No. lp/mm is just related to scanning, if you scan at 1600 SPI it's the same whether there is increased detail or not. And the answer is going to depend a great deal on the size of the particular frames. For some purposes I'm sure it was quite useful, I'm sure that the generals would have killed for that information in WWII when tracking troop movements and placement of various infrastructure.
370 nautical miles are long, but not that long. Perhaps it might be pointed out to those not living on the East Coast, that they mean Washington D.C. the one with a population and area a fraction of the one of Washington.
It tends to piss me off how these sorts of things are pretty much always on the East Coast. I'd love to see the satellite, but flying clear across country isn't in my budget.
Obvious doesn't mean that, obvious means that it's obvious to somebody that's not skilled in the art. Which is meant to prevent people from patenting ideas that would have been developed on their own without any need for R&D or work.
That's how that works. My TESL program was pretty much just me and one other man with the rest of the program filled out by women and I definitely got my share of threats for daring to point out that most of the figures are heavily sanitized to make things look a lot worse for women than they really are.
The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law. And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.
Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense. Take a look at alcohol if you don't believe me. Alcohol related fatalities are significant and it's really hard to deal with because it's legal. Now, if this were a case where the consequences were solely on the party drinking that would be one thing, but it's not, a lot of the people who die do so in alcohol related crashes where the idiot in the other car was drinking.
Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time? The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law.
In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient. There's little reason to believe that the other serious problems with drug abuse are going to go away just because the government bows to pressure and legalizes it. I mean, that hasn't happened with alcohol, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to happen with drugs.
Netflix doesn't have a streaming plan. At least not one that can accurately be called one. I rarely if ever used it as the selection was so poor. It was overpriced at $2 a month and it's even more overpriced at $8. For that I can get hulu or rent a couple movies online from Blockbuster.
That's really not true. According to Netflix, the reason for the price hike has nothing to do with licensing fees. Which makes me wonder what precisely it is that they're needing the money for.
For streaming you might also want to check out Crackle. It's ad supported, but the ads seem to be infrequent enough as to make it a reasonable proposition. Also, Amazon Prime is worth a look, but they have a small catalog IIRC.
Yes, but that's 1 million people that are probably moving to competitors and 1 million people that are likely spreading ill will about Netflix as well. A million people even if it is only 4% of the customers is still a lot of people and certainly greatly increases the likelihood that potential new customers are going to come into contact with an dissatisfied customer.
You joke, but we have a real problem with that here in WA. I'm not sure if we're better at investigating allegations than they are in other parts of the country or if it's more common here, but either way it's something we have a real problem with.
Or it could just be that we're ahead of the curve on men's rights and are more likely to prosecute sexual abuse of male minors.
I did that for similar reasons. Granted the likelihood of Starz being dropped wasn't yet known, but I've found Blockbuster to be a good buy. Although, possibly not if you don't have a Bluray player and don't play video games. So far I've saved enough borrowing Assassin's Creed Brotherhood to more than make up for the cost of service.
Where they really fell down was how they tried to sell it to the customers. It's pretty well established that during a down economy you don't raise prices if you can help it, you definitely don't raise prices by +60% and if you have to do that then you certainly don't make condescending comments about how it's only the cost of a couple lattes. Lattes are much less elite than they used to be, but they're still significantly more expensive than the alternatives are.
I might have gone along with it had they been honest about it rather than them making condescending remarks implying that they didn't need or want my business.
The problem is that Netflix was the leader in the industry and had mostly run the competition out of business. This particular misstep was ill timed as Blockbuster isn't yet out of business and there are several other providers of streaming media that are needing customers to get started.
Driving a million customers into the hands of the competition at this stage is really bad for them. OTOH, it's really good for the consumers as there are still other options available.
I ditched them for Blockbuster and I'm happy with the service. I'm paying a bit more because I hadn't been getting Blurays, but for the money I'm getting Blurays and games as well. Seems to take the same amount of time to return discs as I was with Netflix.
I have to admit that I get a lot of satisfaction out of their share price dropping by fully half since they announced the price hike. It's amazing to me that they thought that they could make that comment about it being the price of a couple lattes during a period where there's a lot of people who are really hurting for work. Especially without even bothering to roll out anything new to justify the price hike.
