A German engineer, a French airline pilot, and four Russians walk into a bar. The bartender says:...
"... Couldn't you idiots read the sign? It's plain as day! 'Danger, low hanging bar!' Cripes, even the dumb blonde got down low enough to avoid blows to her head."
So... $20,000/100 Days = $200 dollars, day. $200/24 hours = $8.33/hour. Some people really need to do the math before going "OMG THATS A GREAT REWARD" >> Kudos to those running the experiment. Cheap labor is great.
They also get room and board that whole time. Any volunteers that can completely disconnect from their housing payments would basically be pocketing over $6,000 a month they couldn't have done otherwise.
I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work be it music, videos, games, software or whatever. Calling EA an evil overlord for trying to profit from their work and protect it from being stolen is totally goofy. If you don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't have it. I'm sure people are going to trash this statement but if you don't like the DRM they install with it, don't buy it. But stealing a copy of something because you don't like the DRM is theft. Plain and simple.
Upon careful reflection you'll find the answer was within the whole time!
How does making the same buttons act differently based on context make them easier to use? I don't see any logic behind this.
I imagine he's referring to those remotes that have more buttons than Mr. Spock's science station. I just moved and the cable company gave me a new DVR with Remote. Same damn thing, but maaaaaaan, this remote has a lot of buttons for fuctions I'm not using right now. It is easy for me to picture something like a PDA running a nicely designed interface for what I'm doing. If I'm watching a DVD, for example, I don't need the buttons that are all about changing the channels or setting up the DVR. In that context navigation would be much more simple and intuitive.
There's also the matter of setting up the remote. It's not the hardest thing in the world to tell a universal remote what brand the tv or whatever is, but it sure would be nice to just grab it from a pulldown.
I agree with the spirit of your post in that I personally don't think there's a huge NEED to consolidate remotes. At the right price range, though, it sure would be nice. If my appliances used RF (bluetooth or even 802.11), my iPhone could easily control them all and the stuff I'd buy in the future. That's kinda neat and it most certainly would be easier to use than this stupid lump of over-designed plastic I have controlling things right now.
People won't be choosing between iPhone or DSi. They are completely different devices.
Well, in a general sense and spirit, I agree with you. But I would like to point out one small thing: I sometimes get an itch to buy a game for my iPod Touch. If I had the equivalent of the App store on my DS, I'd look at it first. In that sense, even though we're not talking about an event that happens often, it is technically competition. I like my portable devices, and I like the idea of having more games on them. I've been itching to get a Pandora device, for example, just so I could explore that whole world of emulation and so forth.
In spirit, I do agree with you, it's just the technical meaning that causes a lil mischief.
Like the huge 17" Macbook Pro or the even less portable Toshiba Qosmios and the like.
Funny you should mention how huge the Macbook Pro is. I just ran across my old 15" Dell Inspirion from 2003, this 'bigger' laptop is considerably smaller. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but the Macbook's 'thin-ness' is quite nice.
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place.... Are the children of copyright owners incapable of working like everyone else has to?
The dude's work is still generating revenue. Why should the publisher get all of it when the original authoer's effort made its value last that long?
There's a reason it's not treated like everything else, it's NOT like everything else.
...you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford...
This would be more apt if putting a Super Big Gulp in the cup-holder sometimes caused an entire truck to be replaced. Then again, maybe that's something that only Treo owners would understand.
... and do they boot it faster than Vista on current PCs?
Speaking as a former Atari 800XL owner, no. In fact, it got to a point where you could memorize the exact pattern of beepbeeeepbeenbeepbeeeeenbeepbeepbebp..*drive rev.. drive rev*...*beep beeeeep been beeeeen beep...*... and have your own little internal count-down. And, on top of that, it booted into the app you were using. Wanna start another app? Turn off machine, insert new disk, turn it on and hold down the Option key.
In short: your quip was incredibly cheap and utterly unfunny to anybody who actually knows anything about the topic.
How is it more convenient to watch video on a computer screen, than in a living room designed specifically around a television set with a large screen?
I can list a few ways:
- On my computer screen, I not only have on-demand, but I also have my library ready to go. - I prefer to watch with headphones on. Computers make this simple, TVs (for reasons I cannot fathom) do not. - I live with my girlfriend, sometimes she's watching the large screen and I don't want to bore her with my scifi. - Not all shows are that attention worthy, so having it on the screen while I'm doing stuff is fine. - I sometimes watch at the office. - My TV is technically bigger but I sit closer to my 24" computer screen. In some ways I'm getting a superior display. - My same library is available on my laptop, and sometimes that's convenient when certain rooms in the place are occupado. - The interface on the computer is arguably much better. Not only is it easier to navigate a library of shows but I often go "HUH? Who was that??" and fly on over to IMDB without missing a beat of the show. Sometimes I can even go find the backstory I'm obviously missing.
