Still laughing? I'm 8 years out, working for a company every one of you would know, that gives me a new company car every year. Most of the people I work with have 10-25 years experience. Oh yea and last year I cleared $99,700.
What did your big name school that took you an additional 2 years (2 years you were not earning 40-60K and also not saving for retirement), that cost anywhere from 2-3 times a much make you?
Showing off about how much you earn is a bad idea. You'll always find out that you're not so well off after all...
Not called back, but you would get a recording saying the number wasn't recognized (I haven't actually tested this mind you). All regular area codes start 0, so if you started with 911 it would wait for the rest of the (presumably local) number. In the end it would give up and tell you to redial.
The emergency number there is 999, or 112 (the european standard).
I think you're the one in need of a cluestick. The law allows you to use whatever force is needed to prevent the criminal committing the crime, but no more. If someone tries to steal your TV, then stabbing them with a kitchen knife is not allowed - it's an over reaction. If they come at you with a knife - then you can do what the hell you like.
You're right. I mean, what we really need is some way of programming graphics stuff which didn't really care what card was doing the rendering. Some way of standardizing the interface and available functions. Maybe I'm crazy...I don't know, it seems like it might just work.
As for naming, well, it should be Direct. And modern sounding, like Xtreme or something. How about DirectXtreme? Bit long. "DirectX" - yeah - that's cool!
Aqua has many small things that don't get much notice. For instance, I can close a window in OS X thats sitting behind another window just by moving my mouse over to the close button on the window in the back. The window controls are always active even if the window isn't active.
Windows does that too. Do other windowing environments not do so?
Agreed. Personally, I think the gumdrop buttons were one of the few mistakes in the OSX visual styling. I much prefer the "big box, small box, cross" icons in other environments.
WinDVD (or some equivalent) is also bundled with pretty much every video card or DVD drive sold in the last few years. I would be amazed to find anyone here who didn't have access to a legitimate copy of a windows DVD player.
Not quite true, but I don't technically work as a "mathematician", whatever that would mean (most likely, it would mean a professor of mathematics), so okay...
I take it you can claim both of those titles, that you bring them up as relevant, rather than merely committing a poisoning-the-well argumentative fallacy?
No, I was just playing on a comment made earlier in the thread. I'm a computer scientist who works in finance and so knows a bit about money.
Okay... $4 to $9, according to your link, becomes $9.67 to $21.76.
Fair enough, that comes out a bit closer... But still short of $12-$25 that a modern CD actually costs
But not much short. The whole point of my post was to point out the inaccuracy of your statement that prices now are vastly inflated compared to those in the 80's - they're not, the difference is pretty small really.
What really gets me is the way people use the price of the physical media to explain their concern at the retail cost of the music. Since when was that important? A canvas and some oil paint costs maybe $50, so why is the Mona Lisa priceless? A pile of wood and glass might cost a few thousand, but a house? Like you say a CD costs pennies, but a license for your O/S of choice might cost $200. You're not paying for the media, you're paying for the recording on it. If you don't think it's worth it, then fine, don't buy (or look for a cheaper deal - like you say, second hand is good) - but don't complain at someone exercising their right to charge whatever they see fit for their work.
A typical non-economist (and non-mathematician) slashdot post modded insightful. At the same time it's completely wrong.
Hmm, does $4-$9 in 1980-dollars equate to $12-$25 in 2005 dollars? At 2.5% inflation per year, it doesn't even come close. Bummer.
Actually, $9 in 1980 with 25 years of compound @ 2.5% inflation (your figures, not mine) is ~$16, so it's actually a pretty good estimate. I buy CDs at the rate of maybe 5 or 6 a month, and they're usually in the $12-$18 range. But that's just your random 2.5% inflation figure (which is wrong). If you use the CPI (which is a much better measure) you get $9 in 1980 being worth over $21 in 2003 (the latest year I could find figures for).
The DS already has what all other PDA's have Except a decent sized screen. Now they might be able to come up with some interesting interfaces with different views on the two displays, but most PDAs have a single screen much larger than the DS.
