Those that don't want to be screwed over when the site shuts down or they operator decides that you're no longer authorized to listen do. Besides, just because you can download it again, doesn't mean that you want to wait that long.
Because an automatic system is less likely to fail. And if it does fail you're more likely to have a disk to examine. Ultimately, you are correct, if you haven't tested the back up you haven't backed anything up.
But, human intervention tends to be the weak point in backup strategies.
Citation needed. Being too lazy to make use of an education is not the same thing as having a low IQ. President Bush supposedly was a near genius, despite not being able to form a comprehensible sentence and making some of the most unimaginable fuck ups in the history of the US Presidency.
The Library of Congress decides what is an is not allowed circumvention under the DMCA every several years. And if they're finding that the works are disappearing due to DRM the likelihood of backups being legally recognized by the Library of Congress increases drastically.
Which is ultimately good news. It's not going to help with Blu-Rays in the short term, but it would make it legal for companies to sell backup software as they'd no longer have to violate the DMCA to do it. And considering that the software needed to intercept the signal going to the video card is going to be protected under the 1st amendment protections, it looks a lot better.
They weren't forced to do it in the way that you suggest. They had to include it in order to sell the songs, yes, but they weren't really advocating particularly strongly for the removal of DRM. It wasn't until they'd locked up their monopoly position over the market that they started to push for the removal of DRM.
Microsoft made the promise that anybody licensing Windows 7 for their product would be indemnified, presumably that means against parties other than MS. And also it includes the right to use any MS patents that are included in the release.
I'm not aware of MS promising not to sue other phone makers using other firmware.
You mean by sanitizing the war, downplaying the portions that aren't popular and preventing people from taking actions in a game which have precisely zero to do with reality?
In what fashion would it have been any more irresponsible than releasing the game in the first place?
Are you seriously suggesting that Americans don't lynch gay men? I mean seriously? It's not common place, but there's a disturbingly large number of Americans that think that's OK.
Sure that's comparing those that are OK with it with those that do it, but trying to play the moral superiority card over that issue is just asinine. Considering that it's only recently become a hate crime to lynch gays.
It's a bullshit argument to begin with. PTSD is nasty because it's not the expected triggers that cause trouble, it's the non-obvious ones that do. And in cases like this it's largely pointless. Pretty much the entire game is one big trigger.
Bullshit controversies like this just do more to make things tough for returning veterans as it carries the wrong message about the hardships coming back. It's not a two bit computer game that results in the suicides, it's everything, the lack of connection, the feelings about what one was involved in, both good and bad, and the difficulty of reintegrating.
One video game is hardly going to be a make it or break it case for many vets. Perhaps if the people claiming to care about veterans affairs would actually put their energy into something useful, all that might change.
We'll see about that. If Amazon provides a market place where more copies are sold or it's easier for people to find the particular app, the developers may go for it anyways.
Ultimately, Google needs to offer up a proper way of search their appstore via a computer and select apps to install that way. They've done a fair job with the handheld, but it's just not that easy to make a screen that small and still have enough room for a proper store.
Hard, no, bitterly opposed by lobbyists, yes. The problem is that as soon as you require them to embed something to allow the TV to know what's a commercial, you enable the viewer to use a devices to completely skip commercials. Which is why you almost certainly won't ever see it implemented.
It's probably not that hard, you could probably just put in a seeming blank frame for a fraction of a second which identified the beginning of the break, but perhaps had some form of code for the player.
Cost is a part of the problem, but the bigger problem is that tv shows, movies and such use a range of sounds from quiet to very loud in order to keep the viewers' attention and to tell a story. Technology like smartsound is really, really bad for that reason. It reduces the efficacy of the story and tends to turn what would be a very interesting program from the auditory standpoint into something completely blah. It's also fatiguing to the viewer to have everything be relatively similar in volume for long stretches.
Resorting to that sort of thing because advertisers are being obnoxious is really not right.
