Which is another way of saying that they tack the cost of the OS onto the bill that people in other countries pay when they buy a license.
I get the logic there, but it strikes me as being a bit insulting to those of us that live in countries where licenses are usually paid for. Or at least frequently enough to make commercial software viable.
No, they weren't. In the commentary it was made quite clear that the writers were not happy with the greyness of the space craft in series 1. I can't recall which of the writers it was that was stating that, but I think it was.
It wasn't until a bit later with a better person in charge of the sets that the effects in that respect got a lot better. The actual cost didn't really increase that much over the course of the series, it's just that there was more creativity in later series.
Just hire the TSA to do security. Sure most people won't go in, but you'll be damned sure that they aren't smuggling in a recording device in their colon.
Personally, I watched it the first or second time it was shown in the US, and I'll watch pretty much whatever crap they choose to cram in there. I didn't particularly care for seasons 8 and 9 or the most recent venture, but I watched anyways. It's just something that I'm way too attached to to give up, and even those episodes weren't bad, they just didn't really keep with the rest of the feel of the show.
I'm not. That show basically came to KCTS 9 in Seattle first where there was a fair amount of British comedy being shown. I remember when I was a kid seeing Benny Hill and Monty Python. At that point in time, Seattle was starting to heat up as a cultural center in the US, within a year or two grunge really kicked off and that's that.
I remember watching it in either '89 or '90 and thinking that the whole thing was brilliant. At that point that was either the first or second year that they were airing episodes. I'm guessing that the pledges during that drive really came in because it resulted in one of the station representatives placing a call over to the producer asking for more. (Reading between the lines a bit there, not sure what station that call was placed by, but that seems most likely)
Only when necessary. Early on this would've been well appreciated, but at this point, they don't need it. I think the bigger concern is people posting spoilers. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the fact that the local PBS station brought Red Dwarf to Seattle was more or less what it took to convince the BBC to continue after series 2.
But, that was a different era, they were being ignored by the media pretty much locally and the sense that anybody would compare it at all with Monty Python really wasn't there at the time.
That's way too much. Unless you're needing support for Linux or some other OS, Backblaze is $50 a year with unlimited space. Plus if you absolutely need a large amount of data to you in a day or two they'll overnight a hard drive with the files you need.
Personally, I would not be comfortable with my files sitting on a webserver in that fashion. I'd just be too worried about some asshole breaking into the server and deleting them or finding personal information for other uses.
I use them, a couple gotchas, you have to keep the external drive plugged in or make a habit of regularly plugging it in to make a backup because the data gets erased from their servers if they don't see it for a while.
And you have to be careful to monitor for bitrot or fat fingered errors, to be fair that's not something they can be expected to know how to deal with unless you intervene yourself.
Additionally, make sure that the safe is also waterproof or store it in a place that's less likely to get flooded. It does you very little good to have a good fireproof safe, only to later learn that it wasn't waterproof after the firefighters leave.
I definitely wouldn't recommend that. I'd get a specialty utility like Flash Pipe or Downloader Pro. I'm sure there's freeware and open source programs out there, those are just ones that I have used and like. But since the OP is almost certainly talking about a large number of photos, I wouldn't recommend just copying.
After they're onto the hard drive, you'd want to use something like imatch there are other good ones out there both free and commercial, but I've used this one and found it to be quite good. If you're generating enough images for the OP's question, then it's time to get a management program.
After that I personally like to burn a copy to DVD or some sort of WORM media just in case I get fat fingered. And the copy on my hard disk gets backed up to backblaze for my offsite requirement.
It's a tremendous pain, but if you're dealing with a large enough number of photos to ask this sort of question, it really is important to do those steps or something equivalent.
It's Stockholm syndrome. They're so used to the unreliable renderings that they're needing to create something which keeps that aspect of cruising the web.
It's a typical problem, the browsers battle it out first, then applications and sites tend to pop up. Which makes it a bit awkward at times.
From what I can tell, they're opting to keep the aspect of HTML which is more or less the most broken under the justification that they've always done it that way, regardless of the fact that HTML5 was mostly supposed to be changing that. A new set of standards that both modernized and theoretically was implemented by all the browsers.
