"Yeah. No one ever pays for any version of Opera Mini, Opera Wii, or Opera Mobile. Opera just pulls money out of its ass. You should see their SEC filing!"
Were you replying to somebody that said Opera didn't make money and replied to my post by mistake? Heh.
It sounds pretty bad compared to the 25 other coffee shops in town, all of which are completely free, even if you buy no coffee. Starbucks is known for its numerous locations. Coffee Shops with free wifi, however, are dependent on the layout of where you happen to be nearby.
Of course, the coffee is better than Starbucks, so you might as well buy a cup while you're there. Uh huh. Just like the TV shows I watch are better than the TV shows you watch.
"Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean they are smarter then you. The converse is true too."
What, if someone's smarter than me it doesn't mean they disagree? Or is it that if someone agrees with me, it DOES mean they're smarter? I don't get it. It just means that you can't measure intelligence by somebody's opinion.
Hmmm... I replied to your post without reading the post directly above it. I wouldn't have replied with that had I caught what you were replying to the first time. I'm sorry, man.
What do you have to deal with when you are famous? People who attack you BECAUSE you are famous? If you really think that's the reason people dislike George Lucas then you should do less arguing and more listening. So far, you're nowhere near the mark.
It isn't at all the fault of the people who actually broke the law? I don't see how any of the people accused before did anywhere close to 150k (for example) in damages to the record industry.
The Jaguar was much better than the original PlayStation, CPU-wise. Which would you rather have? Um, no it wasn't. Besides being two years older, that hardware team didn't have the foggiest clue how to do something like the PSX. A more apt example would have been the Sega Saturn.
How can they release something for the PS3 and DS but no mention of the PSP? Isn't the PSP much better than the DS, CPU-wise? Yes, but not input-wise. Although if it's going to be out on the PS3 or XBOX 360, you've got a point.
I love Nintendo and really don't care for Sony, but I don't see what's so 'trollish' about this question.
It's not the benchmark-scores that count. Sure, you need a specific minimum to enjoy the game, but it's the actual gameplay that makes the game fun, no matter the hardware.
I'm pretty sure these benchmarks are invented by men. These benchmark scores are important when trying to determine a balance of cost vs. performance. So yes, these benchmarks were invented by men. This is because the old standard of picking the one whose color matches their shoes also resulted with the invention of the credit card.
Hey, I don't really have anything to add but I did want to say thanks for reading what I had to say. (Can you tell I've had some rough experiences here lately?)
You had the same mental image I had:-). "One computer to rule them all"
"It began to learn at a geometric rate"
"It decided our fate in a microsecond"
Do we really need to pattern our world after sci-fi. If so, then lets do something fun like give everybody phasers and transporters. Not supercomputers connected to everything, that will learn and eventually figure out for themselves that humans are a virus and need to be exterminated.
I enjoyed the Terminator as much as anybody else, but it was not actually a cautionary tale. I'm not sure why everybody's treating it as such. The leaps from today to Skynet to Skynet building effective Terminators and wiping out the planet are far greater than the movie implied. With each successive addition to the franchise, we see just how much more unlikely it is. (Those of you following the Sarah Connor Chronicles know what I'm talking about.)
I think itwould be kind of tragic if did come out, actually. We'd need to find a new persistent vaporware joke.:( Given the life the BSOD jokes still have, I don't think release of the game will affect that meme much.
If an object is an object, that object can only behave like said object.
I'm stumped. Another post answered your question, but I wanted to comment on this. This statement really isn't correct. I could give you a ton of examples like a RAM can act as a drive (RAM drive) or a human can behave like a chicken. The guy you replied to was talking about human interaction with the device, not the underlying nature of it.
If you'd read that page, you'd clearly see that RealPlayer 11 indeed includes Rhapsody.
RealPlayer comes with the engine that plays Rhapsody music. That is not the Rhapsody client. When you join Rhapsody, you download the Rhapsody Client, not Real Player. Basically what I'm getting at is you still don't know what you're talking about. Worse, you're actually spreading FUD. (Amusingly, you would have gotten this if YOU had read the page you linked to.) You see, Real Player is not forced upon you. You're not even tricked into downloading it like iTunes and Quicktime. (Which is probably why you and the numbnut mods believe what you're saying without challenging it.)