You can blame the Republicans and blue dogs for that. They want to cut taxes, but are unwilling to cut any of the services which their constituents want. Sure people like tax cuts and don't mind somebody elses services getting cut, but the fact is that as long as they refuse to contribute to a solution we're not going to have one.
If you pay really close attention to campaign ads for conservatives they rarely if ever mention what precisely it is that they intend to cut in order to reduce the deficit nor do they typically point out that unless you cut spending by more than you cut taxes you end up with either no change in debt levels or an increased debt load.
Democrats and liberals aren't exactly saints, but at least they understand that it's tax and spend, not charge and spend. It's easy to be the party of thrift when you can make the other party actually find the money.
I take it you never used Win XP on a laptop. Those alarm noises have to be causing hearing loss. I ended up disabling those sounds because they didn't seem to respect the volume setting.
The compression is the main source of the problem. You only have a certain amount of wiggle room between the quietest discernible noise and the loudest possible ban, and when you hit the try to exceed it, you either get nothing or at the high end you get clipping. In music you most often notice that in the percussion.
But as long as the sound engineering is good as in relatively uniform loudness, you're not going to have too much trouble. As you still have to broadcast on the same medium as what you're trying to match.
Definitely not going to work very well if you're not constantly tweaking it on the consumer side of things. These things are best done at the studio side. Otherwise you may as well just use the mute button.
Indeed, kind of interesting how the don't call list was engineered to mysteriously not apply to them, same goes for the ban on robocalls. Oddly enough, politicians were among the worst offenders during election season.
I think that the bigger problem is how to get the commercials adjusted to match the programming. I suspect that it's a lot easier to do now than it was during the 80s. Worst case you just set the volume to something sane and deal with the consequences.
While we're at it, could somebody tell MS that the error sound is way too loud and way too frequent. I can only imagine the amount of hearing damage they've caused with that. Hopefully they've turned down the volume in more recent releases from what it was in XP.
Precisely, the way that many organizations promote people you wind up with incompetent butt kissers and psychopaths being promoted. Whereas if you promote people at random, you get those individuals roughly proportional to their representation at the bottom. The individuals who can't cut it would then tend to drop out leaving you with better managers.
OTOH that's terribly depressing, if a validation of the general observation about management practices.
This really isn't the same thing. Not by a long shot, the xmarks people didn't pepper their press release with hints that they'd be back. And a bit of common sense would tell you that GoG wasn't completely gone, that they'd've told people to download their stuff if they were really shutting down, although cutting off purchases ahead of that is always possible.
Services like this depend upon the users to trust that it's going to be there, it's not like GoG where they encouraged people to keep backups, you can't really back up a service and still have something that functions.
Personally, I won't be one of them, this feels way too much like a shakedown. Sure they've got bills that presumably need to be paid, but this move really lacks class or planning. Not sure which, but I'm not sure that I want to get dependent upon a service that's run like that.
I probably would've paid, but not after the way it was handled. It just doesn't feel right. They aren't the first ones to do this, but to their credit they are offering an alternative.
I remember when iwantsandy shut down and initially there wasn't even going to be a way of exporting ones information. Paying wasn't an option, and at no time did they even bother to ask the people that had come to rely upon it for help paying the bills, or even let on that it was becoming a problem.
Free services are vulnerable to this sort of thing, but there's really no reason to behave in such a classless way. If you're legitimately not able to keep things running free of charge, at least tell the people that use the service. At least that way you can do it without it feeling like a shakedown.
Indictment means that they went before a grand jury rather than the prosecutor filing papers directly with the court. I'm not sure that in practice that there's really that much difference as a good attorney can indict pretty much anybody. If they fail to get their indictment you can be pretty sure that the person is completely innocent.
Part of the problem is that people started storing huge amounts of crap in the URL for a dynamically created page. URLs weren't really ever intended for that sort of misuse, at least not in olden times. Result you get these ridiculously long URLs which are tough to deal with and easy to goatse people with.