What I am saying is that the US and MANY other countries are/were attacked by Muslim extremists. So should we also be chacking up on people who look like the other terriorists who have attacked the US? Let's see. There's those washington sniper guys. They were black, so let's check up on anyone who's black. Then there's Timothy McVeigh - who was (as far as I can remember) a white christian. Better start locking up some white christians then.
I think it's better to be over secure and have a lot of people as a false alarm then to let some real threats through and have another 9/11.
Defending your freedoms by giving up your freedoms? Makes a lot of sense. Moron.
Signing with the RIAA or MPAA is not a 'choice' in the way you're probably thinking of it. They have the entire industry by the nuts. They have distribution and radio/television advertising tied up tighter than you can possibly imagine. If you're talking about the traditional top 40 pap, then you're largely (but not totally) right. If you include others kinds of music, then you're way off.
Their grip on clubs and tours gets tighter every day. Clubs? Not the kind of clubs I go to. Dance music is very strongly centered around indy labels, a small percentage of what is played at any decent club is anything to do with the RIAA (or it's international equivalents).
(Select examples: mp3.com, Napster, and now LokiTorrent)
The only 'choice' in signing with the RIAA or MPAA is whether you'd like to make being an artist your full-time job, or whether you'd like to continue it as a hobby while you work at the gas station.
That's interesting. I know of one band, who are personal friends, who seem to be at odds with that. They were signed to a major label in the early 90's (Sony as it happens), but have been on an indy label for the last 7 years or so. They make enough money from sales, touring, compilation appearences etc to support a very comfortable lifestyle.
Go to any software development company for all your part-time slavery needs. Except EA, they specialize in full-time slavery.
I think anyone with a history involving the real slave industry would be offended by your comments. Being paid (extremely well in the case of most software developers) and having the choice at all times to leave does not a slave make.
You own copyright on anything you write - a shopping list, a poem, or an equation. If you read your equation into a microphone and record it, well you own that too.
Oh, and read up on the difference between copyright and patents. They are very much not the same thing.
The only one I use is googlebar - and I use that on firefox as well as IE. The killer feature for me is the auto highlight of search terms, and the clicky buttons to find them. I even use the googlebar instead of ctrl-f to find terms on the current page - just type and click.
Lets use an older P2P protocol like GnuTella or something where you get a copy of Alias but you don't share it back. And you can somehow prove this.
You haven't committed copyright infringement
What? Of course you have. You have an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. What's more, you have caused that copy to be created and you have transferred it, probably over state lines. Why do people somehow think that copyright laws only apply to sharers? It doesn't.
Actually, no, you only get the more severe sntence when you're sharing the files, otherwise YOU aren't actually infringing on anything, just the person sharing it is. This is why the RIAA can't just sit there sharing copies of all its songs on Kazaa and then prosecuting anyone who downloads them.
No, the reason they don't share all their stuff is that if they did so, it would be legal to download from them. They are the copyright holders, so they can legally offer the material for download. Which they did by putting it on Kazaa, so it's all legal.
Downloading from anyone other than the copyright holder (or a representative) is still perfectly illegal.
Are you sure? I agree that downloading is just as illegal as sharing - no argument there. BUT, if the RIAA themselves put the work up on, say, Kazaa - where is the illegality? I'm downloading it from the copyright owner (or rather a representative of owner) - they put the material up for me to access, therefore they gave implicit permission for me to download it.
That's why they don't try that kind of sting, IMHO, because it wouldn't work.
The judge can award costs to whoever he wants. The usual case is loser pays, but in some cases he will award no costs, in some cases (e.g. where $BIG_CORP wins, but is being an obvious bully) he will force the winner to pay all.
How it pans out is that in the UK we have _far_ fewer of these insane cases (including medical liability, accident liability etc cases) and lawyers are not as rich. Seems to work out OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? That's interesting. Must have been done for american tourists as it's not advertised anywhere :)
Still laughing? I'm 8 years out, working for a company every one of you would know, that gives me a new company car every year. Most of the people I work with have 10-25 years experience. Oh yea and last year I cleared $99,700.
What did your big name school that took you an additional 2 years (2 years you were not earning 40-60K and also not saving for retirement), that cost anywhere from 2-3 times a much make you?
Showing off about how much you earn is a bad idea. You'll always find out that you're not so well off after all...
