That's silly, if you're going to go to that trouble, you may as well go back to 1967 and stop the films from being destroyed. Or better yet, take them out of the bin and bring them back to the 21st century.
Actually, the US alone accounts for roughly half of all native English speakers in the world. And given that the rest of you guys can't settle on a particular dialect, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that our version isn't the dominant dialect.
But, I'm sure counting lower class Indians as English speakers despite the fact that they aren't being taught it is equally valid.
Actually, when Qwest isn't bogged down, it plays really well. Unfortunately, Qwest doesn't seem to know anything about being an ISP as I live within about 5 miles of a major node and I'm still stuck at 5mpbs with the best plan. Meanwhile folks in parts of the country with actual competition are getting 40mbps for just a little more than I'm paying.
But, when the stars align and the net allows it, the performance is more or less identical to PC gaming.
But, you're better off paying for a subscription or renting than buying through them. For the cost, it's better than gamefly. At least for those of us in the NW where gamefly doesn't seem to care about serving. 4+ days each way for games is completely unacceptable.
No, but it can be quite close, plus with the pricing options that they've introduced it could be cheaper than a console. I don't personally think that it's going to be good enough for top tier FPS play, but for most people it will be good enough.
Right now the main thing holding it back is the corruption and incompetence that seems to breed in the telecom industry.
Yes, but that's the easy part. How are you proposing that these servers talk to each other? Because if it's over the currently existing net, you have a problem there. And if it isn't, you've got a problem there. A network doesn't really exist if the nodes can't talk to each other, and a small network encompassing a block, isn't particularly interesting without the ability to talk across the state at least. Otherwise what you've done is invent the BBS.
It's not so much an issue of occasionally doing it, the issue is that if people are buying individual tracks that they're likely to not ever hear the entire piece as intended. Plus, for some artists taking a single track sounds funny, I know some Eagles tracks start with a portion of the previous track blended into the start of the next track.
Not really. The point is that you hear one of their tracks a couple times a day, tops, and that's probably less so now. People like it and decide they want to buy it. Now, if they buy it as a single, they don't get any exposure to the rest of the disc, but if they have to buy an album, then they get the rest of it and a chance to appreciate the album experience.
Yes, some people won't want it badly enough to buy the whole disc, but there's an incentive to put together a great album experience. As opposed to releasing a single plus 8 or 9 tracks that people may or may not buy.
For albums that were recorded prior to the ITMS you have that option. However going forward it's less rosy, as there's just less thought put into it when people can just buy the singles without the rest of the album, or even a B side for that matter.
After all what's the point of putting together 10 tracks that fit together in a particular way, if people are likely only going to buy at most 3 of them?
Indeed. Personally, I'm a sucker for concept albums, and even for more typical albums, there used to be a lot of thought that went into the rest of the album. These days, I often fail to see the point of a lot of these artists even releasing an album, seeing as there's only a single's worth of quality tracks on there.
Don't be stupid. AMD did overtake Intel on a couple occasions and the response most recently was to bribe companies not to integrate AMD chips into their computers.
So, in other words doctors should never be allowed to go to the movies or a nice dinner because they could get called. Not all doctors have the luxury of going off call, particular doctors that work by themselves. They might be needed for an emergency in the middle of the night. There are times when a particular doctor genuinely is the person that needs to be contacted, and while they can arrange for a sub for short term vacations, they probably still need to be available via phone if possible.
Part of the problem is that tricks that you have available on a desktop interface to do a check of the actual URL aren't available on mobile devices. I know that the only way I can know what a link is for is by cutting and pasting it, whereas with my desktop I can hover over it. Worse due to the size constraints on my screen, I can't count on seeing the entire URL.
I'm using a Nexus One, but I suspect that to be a fairly common problem on mobile platforms.
And, will you be still saying that when a doctor or other emergency worker doesn't get a page because you didn't want to be disturbed? There isn't a legitimate reason for jamming things and it's definitely not an appropriate solution to assholes forgetting to set their phone on vibrate.
Hey, Google - here's a free idea for you... do domain lookups on all your listings, and adjust PageRank based on who registers the domains. That should work for a few months before they start taking care to register each new domain with unique contact information.
I've wondered about that myself, it seems like most of the link farms and such are created by the same people. Or at least the design is identical to the rest. I assume I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to eliminate those sites given the static nature of them.
I've personally had more trouble figuring out how to get Google to eliminate search results for "free downloads" where most people want free software rather than a trial version. And most people that want free as in open source just type that into the box.
Precisely, right now Google does worse than duckduckgo and about the same as Bing. Admittedly that's not scientific, but just my opinion based upon personal experience. I could be wrong about it, but Google isn't particularly effective unless you know exactly what you want which tends to negate the point of using a search engine in the first place.
OTOH, were Google to implement some way of handling software version numbers intelligently, it would make it a much more useful service.