It's more or less inevitable that what's going to end up happening is a rehash of the Netscape versus IE battle of the 90s and a return to fragmentation. It might not be intentional, but if the standards keep changing it's going to be a real challenge actually cruising the web.
That was my thought, it's tough enough to get browsers in compliance with a specific revision of HTML, now they're wanting to do away with numbering them?
I have to assume that this is an early April Fool's joke or the person suggesting it is full of it. But then again he works for Google and is probably just the sort of arrogant git that doesn't understand the implications of it for people that aren't constantly upgrading their browsers.
Precisely how is this different than when the government leases out spectrum, land or the public right of way? Those are all things which are rivalrous in nature and without the government or some other body stepping in you end up with the tragedy of the commons situation.
I realize that it's popular amongst libertarians to cry bloody murder whenever the government does something, but give me a break. Unless you can propose a way of your carbon emissions not affecting everybody else, you kind of have to just accept that the climate research is very clear that CO2 is a problem in the concentrations we're pumping into it.
1) The point of it is to change behavior, had the market not been flooded with credits there would have been behavior change, just on a net basis not for every company.
3) You're full of it if you're suggesting that there isn't any economic justification for it. The justification for it is that the companies that can hit lower targets the most efficiently get a little something for their trouble, encouraging research and for companies to hit more stringent targets. The alternative is setting tough limits on everybody whether or not it's realistic.
I agree, does that mean that you concede that you haven't the foggiest what you're talking about? The way it works is that the total amount of emissions produced is the important thing. Whether Company A and Company B each cut half of that isn't any different than if Company A cuts 90% and Company B cuts the remainder. In both cases the target was met.
Now, there are issues with the way it's being handled at present, but if you're saying that there's something fundamentally wrong in letting companies buy indulgences in exchange for somebody else making the cuts, you're full of it.
Under that scheme they would be meeting it or paying the consequences. Additionally companies that more than meet the target get a little something for the pocket, fueling investigation into how to more efficiently hit the targets.
That remains to be seen, but that is the reason why I'm considering getting one. Otherwise I wouldn't bother getting one at all. But depending upon how the technology ends up working, I might very well get one. I haven't bothered to buy a dedicated handheld console since my GBA. Depending upon how good the 3D is and how well utilized it is in games, that would make it seriously worthwhile to buy.
Even if that wasn't what was causing it, precisely what does having a 100% Acid3 score really mean? It's not something that has any meaningful real world application and was deliberately designed in a way which wasn't standards compliant.
This is the last major release before they start doing minor ones more regularly spaced. I think a part of the problem is that they bit off more than they could chew. But, the product is quite good, I've had very little trouble with it, and it's definitely a step in the right direction.
It would be completely different if the 3.x versions weren't usable or incompetently built. It would be a totally different situation if they were having people use a bunch of crap like IE6 until the completion of 4.0.
What I'd personally like to see is essentially meta addons. A way of adding a list of addons when you reinstall. I think people who want everything wouldn't be quite as annoyed if it wasn't so time consuming to go looking for all the addons necessary to replace their previous functionality. Or the addons they had before they reinstalled.
I'm puzzled by these comments. There is no memory leak of that size in Firefox, are you sure it isn't a runaway plug in or extension? Firefox pretty consistently beats out the competition in terms of memory utilization.
As far as speed goes, it hasn't been this fast since at least the 1.x series, and probably earlier than that. I'm not sure what full featured browsers you've found that are faster, but I'm skeptical. Most of them are larding up because they don't encompass the whole browser experience.
As for the quality of the 2.0 release, this is how I know you're trolling. The 2.x series was crap, serious memory leaks and all sorts of problems. They've come a long way in the right direction since then.
That's not to say that Firefox is perfect, but let's at least keep the comparisons fair.
That would be the ISPs responsibility, unless you've got a super fast connection. I was streaming Eureka for a while to my HDTV and it was quite sharp, definitely in the same league as what's coming over the airwaves, well 720p that's coming over the airwaves. It doesn't match Bluray, but it does handily beat DVD quality by miles.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is another way of saying that they tack the cost of the OS onto the bill that people in other countries pay when they buy a license.
