprietary system, where there is zilch for community support so you are going to be relying on the manufacturer a LOT. And they don't even want to consider getting involved with an independant or "small company" until they've approved your "proposed game"...
So you pretty much have to have an established track record of successful titles before they'll even look at you. And worst of all you simply can't go it alone without manufacturer cooperation, because you absolutely need their development systems and support (and these days you'd need to have your content digitally signed with their keys too...)
So, government when faced with a need for money (how often does that happen?) sees that billions of e-mails and text messages are being sent and infers they can and should extract a tiny morsel of blood from their constituents, concluding, "it's only a tiny bit". This is insane.
I've got a better idea...
Maybe they should just take all those fractional cents from bank transactions and funnel them into an EU account. Nobody will miss them anyways, and it worked out great in both Superman III and Office Space.
Providing they put the decimal point in the right place...
I *think* he meant non-viable in terms of not being useful at generating fuel, not non-viable as in "not going to survive".
For example, consider a mutation that was better at reproducing but not at all good at generating us electricity/fuel/whatever. It could rapidly "corrupt" the population.
Are you implying what you _want_ is more important than what I _want_?
;)
All I _want_ is to live you insensitve clod.
Seriously though; while banning cars and whatnot is impractical, and I _agree_ with you.
But just suppose for a moment that the next 50,000 people to-be-killed in car accidents showed up at your doorstep telling you they want to live. What would your response be... "Well I want to drive to work!"
That doesn't exactly feel right either.
Why do you think people spend a dollar for colored, sugared water?
I think the real question is why do you think people spend 2 dollars for plain water?
Then factor in that they can get it with sugar and colour for half the price...
Nevermind with alcohol...
Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?
Because even when guns are used legally its controversial. Using Hammers and Perl legally is not. It is a perhaps subtle difference but its important. I made another post expanding on this elsewhere in the thread.
When a trespasser is shot in "self defence" there are questions. Was he really a threat to your life? Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified? Not only are these questions asked, but different people beleive the answers are different. Its controversial.
When you hammer a nail, the purpose for which the hammer was made... its simply devoid of moral content.
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but in many U.S states, perhaps even yours, it is perfectly legal to hunt deer with a handgun as long as it meets certain minimum specifications.
Yes I knew that. That is not, however, what they are designed for.
Since you didn't know that I have to assume that you're generally clueless about firearms and have been 'educated' by Anti-Gun propoganda, which is how you formed your "guns are EVIL" opinion.
I did know that, and I am not clueless. And seeing as I specifically said "I am *not* suggesting banning guns", I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm anti-gun. I'm not, not at all, not even a little bit.
Firearms are tools, just like the hypothetical hammer everyone is disussing.
Yes, firearms are tools.
No, firearms are not just like hammers.
See below for my explanation.
How the tool is used makes no reflection on it's morality or character.
Agreed.
Those properties belong to the user.
Also agreed.
However, suppose a tools intended purpose is to perform immoral acts then there is no real reason to have the tool. For example, if I invented a tool which, upon pointing it at someone and pushing its one button it invariably brainwashed them into becoming a brutal serial rapist and killer; what moral use would such a tool have? What possible reason should it be made available to the general public? Sure the technology might have useful moral applications, but as it stands, can we agree that nobody should be wandering around with one of these things?
Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the case for guns at all, but I AM recognizing that a controversy of this nature surrounds guns. Some beleive it has substantial moral uses, others think its little better than my rape-n-murder-gizmo.
And THAT is why hammers are different from guns. There is no controversy about whether hammers have moral uses: putting nails into wood is universally acceptable.
There is, however, a great deal of controversy with respect to using guns. "Killing trespassers", "killing in self defense", "killing car-jackers", and even "hunting" and "target practice (practice killing)" are controversial. A lot people don't beleive ANY use of a gun to kill or practice killing is acceptable, which is why the tool itself is surrounded in controversy.
Hammers *can* be used to bash heads in sure, but there is no controversy at all about its 'normal' uses. There is no automatic police investigation when ever a nail is hammered to make sure it was legally justified.
The same simply is not true for guns, and its a false comparison to say banning guns is like banning hammers.
Welcome, fellow NRA member.
