How Good is "Good Enough?"
on
Beyond HDTV
·
· Score: 1
At some point, displays have a high enough resolution that the human eye can't tell when the picture is any sharper. We've got to be getting close to that, no?
What seems more likely to me is that the next Xbox will run on x86-64, and basically run a stripped down version of Windows 8. So there would be no emulation fakery required. Sure, the first generation of games would require very expensive PCs, but three or four years down the road, a decent gaming PC could boot into "gaming mode" and play Xbox games easily.
Well, science journalism. So, tentative results from an animal trial using a compound that happens to be found in some wines (mostly red, but not all red and in some whites), cocoa, and peanuts leads to a headline about drinking in space? Really?
But everyone loves Google, and we all know Yahoo is a washed up has-been looking for any way to turn a profit to keep its zombie brain-eating existance alive./snark
Pretty much. Google pulled out of China, at least in large part because they didn't like the hardline government there and the censorship they imposed. I respect that. Are they angels? No. But if we don't reward the companies that do right, what incentive do they have to do it? If enough consumers make choices in the companies we support based on their moral and ethical behavior, then we create an environment where companies compete to be perceived to be the most ethical. Hopefully, that will involve actually being ethical.
And this slippery slope leads to where? Package names that are completely inoffensive?
Not all slopes are slippery, you know. If the package was named after a certain racial slur for blacks or referencing how much fun child pornography is, it wouldn't be allowed, so there's not total freedom now. There is some censorship right now, and the slope hasn't somehow slid the world of Python down into a totalitarian regime of... I don't know. Like, seriously, I cannot figure out where some people are scared politely enforced naming conventions will lead. Regardless, it hasn't led there yet, and not allowing names inoffensive to women isn't going to make the slope any more slippery.
This slope has plenty of traction. Quit worrying about something so minor.
The author thinks they're the result of an overly litigious society, but a lot of these have to be firmly tongue-in-cheek. I mean, "Do not look into laser with remaining eye?" Someone threw that in as a joke, and kept on laughing after it got past editing.
I already have a 3G android smartphone. It works just fine for what I need to do on my phone. I get email, I can surf the web, and I can stream music (but I don't go crazy with it). I very rarely use it for watching video. I just checked my usage this month, and I've just now cracked 2GB, about three weeks into my billing cycle. If I'm using this much data now, what happens when I get one of those 4G smartphones that they advertise showing people watching videos on them? If you're to watch those commercials, you'd think they were designed to be portable TVs more than phones. But even with their very hefty plans, you'll get overage pretty quickly pulling that much data down regularly.
My next phone will likely be Sprint, unless they go to a tiered pricing before my next contract is up. I know their 4G isn't as good as Verizon's.... but honestly, I can already stream Youtube video at 3G speeds if I put up with a little buffering, and Sprint's 4G is plenty fast enough to watch good quality video (the only thing I really see me needing 4G for any time in the foreseeable future). And, hey, you can actually USE it!
My wife recently got a job at Microsoft. She raved about how great the work environment is there, about all the little freebies, all that stuff. About a week after she started, she told me "I just realized why it's so great there. For the first time, I'm working somewhere IT is the asset, not the expenditure."
Considering how Amazon has become known for caving to the slightest pressure from law enforcement or even just a nosy senator, to host such an attack from EC2 seems extraordinarily stupid.
It would make much more sense to launch it from somewhere hosted by a company that doesn't have a reputation for giving up their customer's data and shutting down even legitimate stuff that happens to run afoul of their vague guidelines.
Nah, once you do something on the scale of the PSN hack, it doesn't matter if the service provider caves too easily or not, because everyone gives up information when they get served a warrant. And there will be warrants. They just had to make sure Amazon has no way to trace it back to them, and it seems very unlikely the perpetrators accessed Amazon's servers from anything other than a laptop bought at a yard sale with a fake MAC address on a public wi-fi hotspot.
And the cloud services were paid for with a Visa gift card that was bought with cash.
Here's what I'd love to see on my router. Someone connects and gets a redirect that says "Hey, don't torrent or do anything illegal. Click to agree." They agree, and they get some free access, but it'll throttle them if they try to use a ton of traffic. I don't mind giving someone some wifi for basic browsing, but I don't want it to impact me.
Alternately, there's a place to put in a password on this same page to prove that this isn't a random device - it's an authorized device. It then remembers this device's MAC address and flags it as an authorized and never gets the popup again and never gets throttled.