Not called back, but you would get a recording saying the number wasn't recognized (I haven't actually tested this mind you). All regular area codes start 0, so if you started with 911 it would wait for the rest of the (presumably local) number. In the end it would give up and tell you to redial.
The emergency number there is 999, or 112 (the european standard).
Seeing as they are a bakery, and sell primarily sandwiches, I think the quality of the bread is of some importance.
I think you're the one in need of a cluestick. The law allows you to use whatever force is needed to prevent the criminal committing the crime, but no more. If someone tries to steal your TV, then stabbing them with a kitchen knife is not allowed - it's an over reaction. If they come at you with a knife - then you can do what the hell you like.
You're right. I mean, what we really need is some way of programming graphics stuff which didn't really care what card was doing the rendering. Some way of standardizing the interface and available functions. Maybe I'm crazy...I don't know, it seems like it might just work.
As for naming, well, it should be Direct. And modern sounding, like Xtreme or something. How about DirectXtreme? Bit long. "DirectX" - yeah - that's cool!
So how about it? Anyone with me?
Aqua has many small things that don't get much notice. For instance, I can close a window in OS X thats sitting behind another window just by moving my mouse over to the close button on the window in the back. The window controls are always active even if the window isn't active.
Windows does that too. Do other windowing environments not do so?
Agreed. Personally, I think the gumdrop buttons were one of the few mistakes in the OSX visual styling. I much prefer the "big box, small box, cross" icons in other environments.
WinDVD (or some equivalent) is also bundled with pretty much every video card or DVD drive sold in the last few years. I would be amazed to find anyone here who didn't have access to a legitimate copy of a windows DVD player.
India is a democracy. If the majority of people believe that porn should be illegal, then it should be. That's what a democracy is all about.
Porn used to be illegal in the UK, but then it was demonstrated that public opinion had changed, and now it's legal. That's how it's supposed to work.
Of course if the chinese torture people it's evil and oppressive, but if the US does it, it's promoting freedom in the world.
AI and HRW have had a few things to say about the US administration too. Maybe the old adage about glass houses and stones is applicable here.
Not quite true, but I don't technically work as a "mathematician", whatever that would mean (most likely, it would mean a professor of mathematics), so okay...
Try this - I guess not a common word in the US.
I take it you can claim both of those titles, that you bring them up as relevant, rather than merely committing a poisoning-the-well argumentative fallacy?
No, I was just playing on a comment made earlier in the thread. I'm a computer scientist who works in finance and so knows a bit about money.
Okay... $4 to $9, according to your link, becomes $9.67 to $21.76.
Fair enough, that comes out a bit closer... But still short of $12-$25 that a modern CD actually costs
But not much short. The whole point of my post was to point out the inaccuracy of your statement that prices now are vastly inflated compared to those in the 80's - they're not, the difference is pretty small really.
What really gets me is the way people use the price of the physical media to explain their concern at the retail cost of the music. Since when was that important? A canvas and some oil paint costs maybe $50, so why is the Mona Lisa priceless? A pile of wood and glass might cost a few thousand, but a house? Like you say a CD costs pennies, but a license for your O/S of choice might cost $200. You're not paying for the media, you're paying for the recording on it. If you don't think it's worth it, then fine, don't buy (or look for a cheaper deal - like you say, second hand is good) - but don't complain at someone exercising their right to charge whatever they see fit for their work.
A typical non-economist (and non-mathematician) slashdot post modded insightful. At the same time it's completely wrong.
Hmm, does $4-$9 in 1980-dollars equate to $12-$25 in 2005 dollars? At 2.5% inflation per year, it doesn't even come close. Bummer.
Actually, $9 in 1980 with 25 years of compound @ 2.5% inflation (your figures, not mine) is ~$16, so it's actually a pretty good estimate. I buy CDs at the rate of maybe 5 or 6 a month, and they're usually in the $12-$18 range. But that's just your random 2.5% inflation figure (which is wrong). If you use the CPI (which is a much better measure) you get $9 in 1980 being worth over $21 in 2003 (the latest year I could find figures for).
Try it yourself here.
The DS already has what all other PDA's have
Except a decent sized screen. Now they might be able to come up with some interesting interfaces with different views on the two displays, but most PDAs have a single screen much larger than the DS.