Despite the fact that they aren't the best? Seriously, apart from the speed and regular scans they aren't any better than the competition. And even that probably wouldn't be the case if the DoJ were on the job.
FWIW duckduckgo does a better job from my experience than Google does.
That's already known. The profit margin for computers in that range is practically non-existent. Which is why you'll find those low end Dells without the on board temperature monitor or really anything optional. And why if you want to adjust the configuration even with cheaper components it ends up costing double the price.
I'd be surprised if that didn't apply to most other mass producers of computers as well.
The only way I can think of to screw it up is to either try and force the chip in the wrong orientation or fail to take the appropriate precautions against static. Computers have been increasingly color coded since round about the PC97 standard.
At this point, if it looks like it fits, it's a pretty good bet that it is intended to go in that slot.
Aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? Those 3-5 year old computer have 1GB or 2GB RAM already and they are being sufficient. I have a laptop, bought in January 2007, so it's 4 years old. I came with 1GB RAM, it now has 2GB RAM because it was a cheap upgrade. It was a laptop on sale because it couldn't reach Vistas requirements, so back then 1GB wasn't all that hot either. So, unless you meant those "demanding users", for a normal user 1GB is enough, 2GB better.. Beyond that not so much.
Which requirements? I was running the Vista RC with a computer from 2004, with only a half gig of RAM and it worked fine. Of course a lot of it didn't work, but mostly because MS was stupid enough to require Aero for things. Other than that, it actually ran faster than XP did for most things.
There'd almost certainly be a cap on liability combined with the need to prove the damages. Which if set reasonably would ensure that the awards could sting, but not necessarily drive companies out of business needlessly.
Furthermore, it is effectively impossible in practice to create an operating system or similarly complex program without introducing some sort of bug; creating liability for software authors to third parties would make fundamental software an impossible area to work in. This would obviously not be in the best interests of anyone.
That's what caps on liability are for. It allows the court to hand over a sizable award for damages without putting the company out of business. A cap of even $10k would be more than enough to get MS to pay more attention. Especially if you combine that with a requirement that the plaintiff prove damages such as we have in WA state.
No it wouldn't. At best it's a murky area of law, but without the appropriate key he'd have no way to prove that he wasn't a pirate, and the DMCA doesn't provide clear guidance about a situation like this, most likely he'd be found to be in violation of the anti-circumvention provision.
Morally, it might be alright, but legally, it's hardly cut and dry.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you weren't a fan of the colorized version of Casablanca?
That's silly, if you're going to go to that trouble, you may as well go back to 1967 and stop the films from being destroyed. Or better yet, take them out of the bin and bring them back to the 21st century.
Actually, the US alone accounts for roughly half of all native English speakers in the world. And given that the rest of you guys can't settle on a particular dialect, I think it's a bit arrogant to suggest that our version isn't the dominant dialect.
But, I'm sure counting lower class Indians as English speakers despite the fact that they aren't being taught it is equally valid.
Actually, when Qwest isn't bogged down, it plays really well. Unfortunately, Qwest doesn't seem to know anything about being an ISP as I live within about 5 miles of a major node and I'm still stuck at 5mpbs with the best plan. Meanwhile folks in parts of the country with actual competition are getting 40mbps for just a little more than I'm paying.
But, when the stars align and the net allows it, the performance is more or less identical to PC gaming.
But, you're better off paying for a subscription or renting than buying through them. For the cost, it's better than gamefly. At least for those of us in the NW where gamefly doesn't seem to care about serving. 4+ days each way for games is completely unacceptable.
No, but it can be quite close, plus with the pricing options that they've introduced it could be cheaper than a console. I don't personally think that it's going to be good enough for top tier FPS play, but for most people it will be good enough.
Right now the main thing holding it back is the corruption and incompetence that seems to breed in the telecom industry.
Yes, but that's the easy part. How are you proposing that these servers talk to each other? Because if it's over the currently existing net, you have a problem there. And if it isn't, you've got a problem there. A network doesn't really exist if the nodes can't talk to each other, and a small network encompassing a block, isn't particularly interesting without the ability to talk across the state at least. Otherwise what you've done is invent the BBS.
It's not so much an issue of occasionally doing it, the issue is that if people are buying individual tracks that they're likely to not ever hear the entire piece as intended. Plus, for some artists taking a single track sounds funny, I know some Eagles tracks start with a portion of the previous track blended into the start of the next track.
Not really. The point is that you hear one of their tracks a couple times a day, tops, and that's probably less so now. People like it and decide they want to buy it. Now, if they buy it as a single, they don't get any exposure to the rest of the disc, but if they have to buy an album, then they get the rest of it and a chance to appreciate the album experience.
Yes, some people won't want it badly enough to buy the whole disc, but there's an incentive to put together a great album experience. As opposed to releasing a single plus 8 or 9 tracks that people may or may not buy.
For albums that were recorded prior to the ITMS you have that option. However going forward it's less rosy, as there's just less thought put into it when people can just buy the singles without the rest of the album, or even a B side for that matter.
