>That said, it's easier to just cheat. Why is IM so full of "LOLs" and "U R so cool. C U l8r."? Mostly it's because people either can't type at all or are not very vast so they take those kind of shortcuts.
It's called being lazy. Ain't we all?;)
Don't knock it, it reduces wear of the wrists. It wouldn't hurt if it was the normal way of spelling.
If you don't want to change the language, then change keyboards: switch to something more like dvorak, make space and maybe shift foot operated, and move some keys in the top and bottom rows to where the spacebar was.
That's what I thought too(although I haven't heard anything about whether it was any good). I assumed they must have spliced it with a leaked pre release version of some sort.
That gap existed because those were the kinds of hard drives that were available, 6 gig 1 inch drives and 20/40 gig 1.8 inch drives. I'm not even sure if the 1.8 inch drives are more expensive, i'm guessing they're actually cheaper but less shock resistant. They could use multiple 1 inch drives, but that would end up making the smaller players more expensive than the big ones. Perhaps apple could have used their size to influence drive manufacturers to start making 1.4 inch drives, but that would likely reduce overall efficiency.
Now we have 8 gig 1 inch drives. Anytime now, seagate is supposed to be producing 1 inch hard drives that use perpendicular recording to have a capacity of 12 gigs( http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/relea ses/article/0,1121,2973,00.html ), so if you want a 10 gig mp3 player, and especially if you'd like it to be small, you're in luck.
Actually, AFAIK that is being done already. I heard someone say that they went to, IIRC, taiwan to get some major dental work done because it was cheaper.
So what you're saying is, symantec would let microsoft step on them in this unrelated issue if they didn't also want to use it to try to safeguard their AV business?
Mobile drives are still expensive compared to desktop drives.
It won't neccessarilly be a laptop hard drive, seagate has a 2.5" desktop type hard drive just for this sort of stuff, the LD25 http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/marketing/ PO-LD25.pdf , although I haven't heard of a 60 gig version of it. So the cost difference could be even greater.
But the reason behind there being no rumble IIRC was that it would interfere with the tilt or whatever motion sensing features there are. Hence the idea of putting the vibration feedback somewhere other than the hands. How about a vibrating cushion that could be attached to the back of a chair or sat on?
I worded that post a bit wrong, I meant to say "if it's that important to some people". Some surely consider it a gimmick that's getting old by now, while others would be happy to have more of it, those are the reasons not to have it built in anymore,
That drive must have a double sided platter, western digital doesn't yet have platters much bigger than 80 gigs, and they need whatever bigger ones they can make for bigger hard drives, I don't think there's ever going to be a 160 gig platter that doesn't use perpendicular recording. The PS3, like the 360 is supposed to use some sort of 2.5" hard drive, so there isn't really anything odd about it having just a 20 gig half platter hard drive.
If it's that important, couldn't it just be implemented as some kind of add on device? There were such devices for the PC, like the much hyped intensor and the better-liked-by-reviewers battlechair. Those were expensive, but perhaps some kind of force feedback type device could be made that's not as big, maybe a vibrating headband or something(although that might cause spinal problems).
1) Sony has the tech, why on earth would they resort to a DVD?
-Maybe all of the demonstrations to date have been faked, Perhaps the drive might not yet be able to read the disk fast enough or the hardware might not be able to decode it fast enough in the official format. -Maybe the encryption isn't finished yet, so while they could get video to play of a blue ray disc, they don't want to allow the risk of someone stealing it(I'm not that wouldn't be excessively paranoid), so instead the disk could be a decoy and the movie might instead load of a hidden small hard drive or two(1.8" 60gb should do fine).
What kind of protection did Google get from the "pro free market legislation"?
If there were no laws against it, microsoft would have made google malfunction with explorer. For example, they would have made it run a lot slower. They would have done this no later than when they made a search engine, but probably a lot sooner because there would have been far more collusion if there were no laws against it. Of course, if there was unrestrained collusion, microsoft might not even be around, making all this speculation useless.
WE "the people" are all out there to make money.
Unless you live in your parents' basement you *WANT* to acquire money in return for work
Wow, now you're claiming that all those who don't want to work for money aren't people AND that they're all living in their parents basements!
Hell, even my trash is metered. What makes you think bandwidth will be any different?
Very inapropriate example, not all trash is the same yet it's generally all treated the same, even though it shouldn't be because some of it is easier to dispose of properly and some of it harder. But all bandwith is the same, it's all just ones and zeros, so their excuses for trying to charge differently for different types of content are pure horseshit.