Slashdot Mirror
Those that don't want to be screwed over when the site shuts down or they operator decides that you're no longer authorized to listen do. Besides, just because you can download it again, doesn't mean that you want to wait that long.
Because an automatic system is less likely to fail. And if it does fail you're more likely to have a disk to examine. Ultimately, you are correct, if you haven't tested the back up you haven't backed anything up.
But, human intervention tends to be the weak point in backup strategies.
Citation needed. Being too lazy to make use of an education is not the same thing as having a low IQ. President Bush supposedly was a near genius, despite not being able to form a comprehensible sentence and making some of the most unimaginable fuck ups in the history of the US Presidency.
The Library of Congress decides what is an is not allowed circumvention under the DMCA every several years. And if they're finding that the works are disappearing due to DRM the likelihood of backups being legally recognized by the Library of Congress increases drastically.
Which is ultimately good news. It's not going to help with Blu-Rays in the short term, but it would make it legal for companies to sell backup software as they'd no longer have to violate the DMCA to do it. And considering that the software needed to intercept the signal going to the video card is going to be protected under the 1st amendment protections, it looks a lot better.
They weren't forced to do it in the way that you suggest. They had to include it in order to sell the songs, yes, but they weren't really advocating particularly strongly for the removal of DRM. It wasn't until they'd locked up their monopoly position over the market that they started to push for the removal of DRM.
Microsoft made the promise that anybody licensing Windows 7 for their product would be indemnified, presumably that means against parties other than MS. And also it includes the right to use any MS patents that are included in the release.
I'm not aware of MS promising not to sue other phone makers using other firmware.
You mean by sanitizing the war, downplaying the portions that aren't popular and preventing people from taking actions in a game which have precisely zero to do with reality?
In what fashion would it have been any more irresponsible than releasing the game in the first place?
Are you seriously suggesting that Americans don't lynch gay men? I mean seriously? It's not common place, but there's a disturbingly large number of Americans that think that's OK.
Sure that's comparing those that are OK with it with those that do it, but trying to play the moral superiority card over that issue is just asinine. Considering that it's only recently become a hate crime to lynch gays.
It's a bullshit argument to begin with. PTSD is nasty because it's not the expected triggers that cause trouble, it's the non-obvious ones that do. And in cases like this it's largely pointless. Pretty much the entire game is one big trigger.
Bullshit controversies like this just do more to make things tough for returning veterans as it carries the wrong message about the hardships coming back. It's not a two bit computer game that results in the suicides, it's everything, the lack of connection, the feelings about what one was involved in, both good and bad, and the difficulty of reintegrating.
One video game is hardly going to be a make it or break it case for many vets. Perhaps if the people claiming to care about veterans affairs would actually put their energy into something useful, all that might change.
We'll see about that. If Amazon provides a market place where more copies are sold or it's easier for people to find the particular app, the developers may go for it anyways.
Ultimately, Google needs to offer up a proper way of search their appstore via a computer and select apps to install that way. They've done a fair job with the handheld, but it's just not that easy to make a screen that small and still have enough room for a proper store.
Hard, no, bitterly opposed by lobbyists, yes. The problem is that as soon as you require them to embed something to allow the TV to know what's a commercial, you enable the viewer to use a devices to completely skip commercials. Which is why you almost certainly won't ever see it implemented.
It's probably not that hard, you could probably just put in a seeming blank frame for a fraction of a second which identified the beginning of the break, but perhaps had some form of code for the player.
Cost is a part of the problem, but the bigger problem is that tv shows, movies and such use a range of sounds from quiet to very loud in order to keep the viewers' attention and to tell a story. Technology like smartsound is really, really bad for that reason. It reduces the efficacy of the story and tends to turn what would be a very interesting program from the auditory standpoint into something completely blah. It's also fatiguing to the viewer to have everything be relatively similar in volume for long stretches.
Resorting to that sort of thing because advertisers are being obnoxious is really not right.
