iPad for each player to use an app to display their character sheet/messaging between player/DM.
Multi-touch table to display the world/battlefield...
Cool
The What's Your Type? program is a recruitment program with information provided for the participants' enjoyment. You should seek medical supervision for all matters regarding your health.
When I moused over video results, it seemed to do "skip play", fading out and in between jumps, as it "sampled" the video in 7 second clips. After 3 clips (from throughout a 20 minute video), it looped. Very nice for getting a feel for the video contents and quality.
So I don't understand the beef about "Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?" because the user clearly can't watch the whole video from the search results.
I don't get the section on Office 2003. Their gripe is that it doesn't support ODF. Well if MS doesn't release a service pack, why complain that 2003 doesn't support ODF when 2007 doesn't either (without SP2)?
Focus on their current (insufficient) efforts to update software, not on software they haven't yet decided to update. There's no threat to ODF interop in 2003 if it can't read them at all...
So was he trying to "do the right thing"? Or was he using his security clearance for political reasons?
Does it matter what his motivation is? Are they seriously going to let him off or reduce the sentence if he was being "pure of heart" as opposed to a axe-grinder?
blew the whistle on the Federal Government's warrantless wiretaps... [agent] looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press
Concern over illegality and the fact that his superiors didn't seem to care that it was? Isn't that the obvious answer? Are they expecting to find that he's a communist mole, sent to destroy us by exposing our blatant disregard for our own laws? I thought that's what whistleblowers were *supposed* to do. Who cares why?
Russia was invited into the NPT club via treaty, in order to control tens of thousands of warheads. India is being given a temporary exemption so that US (and Russian and French) businesses can quickly sell them fuel and tech.
There are questions that Darwinism cannot answer. Intelligent Design is about a search for the answers to those questions.
Really? Because as far as I can tell, the answer is "some intelligent being did it. End of story." You had the answer before you even started formulating the question. So is it *really* science?
Anyway, non-confidence votes in the Senate don't overthrow the government in the House. They do if the government says "vote for this, or we'll call an election." A technicality for sure, but it's the way the Conservatives have forced the Liberal-dominated Senate to vote for their bills. Same reason they tie all House votes to some minor budget motion. So they can play chicken with the Liberals, whom they know wouldn't dare risk an election at this time.
I guess it depends who runs the committee. If it's chaired by a Conservative, expect an "add-on" to make it tied to the budget to be squeezed in before the 2nd reading.
So it might make it to committee after all. But I doubt anything will get changed for the better...
The bill still has to go through committee (LOL that will be fun) and back to the house It's timing is designed to avoid going to committee. By scheduling the 2nd reading for the fall, they force the committee meetings to be during the summer, when everyone's on break.
So it will hit it's 2nd reading before anyone has a chance to discuss it. As for the senate, Harper will just attach it to an appropriations bill, and voila! Instant confidence motion, which means the Liberals will let it pass...
Hasn't this happened before? I thought the idea in Canada was that they propose a DMCA-like law, but even worse, simply so that it gets tossed and nothing even like it can be proposed anymore. Then later, when some copyright-nazi comes around complaining, they just point to the history books and say, "Hey, see! What are you complaining aboot? We tried to make such a law before but no one would pass it, eh."
No, in order to block future DMCA-like laws, they'd need to pass something. They did it with the animal cruelty laws, two versions were proposed, and the weaker one got fast-tracked to "block" the more restrictive one.
And the Conservatives aren't known for putting out bills designed to outrage you so they can replace it with a softer one later. If they introduced it, it's because they intend to pass it.
I just love it when people say BS like this. You honestly have no clue, do you?
It's ALL shared at some point, and yes DSL providers DO have limits and care when you go over them.
All your conversation with the Sasktel rep proved was that they are an idiot. I know what he meant. He meant I don't share it with people in my neighborhood, like cable companies do it. It's shared at the central office, where all the lines come together.