Don't get me wrong, I like watching from my couch and all, but really I see this whole restricted-to-the-couch mentality going the way of the dining table. There are times where it makes sense, but more and more we're seeing people eating on the couch. It's not like computer displays are tiny and office chairs are designed like church pews. The OP's comment is spot on.
Yeah, next time I go to the US (I don't, because Americans are terrifying and amoral bastards who send foreigners to Syria to be tortured for months or years...
Yep, it was a terrible tragedy when three hundred million foreigners were shipped to Syria for torture.
By and large, Linux, Windows, and other news only gets posted when something happens or there is some information about the actual product or service.
That's a matter of perspective and interest. Jobs's health has a huge effect on Apple. "Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard?" is sensationalist bullshit. Whether or not you click on either depends on what you're interested in. The actual value of it doesn't play at all. It's all about fap-value.
Because it's a "Web Browser" not a 2-site application!
The use of your machine is your own, not Google's or Microsoft's.
Gmail and Google Maps are both web applications that can be viewed with any browser. Why should I download and install a separate browser just for 2 web sites/apps?
Why wouldn't you use the best tool for the job? Well that's up to you. There is no perfect browser, so whatever you want to settle for is fine.
For me, personally, I consider email a very seperate function of web browsing. Since my email, task list, calendar, and Office'y Docs all go through Google, it makes sense for me to have a seperate browser up for it. I used to cram it all into one browser, but then I found inopportune crashes, windows/tabs management, and security risks were not easy to address with a one-browser solution. It's like trying to buy a car that's compact, high fuel efficiency, lotsa cargo space, sporty, inexpensive, easy to maintain, and reliable.
Your setup sounds like the same mess we had/have with having to run IE to access crappy websites.
Not really. It's about what works best, not what works at all. You don't want one browser to rule them all. THAT is how we ended up with that stupid IE mess. There are too many people browsing the web to have a one-size-fits-all browser.
If I'm not forced to run a "second" browser to get something done, I won't voluntarily do it to myself just because a site will run a tiny bit faster or having Google on my desktop would fill me with glee.
Hey, that's fine. Everybody's got their own way of doing things. The thing is, though, you're better off exploring that yourself than trying to have people sell you on it. Maybe it is only just a matter of Google working better with that browser. Or maybe it's a better work-flow for you. Possibly the browser's philosophy is more in tune with how you want to browse the web? How am I supposed to tell you that, I don't even care about trying to penetrate that skull of yours! It's inexpensive for you to download and install it and give it a whirl. That's what lots of other people are doing instead of saying "well it's missing this so I won't even tinker with it."
Google wants to take over the web browser market (or a big bite out of it) and that's fine. But they'll have to do a hell of a lot more than this to get people to switch over.
Seperately I agree with this statement. They're not at the domination phase, though. They've made it useful, that's the all-important first step. They have all the time in the world to keep improving it.
Until they get support for Firefox addons or get a base of addons equal to Firefox's, it won't be going on my computer anymore.;*( I used it for about two weeks after its release, and then switched back to Firefox and never looked back.
I like Chrome as a dedicated GMail browser and Google Maps viewer. I'm not sure why it has to be an all-or-nothing sort of thing.
... I've invented a device that makes you hear my voice while reading this off the screen!
Re:Paying for Internet by the hour?
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 1
It was okay for 2 players. QuakeWorld was released in 1996, however, and made things a lot better. 4-8 player games were quite playable over my modem in '96.
Ahh *fond memories*. I distinctly remember one dude ustea go around and babble about having a voodoo card was 'cheating'. People blamed their lack of success on everything they could think of.
Slashdot Mirror
A German engineer, a French airline pilot, and four Russians walk into a bar. The bartender says: ...
"... Couldn't you idiots read the sign? It's plain as day! 'Danger, low hanging bar!' Cripes, even the dumb blonde got down low enough to avoid blows to her head."
So... $20,000/100 Days = $200 dollars, day. $200/24 hours = $8.33/hour. Some people really need to do the math before going "OMG THATS A GREAT REWARD" >> Kudos to those running the experiment. Cheap labor is great.
They also get room and board that whole time. Any volunteers that can completely disconnect from their housing payments would basically be pocketing over $6,000 a month they couldn't have done otherwise.