Speaking of legal protections, it would be really nice if there was some EULA and throttling options in DDWRT. I leave mine open, and I had a neighbor that used it for a while. I didn't really mind since they weren't using much bandwidth (I checked that out a few times I was having internet issues, and it was never them). But it got me thinking, it'd be really nice if I could "EULA" my router easily, similar to what you see at Starbucks or whatever, and make them click through an "I'm watching your bandwidth, don't start torrenting" screen, and then automatically throttle traffic from non-preferred computers.
I don't mind giving people some easy internet access. Especially where I live, where cellphones access is flaky for anyone not on Sprint, I just wish I could fine grain my control of it more easily.
Re:Cheating
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Oh, sure, that's probably true. But if it's made difficult enough, and the vendor is vigilant for hacking, it can be made almost impossible. Take the 360, where just a couple months ago a ton of hacked consoles were banned from Xbox Live forever. Most people just don't bother with hacking because they know that one day Microsoft might bring the hammer down on them for online play. And it works. I have several friends who pirate practically all the media they consume, but they have vanilla unmodded Xboxes and buy their games. Why? Because Microsoft's anti-piracy and anti-cheat has been overall successful, and really the only way you can cheat on Live is with a lag switch, and even that is harder now since most games let people boot obvious cheaters.
What has been said in jest many many times here, I say with a straight face. I, for one, welcome our new online game overlords. I don't play online PC games anymore because of all the cheating issues. There are sooo many less cheaters on Xbox it's a whole different world.
The Air Force doesn't even really do dogfights. That's more of a navy/army thing. The Air Force flies AWACS, predator drones, and (wierdly) does cyber-security. They're more like the Computer Force these days.
The great thing about online console play (the only thing, really, that it has over PCs) is their closed nature. It's much, much harder to cheat on a console than on a PC game.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support their right to mod their own hardware. But I don't want to play them online.
>Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is
>kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's
>characterized by surrounding yourself by people
>who exclusively think like you already think, and
>not being challenged.
No, it isn't. Being open-minded is believing things because there is evidence and proof. Being close-minded is believing in things (or not) despite any and all evidence that comes your way.
Staking a claim on it's own isn't being close minded, and being a scientist isn't "just as close minded" as being a crazy fanatic. There's a difference between basing opinion on fact and fantasy.
I know it's popular to hate on American football because it's American, but the types of hits and tackles legal in the NFL would mean half a rugby team would be paralyzed by the end of the season.
Add to that, the plays of the NFL are much more intricate... the NFL is more of a tactical contest between coaches than probably any other professional sport.
First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, so? Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans. People want healthcare, and responsible end to the war in Iraq, etc. McCain/Palin, on the other hand, basically accused him of being a terrorist.
If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense.
What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth) and McCain was accusing him of palling around with terrorists (ie, a lie).
Slashdot Mirror
At some point, displays have a high enough resolution that the human eye can't tell when the picture is any sharper. We've got to be getting close to that, no?
And this is why I'm ready to jettison Facebook.
What seems more likely to me is that the next Xbox will run on x86-64, and basically run a stripped down version of Windows 8. So there would be no emulation fakery required. Sure, the first generation of games would require very expensive PCs, but three or four years down the road, a decent gaming PC could boot into "gaming mode" and play Xbox games easily.
Well, science journalism. So, tentative results from an animal trial using a compound that happens to be found in some wines (mostly red, but not all red and in some whites), cocoa, and peanuts leads to a headline about drinking in space? Really?
But everyone loves Google, and we all know Yahoo is a washed up has-been looking for any way to turn a profit to keep its zombie brain-eating existance alive. /snark
Pretty much. Google pulled out of China, at least in large part because they didn't like the hardline government there and the censorship they imposed. I respect that. Are they angels? No. But if we don't reward the companies that do right, what incentive do they have to do it? If enough consumers make choices in the companies we support based on their moral and ethical behavior, then we create an environment where companies compete to be perceived to be the most ethical. Hopefully, that will involve actually being ethical.
But it's still a slippery slope.
And this slippery slope leads to where? Package names that are completely inoffensive? Not all slopes are slippery, you know. If the package was named after a certain racial slur for blacks or referencing how much fun child pornography is, it wouldn't be allowed, so there's not total freedom now. There is some censorship right now, and the slope hasn't somehow slid the world of Python down into a totalitarian regime of... I don't know. Like, seriously, I cannot figure out where some people are scared politely enforced naming conventions will lead. Regardless, it hasn't led there yet, and not allowing names inoffensive to women isn't going to make the slope any more slippery. This slope has plenty of traction. Quit worrying about something so minor.