Since you're so adamant about arguing with me about this, I'll just take a moment here to explain something: I am a Rhapsody subscriber. I have been for years. I've installed it a number of times. Wanna hear something fascinating? I have never once installed Real Player while installing Rhapsody. When you sign up for Rhapsody, you are taken to a download link, and all you download is the Rhapsody client. You don't have to, for example, go find the 'basic' version of Rhapsody or go hunting around the site for a de-packaged version. The truth of the matter is, if you want to have both Rhapsody and Real installed, you have to root around for two different downloads. (At least coming from the point of view of somebody signing up for Rhapsody, which is what these users from Yahoo will be asked to do.)
I really don't care if you think I'm an 'arsehole'. I think you're an 'arsehole' for spouting bullshit. Frankly, if the roles were reversed you'd again think I was an 'arsehole'. You can sit there and be mad at me for not being diplomatic in my original post (which I admit to. Not my proudest moment). Or you can sit there, realize your mistake, and learn from it. Your choice. Either way, have a nice day.:)
Yeah, but that argument doesn't hold water at all. Video is generally watched once or twice (with some exceptions) where music is listened to repeatedly. I want to rent video (because it's so much cheaper per viewing) and buy music (because I keep it and listen to it over and over, for years).
Fair point, but I do think you're underestimating how much 'consumable' music is out there. I also think you're overlooking the idea that you can get a lot more audio time than video time during an average day, at least for those of us working in an office environment. But I think if this discussion were to taken much further it'd involve generalizing about people's tastes, and that could turn into a cyclic debate.
That said, agree with you, the video debate breaks down when it's over-analyzed. However, that's really not the point of the argument. It's not intended as a true-analog to cable TV. Instead, it's just a way of pointing out the problem with a particular short-sighted argument. Subscription music has gotten a bad rep on Slashdot, but mainly for academic reasons. Not a lot of people that are poo-pooing it have actually tried it. It has been rationalized away to the point of nobody wanting to explore it. And, to be honest, I understand this. Monthly fees are not something to be taken lightly.
That said, though, I read your post, and I think there are some reasons that subscription music might be interesting to you. I'll share this with you, not to sell you on it, but because I don't think you know about these perks of the service: (note: If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. At least somebody else might find it interesting.)
- Depending on your service, you're not necessarily tethered to your PC. A year or so ago I bought a 4-gig Sansa player for ~$120. (I imagine by now you can get 8 giggers or possibly even more for the same price.) Whatever songs you want from their collection can be downloaded to it. Once a month you have to sync it up to referesh it. I think you can even set it up to download songs you might like. That's not to everybody's liking, but you strike me as somebody that might find that interesting, especially during the drive to work or something.
- You can listen to Rhapsody from any internet connected Windows PC. (Mac support may be available, but I don't know first hand.) You can install the Rhapsody client or you can use Internet Explorer to reach it. The Rhapsody installer will reserve a gig of space for caching, and that's it. It downloads music sort of like how YouTube downloads videos. It drops the data into a bucket and pulls it out as needed, fills up the cache, clears it for older stuff, etc. I'm mentioning this for two reasons: 1.) Rhapsody is NOT active streaming. This is often preferred by internet saavy people. Seeking is no problem. 2.) You don't need lots of space. I'll talk about this more in a later point, but one of the things that drove me towards Rhapsody was a lost hard drive that had lots of MP3s on it. I personally use Rhapsody on my home machine, my work machine, and on my laptop. Once in a while I use a different workstation and I can just fire it up via IE. I don't have to 'sync' any files across these machines. Install, log-in, and go. I'm mentioning this to you because you've got a collection of a thousand CDs, right? I'd say a good 90 - 95% of those CDs is available on Rhapsody. If it's a hassle for you to maintain an MP3 collection that you want to listen to at work, you'd buy yourself some convenience here. (The dead hard drive caused me to look at Rhapsody, this particular perk caused me to keep it.)
- I used the term consumable music earlier. I wonder... you have lots of CDs you enjoy. How did you arrive at buying them? Did you buy them and learn to enjoy them, thus you have a broad music taste? Or did you make strenuous purchasing decisions based on... well... lots of effort per album? In the former case, you'd have something like four mil
Does that mean users would be forced to use the abomination that is RealPlayer? All I can say is "Haha!" No, they use an app called 'Rhapsody'. It really isn't bad, either.