Worse still was the comment later that it wasn't to pay increased licensing demands.
IIRC, Phillip Fischer talks about that practice in his book Common Stocks And Uncommon Profits. The time frame for which the future price is available has shrunk significantly since the 20s, but it's still there. Back then, being a broker meant that you'd have access to the stock price for the next day when you could still act on it.
More or less, it's astonishing to me that the SEC hasn't cracked down on these scams. It's not like it's some sort of secret, people outside the industry know that Wall Street is largely run on fraud and insider trading and that there are massive bonuses handed out even when a company isn't doing well.
But, as long as the GOP continues to whip up anti-regulator sentiment, it's going to be really tough to get the regulations in place that are going to fix that.
Indeed, it's like those too big to fail banks that still haven't been broken up. IIRC the efficiencies of scale tend to max out somewhere around $100bn in holdings, why we haven't broken up larger ones is purely a matter of politics.
Oligarchies suck, unless you're one of the oligarchs, in which case it's pretty awesome to be able to behave in this sort of sociopathic way and be rewarded for the bad behavior.
That's the thing. They don't have time to do checks, because it's a race to beat the other vultures to fleece the individual investors. It's still common practice for hedge funds to buy and sell stocks with knowledge of what the prices will be ahead of time on some of the smaller exchanges
Yes, but, no matter how clear the term might be, if it's introduced after the person buys the product and is required in order to fully use the product, I can't see how that wouldn't be unconscionable by that definition. When it comes to updates, it's pretty naive to suggest that people agree to those having had a legitimate chance to opt out.
This sort of thing stinks of racketeering. You don't want to sign the new ToS? Well, it would be a shame if something were to happen to you because you didn't get the most recent update.
Slashdot Mirror
If somebody's questioning you, then you're not an expert.
No. lp/mm is just related to scanning, if you scan at 1600 SPI it's the same whether there is increased detail or not. And the answer is going to depend a great deal on the size of the particular frames. For some purposes I'm sure it was quite useful, I'm sure that the generals would have killed for that information in WWII when tracking troop movements and placement of various infrastructure.
370 nautical miles are long, but not that long. Perhaps it might be pointed out to those not living on the East Coast, that they mean Washington D.C. the one with a population and area a fraction of the one of Washington.
It tends to piss me off how these sorts of things are pretty much always on the East Coast. I'd love to see the satellite, but flying clear across country isn't in my budget.
If we're lucky, but welfare is socialism and as such un-American.
Obvious doesn't mean that, obvious means that it's obvious to somebody that's not skilled in the art. Which is meant to prevent people from patenting ideas that would have been developed on their own without any need for R&D or work.
Once bitten twice shy.
That's how that works. My TESL program was pretty much just me and one other man with the rest of the program filled out by women and I definitely got my share of threats for daring to point out that most of the figures are heavily sanitized to make things look a lot worse for women than they really are.
The thing is that it's not the US government's fault, it's the fault of the various drug users that aren't interested in abiding by the law. And are also not interested in getting the law changed through traditional methods either.
Blaming the government for what is essentially the fault of the customers doesn't really make any sense. Take a look at alcohol if you don't believe me. Alcohol related fatalities are significant and it's really hard to deal with because it's legal. Now, if this were a case where the consequences were solely on the party drinking that would be one thing, but it's not, a lot of the people who die do so in alcohol related crashes where the idiot in the other car was drinking.
Yes and do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined by alcohol in the mean time? The problem with prohibition was that nobody was following that law, for the most part not even the law enforcement being expected to enforce the law.
In this case, we're letting a minority group with little to no concern over the results of their actions undermine democracy because they feel they have the right to just ignore the law because it's inconvenient. There's little reason to believe that the other serious problems with drug abuse are going to go away just because the government bows to pressure and legalizes it. I mean, that hasn't happened with alcohol, so I'm not sure why one would expect it to happen with drugs.
Netflix doesn't have a streaming plan. At least not one that can accurately be called one. I rarely if ever used it as the selection was so poor. It was overpriced at $2 a month and it's even more overpriced at $8. For that I can get hulu or rent a couple movies online from Blockbuster.