The point was that Sasktel won't call me up and bitch at me for "hogging" the node. I can't "hog" it, because I'm not sharing it. I get 1.5Mbps, period. I can't download any faster, because I'm not borrowing bandwidth from my neighbors to do it.
I'm not sure when this might have been, but shaw has defined limits on their website.... It's possible the guy you spoke to was new and didn't know what the defined limits are. My friend says they don't call unless you cross over those defined limits. I guess my friend can only speak for Shaw Cable in the city he works for though. This was a few years ago, before they set up their limits. He was just harassing me for "hogging the node", but Shaw marketing hadn't defined what the "limit" was yet. So he really had nothing to guide me with.
When I called Sasktel, I spoke to a tech, and asked him if there were any limits to how much I could download in a month. He was confused by the question, because Sasktel is DSL, so you don't share it at all. If you max out your "tube" 24/7, they don't care, because you paid for all of it. So I switched right then and there. I'll take lower guaranteed bandwidth over "sometimes" bandwith, "as long as you don't use too much of it during a month".
Also at the time I was on Shaw's "regular" high speed, and he said that downloading 40Gb in a month was "too much". "Too much" being defined depending on how much everyone else on your node downloaded. I was #1 for my node, so I was the "too much" person. Had someone else downloaded 45Gb that month, I would have been fine, and they would have been the "too much" phone call... At least that's the gist I got from the way the conversation was going...
A good friend of mine works for Shaw Cable...
He says it's just three guys (only one on at a time afaik) and when they see someone using to much bandwidth, they phone them up and tell them to settle down with the downloads. I got one of those calls, and the guy I spoke with couldn't tell me what "grey zone" I'd wandered into, or why my unlimited account... wasn't. I asked him what I should cap my d/l rate to, so I wouldn't get these calls, and he said there wasn't a limit "per se". So I asked him why he was calling me with a vague request to stop using so much of a service he couldn't define for me. No answer.
I've since switched to Sasktel. While it's a lower max bandwidth, I don't have to share, and I don't get a phone call asking me to "tone it down" when I use my account for more than just email...
On Leopard it uses Silverlight, I've been using it for a while for Daily Show/Colbert Report and South Park and have not encountered any ads yet, but each episode is divided into couple of clips which is not a big deal.
The annoying thing is it shuts off your full screen viewing between clips. But I more blame Silverlight for that instead.
And Silverlight is pretty new. Before that, CTV groups' media serving software was a nightmare to run under Leopard or Tiger. Pissed me off to no end.
If either of my parents purchased music through iTunes (and did not have me as a resource) then they would in fact be 100% constrained to any and all of the DRM for the tracks. My mom has dabbled with trying to learn/understand P2P, but in the end she actually prefers the convenience and intuitive interface of iTunes and some of the other on-line music stores. The only thing that she cares about is being able to either burn a CD or use it on her mp3 player.
And if she cannot burn a CD, or use it on her mp3 player, I'll assume she turns to you to "fix it", correct? Regular consumers don't think of DRM in terms of "protecting" anything either. While not technical enough to bypass them, they too see them as limitations on the product they bought, and will find ways (or find someone who knows ways) to get around them.
My friend can't figure out how to rip a DVD. But she wants to play them on her new video iPod. If she was told she was doing something illegal, she'd think you were nuts. She bought the DVD. She owns the iPod. She's not copying it to someone else. But the DRM punishes her equally, because it prevents her from using her possessions in a way she wants. So she turns to me to do it for her.
This is a fundamental difference between the lock on the house and the lock on the media. Media owners see it as a "licence" to use, not ownership. So while you can do in your own house whatever you bloody well please once you get in the door, because it's your house, the media lock is more a key to a friends house you were lent with a strict set of rules of conduct attached. Just strict enough, and you can enjoy yourself, but your friend's house is still protected from damage. But imagine if the use of the key forbid the use of the bathroom, or something equally silly. Would you be annoyed? Yep. Does the restriction help protect the house? Not unless you've got some kind of medical disorder. Why impair the use of the house when used in what would seem to be a normal and natural function? Especially since you've already been given permission to enter.