Cheap labor is great, to those who can do math.
I've never understood people's belief that they have the right to someone else's work be it music, videos, games, software or whatever. Calling EA an evil overlord for trying to profit from their work and protect it from being stolen is totally goofy. If you don't want to pay for it, you shouldn't have it. I'm sure people are going to trash this statement but if you don't like the DRM they install with it, don't buy it. But stealing a copy of something because you don't like the DRM is theft. Plain and simple.
Upon careful reflection you'll find the answer was within the whole time!
Since nothing on the Web is secure anyway, what's the problem?
To use a car analogy: Anybody can break the window of your car, so why bother locking it?
There's insecure and then there's insecure because of a stupid oversight. The problem is that it's easily fixed and should be.
RIP Battletoad :(
What's this about?
How does making the same buttons act differently based on context make them easier to use? I don't see any logic behind this.
I imagine he's referring to those remotes that have more buttons than Mr. Spock's science station. I just moved and the cable company gave me a new DVR with Remote. Same damn thing, but maaaaaaan, this remote has a lot of buttons for fuctions I'm not using right now. It is easy for me to picture something like a PDA running a nicely designed interface for what I'm doing. If I'm watching a DVD, for example, I don't need the buttons that are all about changing the channels or setting up the DVR. In that context navigation would be much more simple and intuitive.
There's also the matter of setting up the remote. It's not the hardest thing in the world to tell a universal remote what brand the tv or whatever is, but it sure would be nice to just grab it from a pulldown.
I agree with the spirit of your post in that I personally don't think there's a huge NEED to consolidate remotes. At the right price range, though, it sure would be nice. If my appliances used RF (bluetooth or even 802.11), my iPhone could easily control them all and the stuff I'd buy in the future. That's kinda neat and it most certainly would be easier to use than this stupid lump of over-designed plastic I have controlling things right now.
People won't be choosing between iPhone or DSi. They are completely different devices.
Well, in a general sense and spirit, I agree with you. But I would like to point out one small thing: I sometimes get an itch to buy a game for my iPod Touch. If I had the equivalent of the App store on my DS, I'd look at it first. In that sense, even though we're not talking about an event that happens often, it is technically competition. I like my portable devices, and I like the idea of having more games on them. I've been itching to get a Pandora device, for example, just so I could explore that whole world of emulation and so forth.
In spirit, I do agree with you, it's just the technical meaning that causes a lil mischief.
Like the huge 17" Macbook Pro or the even less portable Toshiba Qosmios and the like.
Funny you should mention how huge the Macbook Pro is. I just ran across my old 15" Dell Inspirion from 2003, this 'bigger' laptop is considerably smaller. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but the Macbook's 'thin-ness' is quite nice.
20 vacuum cleaners for 10 seconds?
That sucks.
How many yomamas is that?
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place. ... Are the children of copyright owners incapable of working like everyone else has to?
The dude's work is still generating revenue. Why should the publisher get all of it when the original authoer's effort made its value last that long?
There's a reason it's not treated like everything else, it's NOT like everything else.
...you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford...
This would be more apt if putting a Super Big Gulp in the cup-holder sometimes caused an entire truck to be replaced. Then again, maybe that's something that only Treo owners would understand.
And you get modded informative. Nice!
This is precisely why you don't use Informative to give a funny post karma.
... and do they boot it faster than Vista on current PCs?
Speaking as a former Atari 800XL owner, no. In fact, it got to a point where you could memorize the exact pattern of beepbeeeepbeenbeepbeeeeenbeepbeepbebp..*drive rev.. drive rev*...*beep beeeeep been beeeeen beep...*... and have your own little internal count-down. And, on top of that, it booted into the app you were using. Wanna start another app? Turn off machine, insert new disk, turn it on and hold down the Option key.
In short: your quip was incredibly cheap and utterly unfunny to anybody who actually knows anything about the topic.
How is it more convenient to watch video on a computer screen, than in a living room designed specifically around a television set with a large screen?
I can list a few ways:
- On my computer screen, I not only have on-demand, but I also have my library ready to go.
- I prefer to watch with headphones on. Computers make this simple, TVs (for reasons I cannot fathom) do not.
- I live with my girlfriend, sometimes she's watching the large screen and I don't want to bore her with my scifi.
- Not all shows are that attention worthy, so having it on the screen while I'm doing stuff is fine.
- I sometimes watch at the office.
- My TV is technically bigger but I sit closer to my 24" computer screen. In some ways I'm getting a superior display.