I get the logic there, but it strikes me as being a bit insulting to those of us that live in countries where licenses are usually paid for. Or at least frequently enough to make commercial software viable.
Personally, I always like Duke Nukem if ever.
Actually, it's more like 3 months away. We're nearing the end of January and it's scheduled to be released the beginning of May.
No, they weren't. In the commentary it was made quite clear that the writers were not happy with the greyness of the space craft in series 1. I can't recall which of the writers it was that was stating that, but I think it was.
It wasn't until a bit later with a better person in charge of the sets that the effects in that respect got a lot better. The actual cost didn't really increase that much over the course of the series, it's just that there was more creativity in later series.
Just hire the TSA to do security. Sure most people won't go in, but you'll be damned sure that they aren't smuggling in a recording device in their colon.
Personally, I watched it the first or second time it was shown in the US, and I'll watch pretty much whatever crap they choose to cram in there. I didn't particularly care for seasons 8 and 9 or the most recent venture, but I watched anyways. It's just something that I'm way too attached to to give up, and even those episodes weren't bad, they just didn't really keep with the rest of the feel of the show.
I'm not. That show basically came to KCTS 9 in Seattle first where there was a fair amount of British comedy being shown. I remember when I was a kid seeing Benny Hill and Monty Python. At that point in time, Seattle was starting to heat up as a cultural center in the US, within a year or two grunge really kicked off and that's that.
I remember watching it in either '89 or '90 and thinking that the whole thing was brilliant. At that point that was either the first or second year that they were airing episodes. I'm guessing that the pledges during that drive really came in because it resulted in one of the station representatives placing a call over to the producer asking for more. (Reading between the lines a bit there, not sure what station that call was placed by, but that seems most likely)
Only when necessary. Early on this would've been well appreciated, but at this point, they don't need it. I think the bigger concern is people posting spoilers. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the fact that the local PBS station brought Red Dwarf to Seattle was more or less what it took to convince the BBC to continue after series 2.
But, that was a different era, they were being ignored by the media pretty much locally and the sense that anybody would compare it at all with Monty Python really wasn't there at the time.
That's way too much. Unless you're needing support for Linux or some other OS, Backblaze is $50 a year with unlimited space. Plus if you absolutely need a large amount of data to you in a day or two they'll overnight a hard drive with the files you need.
Personally, I would not be comfortable with my files sitting on a webserver in that fashion. I'd just be too worried about some asshole breaking into the server and deleting them or finding personal information for other uses.
I use them, a couple gotchas, you have to keep the external drive plugged in or make a habit of regularly plugging it in to make a backup because the data gets erased from their servers if they don't see it for a while.
And you have to be careful to monitor for bitrot or fat fingered errors, to be fair that's not something they can be expected to know how to deal with unless you intervene yourself.
Additionally, make sure that the safe is also waterproof or store it in a place that's less likely to get flooded. It does you very little good to have a good fireproof safe, only to later learn that it wasn't waterproof after the firefighters leave.
I definitely wouldn't recommend that. I'd get a specialty utility like Flash Pipe or Downloader Pro. I'm sure there's freeware and open source programs out there, those are just ones that I have used and like. But since the OP is almost certainly talking about a large number of photos, I wouldn't recommend just copying.
After they're onto the hard drive, you'd want to use something like imatch there are other good ones out there both free and commercial, but I've used this one and found it to be quite good. If you're generating enough images for the OP's question, then it's time to get a management program.
After that I personally like to burn a copy to DVD or some sort of WORM media just in case I get fat fingered. And the copy on my hard disk gets backed up to backblaze for my offsite requirement.
It's a tremendous pain, but if you're dealing with a large enough number of photos to ask this sort of question, it really is important to do those steps or something equivalent.
It's Stockholm syndrome. They're so used to the unreliable renderings that they're needing to create something which keeps that aspect of cruising the web.
It's a typical problem, the browsers battle it out first, then applications and sites tend to pop up. Which makes it a bit awkward at times.
From what I can tell, they're opting to keep the aspect of HTML which is more or less the most broken under the justification that they've always done it that way, regardless of the fact that HTML5 was mostly supposed to be changing that. A new set of standards that both modernized and theoretically was implemented by all the browsers.