How often would you go to that friend's house if all you were allowed to do was walk on very narrow plastic to the couch, weren't allowed to sit, and could only watch the shopping channel unless it was Sunday, at which point you *might* be able to watch sports, but only if you held your arms out at the right angle? How often would you to there, if your other friend had non-stop sports channels, a great couch, and actually let you sit down?
Slashdot Mirror
OS = piracy? I thought OS = communism was pretty stupid, but "using free software = stealing" takes the cake.
So now it's pretty obvious what the 301 is. Not a tool to protect IP, but a tool to excuse protectionism.
iPad for each player to use an app to display their character sheet/messaging between player/DM. Multi-touch table to display the world/battlefield... Cool
My god, South Park/Christopher Reeves was right!
The What's Your Type? program is a recruitment program with information provided for the participants' enjoyment. You should seek medical supervision for all matters regarding your health.
No no no, the 5th element is "Surprise"...
The video preview is nice (3 7-second clips play when you mouse over). I liked the expanded snippet too.
Which Firefox? I'm using Ubutu 9.04 /w Firefox 3.0.10, and it works just fine.
When I moused over video results, it seemed to do "skip play", fading out and in between jumps, as it "sampled" the video in 7 second clips. After 3 clips (from throughout a 20 minute video), it looped. Very nice for getting a feel for the video contents and quality.
So I don't understand the beef about "Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?" because the user clearly can't watch the whole video from the search results.
I don't get the section on Office 2003. Their gripe is that it doesn't support ODF. Well if MS doesn't release a service pack, why complain that 2003 doesn't support ODF when 2007 doesn't either (without SP2)? Focus on their current (insufficient) efforts to update software, not on software they haven't yet decided to update. There's no threat to ODF interop in 2003 if it can't read them at all...
So was he trying to "do the right thing"? Or was he using his security clearance for political reasons?
Does it matter what his motivation is? Are they seriously going to let him off or reduce the sentence if he was being "pure of heart" as opposed to a axe-grinder?
blew the whistle on the Federal Government's warrantless wiretaps... [agent] looking for clues about his motivations for going to the press
Concern over illegality and the fact that his superiors didn't seem to care that it was? Isn't that the obvious answer? Are they expecting to find that he's a communist mole, sent to destroy us by exposing our blatant disregard for our own laws? I thought that's what whistleblowers were *supposed* to do. Who cares why?
Russia was invited into the NPT club via treaty, in order to control tens of thousands of warheads. India is being given a temporary exemption so that US (and Russian and French) businesses can quickly sell them fuel and tech.
Forgot Russia too. Amazing though, that at this stage the US would agree to cooperate with Russia. I guess money talks.
Gee, why am I not surprised that an exception gets created as soon as the US re-enters the civilian nuclear market after many years of stagnation.
There are questions that Darwinism cannot answer. Intelligent Design is about a search for the answers to those questions.
Really? Because as far as I can tell, the answer is "some intelligent being did it. End of story." You had the answer before you even started formulating the question. So is it *really* science?
I guess it depends who runs the committee. If it's chaired by a Conservative, expect an "add-on" to make it tied to the budget to be squeezed in before the 2nd reading.
So it might make it to committee after all. But I doubt anything will get changed for the better...
So it will hit it's 2nd reading before anyone has a chance to discuss it. As for the senate, Harper will just attach it to an appropriations bill, and voila! Instant confidence motion, which means the Liberals will let it pass...
Hasn't this happened before? I thought the idea in Canada was that they propose a DMCA-like law, but even worse, simply so that it gets tossed and nothing even like it can be proposed anymore. Then later, when some copyright-nazi comes around complaining, they just point to the history books and say, "Hey, see! What are you complaining aboot? We tried to make such a law before but no one would pass it, eh."