That's really not true. According to Netflix, the reason for the price hike has nothing to do with licensing fees. Which makes me wonder what precisely it is that they're needing the money for.
For streaming you might also want to check out Crackle. It's ad supported, but the ads seem to be infrequent enough as to make it a reasonable proposition. Also, Amazon Prime is worth a look, but they have a small catalog IIRC.
Yes, but that's 1 million people that are probably moving to competitors and 1 million people that are likely spreading ill will about Netflix as well. A million people even if it is only 4% of the customers is still a lot of people and certainly greatly increases the likelihood that potential new customers are going to come into contact with an dissatisfied customer.
You joke, but we have a real problem with that here in WA. I'm not sure if we're better at investigating allegations than they are in other parts of the country or if it's more common here, but either way it's something we have a real problem with.
Or it could just be that we're ahead of the curve on men's rights and are more likely to prosecute sexual abuse of male minors.
I did that for similar reasons. Granted the likelihood of Starz being dropped wasn't yet known, but I've found Blockbuster to be a good buy. Although, possibly not if you don't have a Bluray player and don't play video games. So far I've saved enough borrowing Assassin's Creed Brotherhood to more than make up for the cost of service.
Where they really fell down was how they tried to sell it to the customers. It's pretty well established that during a down economy you don't raise prices if you can help it, you definitely don't raise prices by +60% and if you have to do that then you certainly don't make condescending comments about how it's only the cost of a couple lattes. Lattes are much less elite than they used to be, but they're still significantly more expensive than the alternatives are.
I might have gone along with it had they been honest about it rather than them making condescending remarks implying that they didn't need or want my business.
The problem is that Netflix was the leader in the industry and had mostly run the competition out of business. This particular misstep was ill timed as Blockbuster isn't yet out of business and there are several other providers of streaming media that are needing customers to get started.
Driving a million customers into the hands of the competition at this stage is really bad for them. OTOH, it's really good for the consumers as there are still other options available.
I ditched them for Blockbuster and I'm happy with the service. I'm paying a bit more because I hadn't been getting Blurays, but for the money I'm getting Blurays and games as well. Seems to take the same amount of time to return discs as I was with Netflix.
I have to admit that I get a lot of satisfaction out of their share price dropping by fully half since they announced the price hike. It's amazing to me that they thought that they could make that comment about it being the price of a couple lattes during a period where there's a lot of people who are really hurting for work. Especially without even bothering to roll out anything new to justify the price hike.
Worse still was the comment later that it wasn't to pay increased licensing demands.
IIRC, Phillip Fischer talks about that practice in his book Common Stocks And Uncommon Profits. The time frame for which the future price is available has shrunk significantly since the 20s, but it's still there. Back then, being a broker meant that you'd have access to the stock price for the next day when you could still act on it.
More or less, it's astonishing to me that the SEC hasn't cracked down on these scams. It's not like it's some sort of secret, people outside the industry know that Wall Street is largely run on fraud and insider trading and that there are massive bonuses handed out even when a company isn't doing well.
But, as long as the GOP continues to whip up anti-regulator sentiment, it's going to be really tough to get the regulations in place that are going to fix that.
Indeed, it's like those too big to fail banks that still haven't been broken up. IIRC the efficiencies of scale tend to max out somewhere around $100bn in holdings, why we haven't broken up larger ones is purely a matter of politics.
Oligarchies suck, unless you're one of the oligarchs, in which case it's pretty awesome to be able to behave in this sort of sociopathic way and be rewarded for the bad behavior.
That's the thing. They don't have time to do checks, because it's a race to beat the other vultures to fleece the individual investors. It's still common practice for hedge funds to buy and sell stocks with knowledge of what the prices will be ahead of time on some of the smaller exchanges
Yes, but, no matter how clear the term might be, if it's introduced after the person buys the product and is required in order to fully use the product, I can't see how that wouldn't be unconscionable by that definition. When it comes to updates, it's pretty naive to suggest that people agree to those having had a legitimate chance to opt out.
This sort of thing stinks of racketeering. You don't want to sign the new ToS? Well, it would be a shame if something were to happen to you because you didn't get the most recent update.
Since we started allowing bootloaders to post, duh.