I'm under the impression that ~80% marketshare is easily a monopoly, I don't think courts could get an oportunity to decide if it's one or not because if it is it's not really a monopoly that's abbusable at the moment. Either way, they're still both dominating a market and using their success in that market to safeguard their efforts in another market. This similarity implies that either of them can hurt the other by entering the other's lucrative market, just as apple weakens microsoft's monopoly by producing an OS(even one only available bundled), so to could microsoft hurt apple with a competitor to the ipod(especially if it was subsidized).
Apple does get treated like a monopoly, those who feel that mp3 players are responsible for hearing damage like to pick on apple about it.
That's just a third party add on, and one specific for explorer, while konqueror is automatically integrated with both those web browsers and all other applicable programs to an extent(they can be selected under "open with: other" but can't be added tho the "open with" list easily enough), and it's also easily configurable to open images with any other program. Besides, it's a very basic feature, one that shouldn't require an extension.
Way to ignore context, nothing was said implying that there shouldn't be companies getting squashed, only that google should not have the ability to arbitrairily squash whatever company it wants to, nobody's saying "this company went broke, google must have caused that", but "if google can do such and such then in could make bystanders(not competitors) go broke".
What do you mean by "make money" anyway? "Acquire money, in return for work"? I got news for you, not all people are like that. Some don't want to accquire money. And some don't want to do anything in return for getting money, and that can just as well apply to corporations. **cough**sco**cough**
If we didn't have pro free market legislation, google would not have gotten where it is today, microsoft or some company allied with it would have taken the market or at least a significant chunk of it by any dirty trick it could use.
And there are things stopping others from selling products in markets which ms has a monopoly in, ms abusing it's monopoly, which they have been convicted of.
I guess it's not concerned about what else is out there. Konqueror has "open in firefox" and "open in opera" options, firefox doesn't have anything like that. And of course, Konqueror, like everyone else, has a better version number than firefox.
Ms uses their monopoly in OS's to allow them to lose lots of money in consoles, apple uses their monopoly(AFAIK it technically is one) in mp3 players to keep their PC business safe.
Both also like bundling, ms bundles various stuff they want to push in with their OS, apple bundles together hardware, an OS and a platform for 3rd party programs(though you can't blame them for not encouraging a wine type API for other platforms, and they probably don't even resist it as much as ms).
Do casual home PC users tend to do these things that require multiple monitors?
I'm sure they'd like the option to do some of those things, things like: -playing a game in one window and having an IM app and/or an audio player open in another window -playing a slow paced game in one window and watching a video/TV or doing something else in the other -using both monitors for a game -browsing the web or using some other app in one window and having IM, audio and/or video in the other -doing something while someone else is using the other screen for video or maybe even a game
Four players is the magic number because players in the market who would play multiplayer party games are accustomed to setting up play dates around the four player limitation of the N64, Dreamcast, GameCube, Xbox, and Xbox 360, and I'm guessing that the reason no multitap accessory came out for any of those five consoles is that four is the magic number for fitting human bodies around a typical living-room television monitor.
Okay, but even if it is for most people, some people would still like the option to offload one or two of those people from the TV onto a monitor or two, especially if the TV was rather small.
The PC could overcome this, but then you'd need an even bigger TV.
No you wouldn't need one(how would you even divide a single screen into 5 or 7 pieces?), a large TV and a monitor would allow for 5 players, a large TV and a decent sived widescreen or rotatable monitor would allow 6 players.
Most PC owners haven't, and they're not willing to buy a second monitor and replace the video card just to run a 4-player party game.
In another post you were just complaining that people wouldn't spend $2400 on a network of 4 computers, now that were talking about a much lower price they just won't bother anymore or won't know and can't be informed about it? What about all those that have a spare older monitor? It wouldn't be just to run a multiplayer game, multimonitor is also very useful for things other than multiplayer games, or so I'm told very enthusiastically. Video cards have for a long time had multimonitor support.
If most PC owners had the computer plugged into a TV, then there wouldn't be a problem.
So you're cassually dismissing 5 or more player games? Just what makes 4 the magic number?
The problem is that most PC owners are not willing to move the computer to the TV room every time the kids want to get together and play the game and then move it back to the home office when they are done.
So no one has a TV anywhere but the living room? My understanding and experience is very contradictory. It would even be possible to use a TV in another room, although in some cases it would be too much of a hassle.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players.
Ever heard of multimonitor? That would be good for both split screen type games, and even for games like bomberman. If you have an LCD screen that can rotate 90 degrees, or a widescreen, that would allow for relatively good spliting of one screen into two, and if you did have the computer plugged into a TV as well as a monitor or two, then the tables turn completely in this regard.
Slashdot Mirror
>That said, it's easier to just cheat. Why is IM so full of "LOLs" and "U R so cool. C U l8r."? Mostly it's because people either can't type at all or are not very vast so they take those kind of shortcuts.
;)
It's called being lazy. Ain't we all?