No, in order to block future DMCA-like laws, they'd need to pass something. They did it with the animal cruelty laws, two versions were proposed, and the weaker one got fast-tracked to "block" the more restrictive one.And the Conservatives aren't known for putting out bills designed to outrage you so they can replace it with a softer one later. If they introduced it, it's because they intend to pass it.
Yes, the "Downloads" folder was introduced in 10.5.
The point was that Sasktel won't call me up and bitch at me for "hogging" the node. I can't "hog" it, because I'm not sharing it. I get 1.5Mbps, period. I can't download any faster, because I'm not borrowing bandwidth from my neighbors to do it.
When I called Sasktel, I spoke to a tech, and asked him if there were any limits to how much I could download in a month. He was confused by the question, because Sasktel is DSL, so you don't share it at all. If you max out your "tube" 24/7, they don't care, because you paid for all of it. So I switched right then and there. I'll take lower guaranteed bandwidth over "sometimes" bandwith, "as long as you don't use too much of it during a month".
Also at the time I was on Shaw's "regular" high speed, and he said that downloading 40Gb in a month was "too much". "Too much" being defined depending on how much everyone else on your node downloaded. I was #1 for my node, so I was the "too much" person. Had someone else downloaded 45Gb that month, I would have been fine, and they would have been the "too much" phone call... At least that's the gist I got from the way the conversation was going...
I've since switched to Sasktel. While it's a lower max bandwidth, I don't have to share, and I don't get a phone call asking me to "tone it down" when I use my account for more than just email...
On Leopard it uses Silverlight, I've been using it for a while for Daily Show/Colbert Report and South Park and have not encountered any ads yet, but each episode is divided into couple of clips which is not a big deal.
The annoying thing is it shuts off your full screen viewing between clips. But I more blame Silverlight for that instead.
And Silverlight is pretty new. Before that, CTV groups' media serving software was a nightmare to run under Leopard or Tiger. Pissed me off to no end.
a Turing test. They're clearly a bunch of pre-programmed reactionaries who run screaming into the night at the first sign of controversy...
If either of my parents purchased music through iTunes (and did not have me as a resource) then they would in fact be 100% constrained to any and all of the DRM for the tracks. My mom has dabbled with trying to learn/understand P2P, but in the end she actually prefers the convenience and intuitive interface of iTunes and some of the other on-line music stores. The only thing that she cares about is being able to either burn a CD or use it on her mp3 player.
And if she cannot burn a CD, or use it on her mp3 player, I'll assume she turns to you to "fix it", correct? Regular consumers don't think of DRM in terms of "protecting" anything either. While not technical enough to bypass them, they too see them as limitations on the product they bought, and will find ways (or find someone who knows ways) to get around them.
My friend can't figure out how to rip a DVD. But she wants to play them on her new video iPod. If she was told she was doing something illegal, she'd think you were nuts. She bought the DVD. She owns the iPod. She's not copying it to someone else. But the DRM punishes her equally, because it prevents her from using her possessions in a way she wants. So she turns to me to do it for her.
This is a fundamental difference between the lock on the house and the lock on the media. Media owners see it as a "licence" to use, not ownership. So while you can do in your own house whatever you bloody well please once you get in the door, because it's your house, the media lock is more a key to a friends house you were lent with a strict set of rules of conduct attached. Just strict enough, and you can enjoy yourself, but your friend's house is still protected from damage. But imagine if the use of the key forbid the use of the bathroom, or something equally silly. Would you be annoyed? Yep. Does the restriction help protect the house? Not unless you've got some kind of medical disorder. Why impair the use of the house when used in what would seem to be a normal and natural function? Especially since you've already been given permission to enter.
How often would you go to that friend's house if all you were allowed to do was walk on very narrow plastic to the couch, weren't allowed to sit, and could only watch the shopping channel unless it was Sunday, at which point you *might* be able to watch sports, but only if you held your arms out at the right angle? How often would you to there, if your other friend had non-stop sports channels, a great couch, and actually let you sit down?