What I am saying is that the US and MANY other countries are/were attacked by Muslim extremists.
So should we also be chacking up on people who look like the other terriorists who have attacked the US? Let's see. There's those washington sniper guys. They were black, so let's check up on anyone who's black. Then there's Timothy McVeigh - who was (as far as I can remember) a white christian. Better start locking up some white christians then.
I think it's better to be over secure and have a lot of people as a false alarm then to let some real threats through and have another 9/11.
Defending your freedoms by giving up your freedoms? Makes a lot of sense. Moron.
Are you a musician?
Yes, but not professionally.
Do you know any musicians?
Yes, quite a lot.
Signing with the RIAA or MPAA is not a 'choice' in the way you're probably thinking of it. They have the entire industry by the nuts. They have distribution and radio/television advertising tied up tighter than you can possibly imagine.
If you're talking about the traditional top 40 pap, then you're largely (but not totally) right. If you include others kinds of music, then you're way off.
Their grip on clubs and tours gets tighter every day.
Clubs? Not the kind of clubs I go to. Dance music is very strongly centered around indy labels, a small percentage of what is played at any decent club is anything to do with the RIAA (or it's international equivalents).
(Select examples: mp3.com, Napster, and now LokiTorrent)
Select counter examples: beatport.com, playittonight.com, yoshop.com.
The only 'choice' in signing with the RIAA or MPAA is whether you'd like to make being an artist your full-time job, or whether you'd like to continue it as a hobby while you work at the gas station.
That's interesting. I know of one band, who are personal friends, who seem to be at odds with that. They were signed to a major label in the early 90's (Sony as it happens), but have been on an indy label for the last 7 years or so. They make enough money from sales, touring, compilation appearences etc to support a very comfortable lifestyle.
Go to any software development company for all your part-time slavery needs. Except EA, they specialize in full-time slavery.
I think anyone with a history involving the real slave industry would be offended by your comments. Being paid (extremely well in the case of most software developers) and having the choice at all times to leave does not a slave make.
You own copyright on anything you write - a shopping list, a poem, or an equation. If you read your equation into a microphone and record it, well you own that too.
Oh, and read up on the difference between copyright and patents. They are very much not the same thing.
I'm always used to associating $ with G-strings, if that's what you mean :)
Well, I also use googlebar. But you know, you can move that built in search box anywhere you want it...
The only one I use is googlebar - and I use that on firefox as well as IE. The killer feature for me is the auto highlight of search terms, and the clicky buttons to find them. I even use the googlebar instead of ctrl-f to find terms on the current page - just type and click.
Lets use an older P2P protocol like GnuTella or something where you get a copy of Alias but you don't share it back. And you can somehow prove this.
You haven't committed copyright infringement
What? Of course you have. You have an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. What's more, you have caused that copy to be created and you have transferred it, probably over state lines. Why do people somehow think that copyright laws only apply to sharers? It doesn't.
You bought it. Caveat emptor.
Actually, no, you only get the more severe sntence when you're sharing the files, otherwise YOU aren't actually infringing on anything, just the person sharing it is. This is why the RIAA can't just sit there sharing copies of all its songs on Kazaa and then prosecuting anyone who downloads them.
No, the reason they don't share all their stuff is that if they did so, it would be legal to download from them. They are the copyright holders, so they can legally offer the material for download. Which they did by putting it on Kazaa, so it's all legal.
Downloading from anyone other than the copyright holder (or a representative) is still perfectly illegal.
Are you sure? I agree that downloading is just as illegal as sharing - no argument there. BUT, if the RIAA themselves put the work up on, say, Kazaa - where is the illegality? I'm downloading it from the copyright owner (or rather a representative of owner) - they put the material up for me to access, therefore they gave implicit permission for me to download it.
That's why they don't try that kind of sting, IMHO, because it wouldn't work.
The judge can award costs to whoever he wants. The usual case is loser pays, but in some cases he will award no costs, in some cases (e.g. where $BIG_CORP wins, but is being an obvious bully) he will force the winner to pay all.
How it pans out is that in the UK we have _far_ fewer of these insane cases (including medical liability, accident liability etc cases) and lawyers are not as rich. Seems to work out OK.