The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.) Many people buy these guns for their ability to shoot people, even if they *never* intend to use it in that capacity.
Now suppose there was a magical way to prevent guns from shooting people. I predict that the NRA would, for the most part, lose interest in guns. And demand for them in general would drop off sharply as all the "self-defense", or "home invasion/tresspassing", or "deterrent/security" arguments go out the window if the gun can't shoot at people.
However, if the same magical system could be applied to hammers preventing them from being used for bashing heads the market for hammers would be completely unaffected.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm *not* suggesting we should ban guns. But I am saying its wrong to equate the gun controversy with a similiar view on hammers or perl.
Its a false comparison. Most guns have no other purpose. Even people who simply collect guns would likely find themselves uninterested in collecting guns that couldn't be used to shoot people. On some level they just wouldn't be guns anymore.
Here's the question you have to ask yourself, though... will your friends and relatives who don't use OSS and who have crashes & viruses actually do better with OSS and a fresh install of Linux? Or would their problems be fixed with a fresh install of Windows, a good firewall, and the abolition of Internet Explorer?
That would help. However, sooner or later they are going to open an attachment, or download something dumb off the web or via p2p. A good firewall (2 way) will help, and abolishing IE will help, but it will just delay not prevent -- and sooner or later when services.exe or winlogon is trying access the network what do you? Give it a pass? or Deny?
I think that if most Windows users just used to use Windows in a safe way (and read the fucking dialog boxes that came up instead of reflexively clicking "OK" to everything), a lot of the "unreliable" and "virus-laden" views of it would start to dissipate.
That is the crux of it. The natural and easy way to use windows is unsafe, while the natural and easy way to use linux (or OS X) is safe. That's the pretty much the point. Windows is like a chainsaw - its safe if you use it in a safe way, but its damned easy to take a limb off with it if you have a moment of bad judgement.
The biggest unreliability with Windows is the stupid things that users do.
Exactly. And users aren't going to get generally smarter. And even smart users occasionally click the wrong button.
It's a specific group against another specific group to intimidate the first group into not doing something they believe in.
Gotcha - of course by that definition:
al quaeda = terrorists
pro-life protestors = terrorists
school bullies = terrorists
NSA = terrorists
George W. Bush = terrorist
FBI = terrorists
PETA = terrorists
Greenpeace = terrorists
Patent trolls = terrorists
China = terrorists
Microsoft = terrorists
UN = terrorists
MPAA/RIAA = terrorists
I also stream Sirius over EVDO all the time, with no problem.
.... cheaper to get get a sirius receiver than to stream it (at least around here).
All the unlimited plans I've ever seen are soft-capped at 1OO MB, 250MB, or half a gig. Streaming music for any length of time is going to chew through it pretty quick.
I know more than a few people who've had data bills in the thousands. The carriers seem to be pretty reasonable about waiving them for first-timer "OMG I had no idea" types, but I know several people with large monthly data bills.
For high users its far far far far far far
it clearly appears that whatever their actual terms of service are, they don't actually block ports or such to utilize such services.
Yet.
Could be... but in that case they could (and should) have just let the manager go, and cut costs to nearly where they are now, AND had 3 people onsite... far far better than what they accomplished with outsourcing.
The real question is why they had 4 people collectively making 500k (that's 125k EACH, on average) for the sort of drudge work that could even be outsourced in the first place.
But knowing how to paint was needed for us?
:)
The idea of marking a surface with color is extradinarily useful... "OK we'll all meet in the cave I painted a big brown splotch next to." Or "I painted red stripes on the tree near the blueberry bushes - you can't miss it."
Separately the ability to map real world objects to abstract representations of them is extraordinarily useful. -- e.g. expressing the plan for driving mammoths off cliffs. "OK, so this big rock is the mammoth... and these pebbles here is you guys...I'm the stick over there... "
Combining the two abilities lets you draw maps, and is the beginning of pictograph writing... "I drew a man hunting mammoth near the hunting grounds...If you see the rock with the man picking fruit painted on it you've gone too far, but there are some apple trees there so if you end up out there bring back some apples."
Of course, a problem with evolution is that its far too easy to make rationalizations.
For instance, if you want to connect to the folks that are on AOL, they may mandate that if their user want to connect to your service, they want a cut. After all, it is costing them money to allow users to connect to your service.