You can blame the Republicans and blue dogs for that. They want to cut taxes, but are unwilling to cut any of the services which their constituents want. Sure people like tax cuts and don't mind somebody elses services getting cut, but the fact is that as long as they refuse to contribute to a solution we're not going to have one.
If you pay really close attention to campaign ads for conservatives they rarely if ever mention what precisely it is that they intend to cut in order to reduce the deficit nor do they typically point out that unless you cut spending by more than you cut taxes you end up with either no change in debt levels or an increased debt load.
Democrats and liberals aren't exactly saints, but at least they understand that it's tax and spend, not charge and spend. It's easy to be the party of thrift when you can make the other party actually find the money.
I take it you never used Win XP on a laptop. Those alarm noises have to be causing hearing loss. I ended up disabling those sounds because they didn't seem to respect the volume setting.
The compression is the main source of the problem. You only have a certain amount of wiggle room between the quietest discernible noise and the loudest possible ban, and when you hit the try to exceed it, you either get nothing or at the high end you get clipping. In music you most often notice that in the percussion.
But as long as the sound engineering is good as in relatively uniform loudness, you're not going to have too much trouble. As you still have to broadcast on the same medium as what you're trying to match.
Definitely not going to work very well if you're not constantly tweaking it on the consumer side of things. These things are best done at the studio side. Otherwise you may as well just use the mute button.
Indeed, kind of interesting how the don't call list was engineered to mysteriously not apply to them, same goes for the ban on robocalls. Oddly enough, politicians were among the worst offenders during election season.
I think that the bigger problem is how to get the commercials adjusted to match the programming. I suspect that it's a lot easier to do now than it was during the 80s. Worst case you just set the volume to something sane and deal with the consequences.
While we're at it, could somebody tell MS that the error sound is way too loud and way too frequent. I can only imagine the amount of hearing damage they've caused with that. Hopefully they've turned down the volume in more recent releases from what it was in XP.
Precisely, the way that many organizations promote people you wind up with incompetent butt kissers and psychopaths being promoted. Whereas if you promote people at random, you get those individuals roughly proportional to their representation at the bottom. The individuals who can't cut it would then tend to drop out leaving you with better managers.
OTOH that's terribly depressing, if a validation of the general observation about management practices.
This really isn't the same thing. Not by a long shot, the xmarks people didn't pepper their press release with hints that they'd be back. And a bit of common sense would tell you that GoG wasn't completely gone, that they'd've told people to download their stuff if they were really shutting down, although cutting off purchases ahead of that is always possible.
Services like this depend upon the users to trust that it's going to be there, it's not like GoG where they encouraged people to keep backups, you can't really back up a service and still have something that functions.
Personally, I won't be one of them, this feels way too much like a shakedown. Sure they've got bills that presumably need to be paid, but this move really lacks class or planning. Not sure which, but I'm not sure that I want to get dependent upon a service that's run like that.
I probably would've paid, but not after the way it was handled. It just doesn't feel right. They aren't the first ones to do this, but to their credit they are offering an alternative.
I remember when iwantsandy shut down and initially there wasn't even going to be a way of exporting ones information. Paying wasn't an option, and at no time did they even bother to ask the people that had come to rely upon it for help paying the bills, or even let on that it was becoming a problem.
Free services are vulnerable to this sort of thing, but there's really no reason to behave in such a classless way. If you're legitimately not able to keep things running free of charge, at least tell the people that use the service. At least that way you can do it without it feeling like a shakedown.
Indictment means that they went before a grand jury rather than the prosecutor filing papers directly with the court. I'm not sure that in practice that there's really that much difference as a good attorney can indict pretty much anybody. If they fail to get their indictment you can be pretty sure that the person is completely innocent.
Part of the problem is that people started storing huge amounts of crap in the URL for a dynamically created page. URLs weren't really ever intended for that sort of misuse, at least not in olden times. Result you get these ridiculously long URLs which are tough to deal with and easy to goatse people with.
Twitter, isn't that what twits twatter on about?