Don't knock it, it reduces wear of the wrists. It wouldn't hurt if it was the normal way of spelling.
If you don't want to change the language, then change keyboards: switch to something more like dvorak, make space and maybe shift foot operated, and move some keys in the top and bottom rows to where the spacebar was.
That's what I thought too(although I haven't heard anything about whether it was any good). I assumed they must have spliced it with a leaked pre release version of some sort.
I for one welcome our unidentified flying overlords.
I really hate how Apple uses the so called "Superdrive" as something so special...
What are they gonna do when blu ray burners start becoming standard? Call theirs an ultradrive? Or a megadrive, and get sued by sega?
That gap existed because those were the kinds of hard drives that were available, 6 gig 1 inch drives and 20/40 gig 1.8 inch drives. I'm not even sure if the 1.8 inch drives are more expensive, i'm guessing they're actually cheaper but less shock resistant. They could use multiple 1 inch drives, but that would end up making the smaller players more expensive than the big ones. Perhaps apple could have used their size to influence drive manufacturers to start making 1.4 inch drives, but that would likely reduce overall efficiency.
a ses/article/0,1121,2973,00.html ), so if you want a 10 gig mp3 player, and especially if you'd like it to be small, you're in luck.
Now we have 8 gig 1 inch drives. Anytime now, seagate is supposed to be producing 1 inch hard drives that use perpendicular recording to have a capacity of 12 gigs( http://www.seagate.com/cda/newsinfo/newsroom/rele
Actually, AFAIK that is being done already. I heard someone say that they went to, IIRC, taiwan to get some major dental work done because it was cheaper.
So what you're saying is, symantec would let microsoft step on them in this unrelated issue if they didn't also want to use it to try to safeguard their AV business?
Mobile drives are still expensive compared to desktop drives.
/ PO-LD25.pdf , although I haven't heard of a 60 gig version of it. So the cost difference could be even greater.
It won't neccessarilly be a laptop hard drive, seagate has a 2.5" desktop type hard drive just for this sort of stuff, the LD25 http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/marketing
But the reason behind there being no rumble IIRC was that it would interfere with the tilt or whatever motion sensing features there are. Hence the idea of putting the vibration feedback somewhere other than the hands. How about a vibrating cushion that could be attached to the back of a chair or sat on?
I worded that post a bit wrong, I meant to say "if it's that important to some people". Some surely consider it a gimmick that's getting old by now, while others would be happy to have more of it, those are the reasons not to have it built in anymore,
That drive must have a double sided platter, western digital doesn't yet have platters much bigger than 80 gigs, and they need whatever bigger ones they can make for bigger hard drives, I don't think there's ever going to be a 160 gig platter that doesn't use perpendicular recording. The PS3, like the 360 is supposed to use some sort of 2.5" hard drive, so there isn't really anything odd about it having just a 20 gig half platter hard drive.
If it's that important, couldn't it just be implemented as some kind of add on device? There were such devices for the PC, like the much hyped intensor and the better-liked-by-reviewers battlechair. Those were expensive, but perhaps some kind of force feedback type device could be made that's not as big, maybe a vibrating headband or something(although that might cause spinal problems).
1) Sony has the tech, why on earth would they resort to a DVD?
-Maybe all of the demonstrations to date have been faked, Perhaps the drive might not yet be able to read the disk fast enough or the hardware might not be able to decode it fast enough in the official format.
-Maybe the encryption isn't finished yet, so while they could get video to play of a blue ray disc, they don't want to allow the risk of someone stealing it(I'm not that wouldn't be excessively paranoid), so instead the disk could be a decoy and the movie might instead load of a hidden small hard drive or two(1.8" 60gb should do fine).
What kind of protection did Google get from the "pro free market legislation"?
If there were no laws against it, microsoft would have made google malfunction with explorer. For example, they would have made it run a lot slower. They would have done this no later than when they made a search engine, but probably a lot sooner because there would have been far more collusion if there were no laws against it. Of course, if there was unrestrained collusion, microsoft might not even be around, making all this speculation useless.
WE "the people" are all out there to make money.
Unless you live in your parents' basement you *WANT* to acquire money in return for work
Wow, now you're claiming that all those who don't want to work for money aren't people AND that they're all living in their parents basements!
Hell, even my trash is metered. What makes you think bandwidth will be any different?
Very inapropriate example, not all trash is the same yet it's generally all treated the same, even though it shouldn't be because some of it is easier to dispose of properly and some of it harder. But all bandwith is the same, it's all just ones and zeros, so their excuses for trying to charge differently for different types of content are pure horseshit.