It's more or less inevitable that what's going to end up happening is a rehash of the Netscape versus IE battle of the 90s and a return to fragmentation. It might not be intentional, but if the standards keep changing it's going to be a real challenge actually cruising the web.
That was my thought, it's tough enough to get browsers in compliance with a specific revision of HTML, now they're wanting to do away with numbering them?
I have to assume that this is an early April Fool's joke or the person suggesting it is full of it. But then again he works for Google and is probably just the sort of arrogant git that doesn't understand the implications of it for people that aren't constantly upgrading their browsers.
Precisely how is this different than when the government leases out spectrum, land or the public right of way? Those are all things which are rivalrous in nature and without the government or some other body stepping in you end up with the tragedy of the commons situation.
I realize that it's popular amongst libertarians to cry bloody murder whenever the government does something, but give me a break. Unless you can propose a way of your carbon emissions not affecting everybody else, you kind of have to just accept that the climate research is very clear that CO2 is a problem in the concentrations we're pumping into it.
Citation badly needed.
1) The point of it is to change behavior, had the market not been flooded with credits there would have been behavior change, just on a net basis not for every company.
3) You're full of it if you're suggesting that there isn't any economic justification for it. The justification for it is that the companies that can hit lower targets the most efficiently get a little something for their trouble, encouraging research and for companies to hit more stringent targets. The alternative is setting tough limits on everybody whether or not it's realistic.
I agree, does that mean that you concede that you haven't the foggiest what you're talking about? The way it works is that the total amount of emissions produced is the important thing. Whether Company A and Company B each cut half of that isn't any different than if Company A cuts 90% and Company B cuts the remainder. In both cases the target was met.
Now, there are issues with the way it's being handled at present, but if you're saying that there's something fundamentally wrong in letting companies buy indulgences in exchange for somebody else making the cuts, you're full of it.
Under that scheme they would be meeting it or paying the consequences. Additionally companies that more than meet the target get a little something for the pocket, fueling investigation into how to more efficiently hit the targets.
That remains to be seen, but that is the reason why I'm considering getting one. Otherwise I wouldn't bother getting one at all. But depending upon how the technology ends up working, I might very well get one. I haven't bothered to buy a dedicated handheld console since my GBA. Depending upon how good the 3D is and how well utilized it is in games, that would make it seriously worthwhile to buy.
Even if that wasn't what was causing it, precisely what does having a 100% Acid3 score really mean? It's not something that has any meaningful real world application and was deliberately designed in a way which wasn't standards compliant.
This is the last major release before they start doing minor ones more regularly spaced. I think a part of the problem is that they bit off more than they could chew. But, the product is quite good, I've had very little trouble with it, and it's definitely a step in the right direction.
It would be completely different if the 3.x versions weren't usable or incompetently built. It would be a totally different situation if they were having people use a bunch of crap like IE6 until the completion of 4.0.
What I'd personally like to see is essentially meta addons. A way of adding a list of addons when you reinstall. I think people who want everything wouldn't be quite as annoyed if it wasn't so time consuming to go looking for all the addons necessary to replace their previous functionality. Or the addons they had before they reinstalled.
I'm puzzled by these comments. There is no memory leak of that size in Firefox, are you sure it isn't a runaway plug in or extension? Firefox pretty consistently beats out the competition in terms of memory utilization.
As far as speed goes, it hasn't been this fast since at least the 1.x series, and probably earlier than that. I'm not sure what full featured browsers you've found that are faster, but I'm skeptical. Most of them are larding up because they don't encompass the whole browser experience.
As for the quality of the 2.0 release, this is how I know you're trolling. The 2.x series was crap, serious memory leaks and all sorts of problems. They've come a long way in the right direction since then.
That's not to say that Firefox is perfect, but let's at least keep the comparisons fair.
Sort of, some were ex-Nazis, but point taken. That was the whole point of operation paperclip.
That would be the ISPs responsibility, unless you've got a super fast connection. I was streaming Eureka for a while to my HDTV and it was quite sharp, definitely in the same league as what's coming over the airwaves, well 720p that's coming over the airwaves. It doesn't match Bluray, but it does handily beat DVD quality by miles.