2) The design of the Wii remote is similar to that of the earliest handguns: basically a bar which must be held forward in order to aim. And, like those models which were ultimately abandoned, it has a major flaw. The default aiming position forces the wrist's pivot to one extreme, rather than in the middle of its range of motion, as a contemporary handgun would. This is a strain, and particularly so whenever the need arises to aim lower. The Wii remote compounds this flaw with the need to use the thumb to access buttons and controls on top of the device. For a dramatic illustration of this flaw, grab your Wii remote, point your arm straight ahead, point the remote straight ahead as though aiming at something parallel with the remote, and now access the d-pad with your thumb. Try this while aiming down. Visualize playing a game for several hours like this. Now visualize using a Wii remote which fit the hand like a hand gun and decide which would cause fewer problems for the wrist. a.) Not all games on the Wii are shooter games. Your suggestion for adaption would hurt those games in the same way you're complaining about now.
b.) The Light Zapper accessory addresses this problem, and you don't need $100 new controller with less features to do it.
Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement.
The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort. That's how the Wii got it right. It's like using a mouse with gesture controls. It's not 1:1 movement like people dream of, but you're not tiring yourself out with raised arms, either.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, I was replying to you who said the same thing."
Um, no, there you ago again. Heh. Want me to help you find the guy that said Opera doesn't sell any products?
"Yeah. No one ever pays for any version of Opera Mini, Opera Wii, or Opera Mobile. Opera just pulls money out of its ass. You should see their SEC filing!"
Were you replying to somebody that said Opera didn't make money and replied to my post by mistake? Heh.
"Do people still have to pay for that crap?"
Wrong on both counts, for several years actually.
"No, it means that I know what "converse" means and he doesn't. And that you must not, either."
That's an interesting claim considering I understand what he's saying and you don't. Heh.
"Am I the only who has, for tears, 'known' that there is no life on Mars?"
I didn't realize anybody had gone to Mars and thoroughly scanned every square millimeter of it for life. Congrats to you and your accomplishment.
Ah. That just means that you're not necessarliy smarter than them. :P
What, if someone's smarter than me it doesn't mean they disagree? Or is it that if someone agrees with me, it DOES mean they're smarter? I don't get it. It just means that you can't measure intelligence by somebody's opinion.
Hmmm... I replied to your post without reading the post directly above it. I wouldn't have replied with that had I caught what you were replying to the first time. I'm sorry, man.
... if third parties are getting to try it, it's not vapour anymore, right?
I love Nintendo and really don't care for Sony, but I don't see what's so 'trollish' about this question.
I'm pretty sure these benchmarks are invented by men. These benchmark scores are important when trying to determine a balance of cost vs. performance. So yes, these benchmarks were invented by men. This is because the old standard of picking the one whose color matches their shoes also resulted with the invention of the credit card.
Hey, I don't really have anything to add but I did want to say thanks for reading what I had to say. (Can you tell I've had some rough experiences here lately?)
:)
Good luck.
"It began to learn at a geometric rate"
"It decided our fate in a microsecond"
Do we really need to pattern our world after sci-fi. If so, then lets do something fun like give everybody phasers and transporters. Not supercomputers connected to everything, that will learn and eventually figure out for themselves that humans are a virus and need to be exterminated.
I enjoyed the Terminator as much as anybody else, but it was not actually a cautionary tale. I'm not sure why everybody's treating it as such. The leaps from today to Skynet to Skynet building effective Terminators and wiping out the planet are far greater than the movie implied. With each successive addition to the franchise, we see just how much more unlikely it is. (Those of you following the Sarah Connor Chronicles know what I'm talking about.)I'm stumped. Another post answered your question, but I wanted to comment on this. This statement really isn't correct. I could give you a ton of examples like a RAM can act as a drive (RAM drive) or a human can behave like a chicken. The guy you replied to was talking about human interaction with the device, not the underlying nature of it.
If you'd read that page, you'd clearly see that RealPlayer 11 indeed includes Rhapsody.
RealPlayer comes with the engine that plays Rhapsody music. That is not the Rhapsody client. When you join Rhapsody, you download the Rhapsody Client, not Real Player. Basically what I'm getting at is you still don't know what you're talking about. Worse, you're actually spreading FUD. (Amusingly, you would have gotten this if YOU had read the page you linked to.) You see, Real Player is not forced upon you. You're not even tricked into downloading it like iTunes and Quicktime. (Which is probably why you and the numbnut mods believe what you're saying without challenging it.)Since you're so adamant about arguing with me about this, I'll just take a moment here to explain something: I am a Rhapsody subscriber. I have been for years. I've installed it a number of times. Wanna hear something fascinating? I have never once installed Real Player while installing Rhapsody. When you sign up for Rhapsody, you are taken to a download link, and all you download is the Rhapsody client. You don't have to, for example, go find the 'basic' version of Rhapsody or go hunting around the site for a de-packaged version. The truth of the matter is, if you want to have both Rhapsody and Real installed, you have to root around for two different downloads. (At least coming from the point of view of somebody signing up for Rhapsody, which is what these users from Yahoo will be asked to do.)