I'm under the impression that ~80% marketshare is easily a monopoly, I don't think courts could get an oportunity to decide if it's one or not because if it is it's not really a monopoly that's abbusable at the moment. Either way, they're still both dominating a market and using their success in that market to safeguard their efforts in another market. This similarity implies that either of them can hurt the other by entering the other's lucrative market, just as apple weakens microsoft's monopoly by producing an OS(even one only available bundled), so to could microsoft hurt apple with a competitor to the ipod(especially if it was subsidized).
Apple does get treated like a monopoly, those who feel that mp3 players are responsible for hearing damage like to pick on apple about it.
That's just a third party add on, and one specific for explorer, while konqueror is automatically integrated with both those web browsers and all other applicable programs to an extent(they can be selected under "open with: other" but can't be added tho the "open with" list easily enough), and it's also easily configurable to open images with any other program. Besides, it's a very basic feature, one that shouldn't require an extension.
Way to ignore context, nothing was said implying that there shouldn't be companies getting squashed, only that google should not have the ability to arbitrairily squash whatever company it wants to, nobody's saying "this company went broke, google must have caused that", but "if google can do such and such then in could make bystanders(not competitors) go broke".
What do you mean by "make money" anyway? "Acquire money, in return for work"? I got news for you, not all people are like that. Some don't want to accquire money. And some don't want to do anything in return for getting money, and that can just as well apply to corporations. **cough**sco**cough**
If we didn't have pro free market legislation, google would not have gotten where it is today, microsoft or some company allied with it would have taken the market or at least a significant chunk of it by any dirty trick it could use.
You do not have the whole market to be a monopoly, standard oil for example had 64% marketshare when it was broken up for something monopoly related. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopolistic _competition )
And there are things stopping others from selling products in markets which ms has a monopoly in, ms abusing it's monopoly, which they have been convicted of.
I guess it's not concerned about what else is out there. Konqueror has "open in firefox" and "open in opera" options, firefox doesn't have anything like that. And of course, Konqueror, like everyone else, has a better version number than firefox.
Ms uses their monopoly in OS's to allow them to lose lots of money in consoles, apple uses their monopoly(AFAIK it technically is one) in mp3 players to keep their PC business safe.
Both also like bundling, ms bundles various stuff they want to push in with their OS, apple bundles together hardware, an OS and a platform for 3rd party programs(though you can't blame them for not encouraging a wine type API for other platforms, and they probably don't even resist it as much as ms).
Do casual home PC users tend to do these things that require multiple monitors?
I'm sure they'd like the option to do some of those things, things like:
-playing a game in one window and having an IM app and/or an audio player open in another window
-playing a slow paced game in one window and watching a video/TV or doing something else in the other
-using both monitors for a game
-browsing the web or using some other app in one window and having IM, audio and/or video in the other
-doing something while someone else is using the other screen for video or maybe even a game
Four players is the magic number because players in the market who would play multiplayer party games are accustomed to setting up play dates around the four player limitation of the N64, Dreamcast, GameCube, Xbox, and Xbox 360, and I'm guessing that the reason no multitap accessory came out for any of those five consoles is that four is the magic number for fitting human bodies around a typical living-room television monitor.
Okay, but even if it is for most people, some people would still like the option to offload one or two of those people from the TV onto a monitor or two, especially if the TV was rather small.
The PC could overcome this, but then you'd need an even bigger TV.
No you wouldn't need one(how would you even divide a single screen into 5 or 7 pieces?), a large TV and a monitor would allow for 5 players, a large TV and a decent sived widescreen or rotatable monitor would allow 6 players.
Most PC owners haven't, and they're not willing to buy a second monitor and replace the video card just to run a 4-player party game.
In another post you were just complaining that people wouldn't spend $2400 on a network of 4 computers, now that were talking about a much lower price they just won't bother anymore or won't know and can't be informed about it? What about all those that have a spare older monitor? It wouldn't be just to run a multiplayer game, multimonitor is also very useful for things other than multiplayer games, or so I'm told very enthusiastically. Video cards have for a long time had multimonitor support.
If most PC owners had the computer plugged into a TV, then there wouldn't be a problem.
So you're cassually dismissing 5 or more player games? Just what makes 4 the magic number?
The problem is that most PC owners are not willing to move the computer to the TV room every time the kids want to get together and play the game and then move it back to the home office when they are done.
So no one has a TV anywhere but the living room? My understanding and experience is very contradictory. It would even be possible to use a TV in another room, although in some cases it would be too much of a hassle.
PC: Typically used with a screen too small to fit four players. Ever heard of multimonitor? That would be good for both split screen type games, and even for games like bomberman. If you have an LCD screen that can rotate 90 degrees, or a widescreen, that would allow for relatively good spliting of one screen into two, and if you did have the computer plugged into a TV as well as a monitor or two, then the tables turn completely in this regard.