- My same library is available on my laptop, and sometimes that's convenient when certain rooms in the place are occupado.
- The interface on the computer is arguably much better. Not only is it easier to navigate a library of shows but I often go "HUH? Who was that??" and fly on over to IMDB without missing a beat of the show. Sometimes I can even go find the backstory I'm obviously missing.
Don't get me wrong, I like watching from my couch and all, but really I see this whole restricted-to-the-couch mentality going the way of the dining table. There are times where it makes sense, but more and more we're seeing people eating on the couch. It's not like computer displays are tiny and office chairs are designed like church pews. The OP's comment is spot on.
Yeah, next time I go to the US (I don't, because Americans are terrifying and amoral bastards who send foreigners to Syria to be tortured for months or years...
Yep, it was a terrible tragedy when three hundred million foreigners were shipped to Syria for torture.
By and large, Linux, Windows, and other news only gets posted when something happens or there is some information about the actual product or service.
That's a matter of perspective and interest. Jobs's health has a huge effect on Apple. "Are Windows 7 Testers Going Unheard?" is sensationalist bullshit. Whether or not you click on either depends on what you're interested in. The actual value of it doesn't play at all. It's all about fap-value.
Because it's a "Web Browser" not a 2-site application!
The use of your machine is your own, not Google's or Microsoft's.
Gmail and Google Maps are both web applications that can be viewed with any browser. Why should I download and install a separate browser just for 2 web sites/apps?
Why wouldn't you use the best tool for the job? Well that's up to you. There is no perfect browser, so whatever you want to settle for is fine.
For me, personally, I consider email a very seperate function of web browsing. Since my email, task list, calendar, and Office'y Docs all go through Google, it makes sense for me to have a seperate browser up for it. I used to cram it all into one browser, but then I found inopportune crashes, windows/tabs management, and security risks were not easy to address with a one-browser solution. It's like trying to buy a car that's compact, high fuel efficiency, lotsa cargo space, sporty, inexpensive, easy to maintain, and reliable.
Your setup sounds like the same mess we had/have with having to run IE to access crappy websites.
Not really. It's about what works best, not what works at all. You don't want one browser to rule them all. THAT is how we ended up with that stupid IE mess. There are too many people browsing the web to have a one-size-fits-all browser.
If I'm not forced to run a "second" browser to get something done, I won't voluntarily do it to myself just because a site will run a tiny bit faster or having Google on my desktop would fill me with glee.
Hey, that's fine. Everybody's got their own way of doing things. The thing is, though, you're better off exploring that yourself than trying to have people sell you on it. Maybe it is only just a matter of Google working better with that browser. Or maybe it's a better work-flow for you. Possibly the browser's philosophy is more in tune with how you want to browse the web? How am I supposed to tell you that, I don't even care about trying to penetrate that skull of yours! It's inexpensive for you to download and install it and give it a whirl. That's what lots of other people are doing instead of saying "well it's missing this so I won't even tinker with it."
Google wants to take over the web browser market (or a big bite out of it) and that's fine. But they'll have to do a hell of a lot more than this to get people to switch over.
Seperately I agree with this statement. They're not at the domination phase, though. They've made it useful, that's the all-important first step. They have all the time in the world to keep improving it.
Please do post some more Apple news, nerds are so very very interested in them..
Sarcasm noted. We'll just keep it limited to just Linux, Firefox, and Windows 7 fellatio cos, you know, only Apple has fanboys.
Until they get support for Firefox addons or get a base of addons equal to Firefox's, it won't be going on my computer anymore. ;*( I used it for about two weeks after its release, and then switched back to Firefox and never looked back.
I like Chrome as a dedicated GMail browser and Google Maps viewer. I'm not sure why it has to be an all-or-nothing sort of thing.
It can pretty much kick your ass and fuck your mum.
Just like your mum, Gmail supports millions of users.
I think the dude I stole the joke from is gonna sue me first.
Good News everyone!
... I've invented a device that makes you hear my voice while reading this off the screen!
It was okay for 2 players. QuakeWorld was released in 1996, however, and made things a lot better. 4-8 player games were quite playable over my modem in '96.
Ahh *fond memories*. I distinctly remember one dude ustea go around and babble about having a voodoo card was 'cheating'. People blamed their lack of success on everything they could think of.
He probably did that so the guy'd receive spam.
If you ever get bored, try taking teh spam armor plating off in Slashdot. You'll start recieving crap almost right away.
Uh, in case you are not aware, I Am Legend is a work of FICTION.
How do you know? It isn't 2012 yet!