I really don't care if you think I'm an 'arsehole'. I think you're an 'arsehole' for spouting bullshit. Frankly, if the roles were reversed you'd again think I was an 'arsehole'. You can sit there and be mad at me for not being diplomatic in my original post (which I admit to. Not my proudest moment). Or you can sit there, realize your mistake, and learn from it. Your choice. Either way, have a nice day.
Yeah, but that argument doesn't hold water at all. Video is generally watched once or twice (with some exceptions) where music is listened to repeatedly. I want to rent video (because it's so much cheaper per viewing) and buy music (because I keep it and listen to it over and over, for years).
Fair point, but I do think you're underestimating how much 'consumable' music is out there. I also think you're overlooking the idea that you can get a lot more audio time than video time during an average day, at least for those of us working in an office environment. But I think if this discussion were to taken much further it'd involve generalizing about people's tastes, and that could turn into a cyclic debate.
... well... lots of effort per album? In the former case, you'd have something like four mil
That said, agree with you, the video debate breaks down when it's over-analyzed. However, that's really not the point of the argument. It's not intended as a true-analog to cable TV. Instead, it's just a way of pointing out the problem with a particular short-sighted argument. Subscription music has gotten a bad rep on Slashdot, but mainly for academic reasons. Not a lot of people that are poo-pooing it have actually tried it. It has been rationalized away to the point of nobody wanting to explore it. And, to be honest, I understand this. Monthly fees are not something to be taken lightly.
That said, though, I read your post, and I think there are some reasons that subscription music might be interesting to you. I'll share this with you, not to sell you on it, but because I don't think you know about these perks of the service: (note: If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. At least somebody else might find it interesting.)
- Depending on your service, you're not necessarily tethered to your PC. A year or so ago I bought a 4-gig Sansa player for ~$120. (I imagine by now you can get 8 giggers or possibly even more for the same price.) Whatever songs you want from their collection can be downloaded to it. Once a month you have to sync it up to referesh it. I think you can even set it up to download songs you might like. That's not to everybody's liking, but you strike me as somebody that might find that interesting, especially during the drive to work or something.
- You can listen to Rhapsody from any internet connected Windows PC. (Mac support may be available, but I don't know first hand.) You can install the Rhapsody client or you can use Internet Explorer to reach it. The Rhapsody installer will reserve a gig of space for caching, and that's it. It downloads music sort of like how YouTube downloads videos. It drops the data into a bucket and pulls it out as needed, fills up the cache, clears it for older stuff, etc. I'm mentioning this for two reasons: 1.) Rhapsody is NOT active streaming. This is often preferred by internet saavy people. Seeking is no problem. 2.) You don't need lots of space. I'll talk about this more in a later point, but one of the things that drove me towards Rhapsody was a lost hard drive that had lots of MP3s on it. I personally use Rhapsody on my home machine, my work machine, and on my laptop. Once in a while I use a different workstation and I can just fire it up via IE. I don't have to 'sync' any files across these machines. Install, log-in, and go. I'm mentioning this to you because you've got a collection of a thousand CDs, right? I'd say a good 90 - 95% of those CDs is available on Rhapsody. If it's a hassle for you to maintain an MP3 collection that you want to listen to at work, you'd buy yourself some convenience here. (The dead hard drive caused me to look at Rhapsody, this particular perk caused me to keep it.)
- I used the term consumable music earlier. I wonder... you have lots of CDs you enjoy. How did you arrive at buying them? Did you buy them and learn to enjoy them, thus you have a broad music taste? Or did you make strenuous purchasing decisions based on
thanks Yahoo!
http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/reportdisplay?reportname=realplayer01282008 Rhapsody != RealPlayer. You and the idiots that wasted modpoints on your post don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
b.) The Light Zapper accessory addresses this problem, and you don't need $100 new controller with less features to do it.
The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort. That's how the Wii got it right. It's like using a mouse with gesture controls. It's not 1:1 movement like people dream of, but you're not tiring yourself out with raised arms, either.