After all what's the point of putting together 10 tracks that fit together in a particular way, if people are likely only going to buy at most 3 of them?
Indeed. Personally, I'm a sucker for concept albums, and even for more typical albums, there used to be a lot of thought that went into the rest of the album. These days, I often fail to see the point of a lot of these artists even releasing an album, seeing as there's only a single's worth of quality tracks on there.
Because it's cheaper than getting your penis permanently enlarged?
Don't be stupid. AMD did overtake Intel on a couple occasions and the response most recently was to bribe companies not to integrate AMD chips into their computers.
So, in other words doctors should never be allowed to go to the movies or a nice dinner because they could get called. Not all doctors have the luxury of going off call, particular doctors that work by themselves. They might be needed for an emergency in the middle of the night. There are times when a particular doctor genuinely is the person that needs to be contacted, and while they can arrange for a sub for short term vacations, they probably still need to be available via phone if possible.
Part of the problem is that tricks that you have available on a desktop interface to do a check of the actual URL aren't available on mobile devices. I know that the only way I can know what a link is for is by cutting and pasting it, whereas with my desktop I can hover over it. Worse due to the size constraints on my screen, I can't count on seeing the entire URL.
I'm using a Nexus One, but I suspect that to be a fairly common problem on mobile platforms.
And, will you be still saying that when a doctor or other emergency worker doesn't get a page because you didn't want to be disturbed? There isn't a legitimate reason for jamming things and it's definitely not an appropriate solution to assholes forgetting to set their phone on vibrate.
Hey, Google - here's a free idea for you... do domain lookups on all your listings, and adjust PageRank based on who registers the domains. That should work for a few months before they start taking care to register each new domain with unique contact information.
I've wondered about that myself, it seems like most of the link farms and such are created by the same people. Or at least the design is identical to the rest. I assume I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to eliminate those sites given the static nature of them.
I've personally had more trouble figuring out how to get Google to eliminate search results for "free downloads" where most people want free software rather than a trial version. And most people that want free as in open source just type that into the box.
Precisely, right now Google does worse than duckduckgo and about the same as Bing. Admittedly that's not scientific, but just my opinion based upon personal experience. I could be wrong about it, but Google isn't particularly effective unless you know exactly what you want which tends to negate the point of using a search engine in the first place.
OTOH, were Google to implement some way of handling software version numbers intelligently, it would make it a much more useful service.
Despite the fact that they aren't the best? Seriously, apart from the speed and regular scans they aren't any better than the competition. And even that probably wouldn't be the case if the DoJ were on the job.
FWIW duckduckgo does a better job from my experience than Google does.
That's already known. The profit margin for computers in that range is practically non-existent. Which is why you'll find those low end Dells without the on board temperature monitor or really anything optional. And why if you want to adjust the configuration even with cheaper components it ends up costing double the price.
I'd be surprised if that didn't apply to most other mass producers of computers as well.
The only way I can think of to screw it up is to either try and force the chip in the wrong orientation or fail to take the appropriate precautions against static. Computers have been increasingly color coded since round about the PC97 standard.
At this point, if it looks like it fits, it's a pretty good bet that it is intended to go in that slot.
Aren't you contradicting yourself a bit? Those 3-5 year old computer have 1GB or 2GB RAM already and they are being sufficient. I have a laptop, bought in January 2007, so it's 4 years old. I came with 1GB RAM, it now has 2GB RAM because it was a cheap upgrade. It was a laptop on sale because it couldn't reach Vistas requirements, so back then 1GB wasn't all that hot either. So, unless you meant those "demanding users", for a normal user 1GB is enough, 2GB better.. Beyond that not so much.
Which requirements? I was running the Vista RC with a computer from 2004, with only a half gig of RAM and it worked fine. Of course a lot of it didn't work, but mostly because MS was stupid enough to require Aero for things. Other than that, it actually ran faster than XP did for most things.
There'd almost certainly be a cap on liability combined with the need to prove the damages. Which if set reasonably would ensure that the awards could sting, but not necessarily drive companies out of business needlessly.
Furthermore, it is effectively impossible in practice to create an operating system or similarly complex program without introducing some sort of bug; creating liability for software authors to third parties would make fundamental software an impossible area to work in. This would obviously not be in the best interests of anyone.
That's what caps on liability are for. It allows the court to hand over a sizable award for damages without putting the company out of business. A cap of even $10k would be more than enough to get MS to pay more attention. Especially if you combine that with a requirement that the plaintiff prove damages such as we have in WA state.
No it wouldn't. At best it's a murky area of law, but without the appropriate key he'd have no way to prove that he wasn't a pirate, and the DMCA doesn't provide clear guidance about a situation like this, most likely he'd be found to be in violation of the anti-circumvention provision.
Morally, it might be alright, but legally, it's hardly cut and dry.