Perhaps Google, Microsoft and other companies being victimized by this extortion tactic ought to band together and return in kind. Any ISP that demands payment for packets would receive a counter demand for payment for access. After all it costs Microsoft et al money to allow AOL users to connect to their service. Shouldn't AOL pay them?
e.g.
AOL threatens Google or Microsoft with throttled traffic to its users unless it pays.
Microsoft, Google (et al) ought to respond by collectively cutting off all traffic to AOL until it pays THEM.
It won't take even a dense AOLer long to see that their internet is suddenly 'broken' as his msn messenger, yahoo, gmail, google search, msn search, yahoo search etc are all non-functional, and he'll blame AOL when he sees that nobody else is having the problem.
AOL can't win a war of attrition with the big content providers. Users want that content, and they'll switch ISPs to get it.
True, however, the reach of the FDA *is* surprisingly broad. For example contact lenses and tampons are regulated by the FDA ... and they are neither food nor drugs.
;)
Similiarly the FDA's scope reaches into approving materials (e.g. plastics) and so forth that might be used in the packaging of food or drugs, or even used in the presence of food or drugs, or even used in a facility where packaging of food or drugs is taking place.
e.g. the FDA would be interested in the presence of asbestos in a facility that makes the plastic used in the packaging of tampons. (which again are neither food nor drugs).
Anyhow, with that kind of scope its reasonable to be watching for 'harmful' elements in clothing and wheels -- as these shirts and wheels might be on staff or forklifts in facilities that manufacture or transport food and drugs...
Once you realize that "nanotechnology" plays a part in almost every part of your daily life, from the clothes you wear, to the wheels your car rides on, to the TV you watch, to, well... you get my drift.
If by getting your drift you mean that evidently the FDA also plays a part in almost every part of your daily life.
I think some people are confused about HDMI here.
...a tv with only hdmi connectors or a DRM burdened Blu-Ray movie that only allows a HDMI connection.
:)
To hack together your own sentences...
You do NOT need an HDMI cable/connection to view high def (1080p).
[unless you buy]
So you are saying you don't need it unless you do need it. And given we don't know whether analog hidef tvs or unprotected blu-ray discs will even be available a few years from now, how can we decide if we do or do not need it?
No wonder people are confused.
Given that we know the mpaa is trying to close the analog hole, and wants to enable the hdmi requirement who in their right mind would gamble on not having hdmi support on their blu-ray player -- unless they anticipate replacing their blu-ray player before they see themselves buying any blu-ray content or an hdtv anyway...( and for those people there is no point to the ps3 even having blu-ray).
It doesn't even have to faked to be a bullshit demo.
First:
Running a video outside its native resolution, especially on an lcd screen is a biased test out of the gates. We aren't *just* seeing the difference in quality. We seeing (for example) a 1920x1080 picture on a 1920x1080 pixel device next to a 720x480 picture displayed on a 1920x1080 pixel device. The latter *can't* be displayed properly and must be scaled and interpolated. That is going to add artifacts to the second picture. (And PC based DVD upscalers are DISMAL compared to whats available in mid-range hd equipment, nevermind high-end stuff.
It would be far more fair to compare them on a multiscan CRT. Of course you'd still be able to discern the difference, HD *IS* better, but it would be harder, and you'd have to get closer. (equals a less impressive demo)
Next, this is a company sponsored demo aimed at convincing us we need to buy blu-ray. Credibility should be zero here. Can we honestly expect to see the very best picture that DVD is capable of vs the the very best of blu-ray? Or are we likely to be spoon fed a dismal DVD with numerous visible encoding and compression artifacts against an hd clip that someone went over and polished frame by frame? (We've all seen the Disney "before and after" shots when marketing their restored classics on dvd). Hell, for all we know, the "DVD" clip may have been deliberately further degraded -- it was on a dvd+r after all.
`(A) to `circumvent a technological protection measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological protection measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
:)
:)
Without the authority is the key phrase here. Sony can descramble/bypass the encryption on their own work until they are blue (or blu-ray) in the face and they are okay. Ditto you or me on our own works.
Right but Sony isn't a single entitity its a mega corporation with enough subsidiaries and whatnot to fill a library of congress with "independant legal persons".
"Sony" is NOT "Sony Pictures" is NOT "Sony Blue-Ray" anymore than a two siblings and their parent in a close family are the same person.
Asserting that any sony subsidiary implicitly has the authority and permission to use the IP of any other subsidiary is absurd, although it would be fair to assert that its highly likely they could get permission for the asking, and even if they failed to ask its highly unlikly another subsidiary would "come after them".
That said, two emplyees hacking an encrypted company-owned filesystem to retrieve dmca protected content for use in a demonstration has a distinctly different feel to it vis a vis "two employees requested and were granted access to encrypted content to display in a demo".
I could easily see "two employees" being fired for the former, even if they would have gotten permission had they asked.
So the ROI is definitely there, if you know how to make the case for it.
Right, but merely "shooting for compliance" and "actually getting there" can be the same thing as far as most of those roi benefits.
In other words, if compliance is an objective, and you actively endeavour to achieve it, even if you miss the green "your page is 100% valid" result, you usually reap most of the roi benefits you refer to, whether you fix all the "errors" or not.
Its sort of like ISO9000 and other "organizational" status symbols of achievement. Merely trying your best to run an ISO9000 compliant organization will reap you the benefits (e.g. "improved business performance" and "good quality controls"); but actually getting the certification itself is really only relevant if your clients literally require it. (e.g. FDA approved labs, military contractors, etc).
Simply shooting for ISO9000 compliance, just like shooting for W3C standards compliance gets you most of the roi. Actually getting the certifications by tying up every loose end and detail is a rapidly diminishing return unless you have some compelling client requirement to achieve it.
In this way, people who have the older computers could easily get a copy of the older versions of Windows.
But then they wouldn't need to upgrade to new computers with new operating systems!!
And what about people with brand new computers? For a great many people Windows 2000 Professional would be a perfectly acceptable choice, especially if it was free.
Tack on the fact that with windows you aren't just paying for the "source", there are licenses all over the place... 2kpro "includes" a TSCAL for 2k terminal server for example, how do you open source that? Not to mention a pile of other software that's probably licensed or 3rd party closed source -- codecs etc where their may be royalty payments involved...
I can't see Microsoft open-sourcing or even giving away anything newer than Windows 95-A.
It should be no surprise that different VOIP providers offer different levels of support, service and infrastructure.
I don't know about rogers per se, but if Roger's voip is anything like what its counterpart Shaw is offering, it deserves to be more expensive, its run on a dedicated network, separate from their broadband internet service -- meaning it doesn't rely on your internet being up!
This dedicated network is also independantly powered and with backup, right down to including a battery backup for your voip modem, meaning you can even make or receive a call during a power outage! Its really almost at the same level as POTS, and light years beyond what other voip providers can even theoretically provide in terms of infrastructure and reliability.
Of course you *do* pay a premium for it but it really is competing with POTS from the local telecom on a completely separate level from what you'd see from a Skype or Vonage. Its not for everyone, some of us don't need that level of infrastructure, fault tolerance, or reliability. Some of us do.
first place for me would be:
Dr. Daniel P. Schreber
(played by Keifer Sutherland in Dark City)
Honorable mentions would be:
Dr. Evil & Dr. Stranglove
Now, I use a MacBook Pro, but it wouldn't matter if I had a PC... I'd have a machine with a keywork, mouse, monitor, and box. Upgrades? Everything is on-board, USB/Firewire peripherals add my expansion. Do I need to upgrade a video card? Why bother, when you can get an entire computer for $400-$600 why do I need replacable parts? Only on laptops where a $2k-$3k replacement cost may matter do I even think about how nice it would be for a speed up.
:)
This doesn't quite add up.
You argue that you would never need to upgrade because you can get an entire computer for $400-600, but you use a macbook pro which is 4x that amount, and will easily cost $2000+ to replace, when you want to upgrade, hardly a whole new computer for $400.
Tell you what, 2 years from now, you go and "upgrade" your mbp laptop with a 400 dell. Let us know how that works out for ya.
Serioulsy though; I'd much rather have a 3 year old Athlon XP 2500+, with a new nvidia 7800 than a brand new $400 dell.