The author thinks they're the result of an overly litigious society, but a lot of these have to be firmly tongue-in-cheek. I mean, "Do not look into laser with remaining eye?" Someone threw that in as a joke, and kept on laughing after it got past editing.
I already have a 3G android smartphone. It works just fine for what I need to do on my phone. I get email, I can surf the web, and I can stream music (but I don't go crazy with it). I very rarely use it for watching video. I just checked my usage this month, and I've just now cracked 2GB, about three weeks into my billing cycle. If I'm using this much data now, what happens when I get one of those 4G smartphones that they advertise showing people watching videos on them? If you're to watch those commercials, you'd think they were designed to be portable TVs more than phones. But even with their very hefty plans, you'll get overage pretty quickly pulling that much data down regularly.
My next phone will likely be Sprint, unless they go to a tiered pricing before my next contract is up. I know their 4G isn't as good as Verizon's.... but honestly, I can already stream Youtube video at 3G speeds if I put up with a little buffering, and Sprint's 4G is plenty fast enough to watch good quality video (the only thing I really see me needing 4G for any time in the foreseeable future). And, hey, you can actually USE it!
My wife recently got a job at Microsoft. She raved about how great the work environment is there, about all the little freebies, all that stuff. About a week after she started, she told me "I just realized why it's so great there. For the first time, I'm working somewhere IT is the asset, not the expenditure."
I think that's the core of it, really.
Considering how Amazon has become known for caving to the slightest pressure from law enforcement or even just a nosy senator, to host such an attack from EC2 seems extraordinarily stupid.
It would make much more sense to launch it from somewhere hosted by a company that doesn't have a reputation for giving up their customer's data and shutting down even legitimate stuff that happens to run afoul of their vague guidelines.
Nah, once you do something on the scale of the PSN hack, it doesn't matter if the service provider caves too easily or not, because everyone gives up information when they get served a warrant. And there will be warrants. They just had to make sure Amazon has no way to trace it back to them, and it seems very unlikely the perpetrators accessed Amazon's servers from anything other than a laptop bought at a yard sale with a fake MAC address on a public wi-fi hotspot.
And the cloud services were paid for with a Visa gift card that was bought with cash.
Apple hasn't been happy with Samsung launching android phones, and this is how they're showing their displeasure.
Here's what I'd love to see on my router. Someone connects and gets a redirect that says "Hey, don't torrent or do anything illegal. Click to agree." They agree, and they get some free access, but it'll throttle them if they try to use a ton of traffic. I don't mind giving someone some wifi for basic browsing, but I don't want it to impact me.
Alternately, there's a place to put in a password on this same page to prove that this isn't a random device - it's an authorized device. It then remembers this device's MAC address and flags it as an authorized and never gets the popup again and never gets throttled.
Man, DD-WRT should totally do this.
Speaking of legal protections, it would be really nice if there was some EULA and throttling options in DDWRT. I leave mine open, and I had a neighbor that used it for a while. I didn't really mind since they weren't using much bandwidth (I checked that out a few times I was having internet issues, and it was never them). But it got me thinking, it'd be really nice if I could "EULA" my router easily, similar to what you see at Starbucks or whatever, and make them click through an "I'm watching your bandwidth, don't start torrenting" screen, and then automatically throttle traffic from non-preferred computers. I don't mind giving people some easy internet access. Especially where I live, where cellphones access is flaky for anyone not on Sprint, I just wish I could fine grain my control of it more easily.
Oh, sure, that's probably true. But if it's made difficult enough, and the vendor is vigilant for hacking, it can be made almost impossible. Take the 360, where just a couple months ago a ton of hacked consoles were banned from Xbox Live forever. Most people just don't bother with hacking because they know that one day Microsoft might bring the hammer down on them for online play. And it works. I have several friends who pirate practically all the media they consume, but they have vanilla unmodded Xboxes and buy their games. Why? Because Microsoft's anti-piracy and anti-cheat has been overall successful, and really the only way you can cheat on Live is with a lag switch, and even that is harder now since most games let people boot obvious cheaters. What has been said in jest many many times here, I say with a straight face. I, for one, welcome our new online game overlords. I don't play online PC games anymore because of all the cheating issues. There are sooo many less cheaters on Xbox it's a whole different world.
The Air Force doesn't even really do dogfights. That's more of a navy/army thing. The Air Force flies AWACS, predator drones, and (wierdly) does cyber-security. They're more like the Computer Force these days.
The great thing about online console play (the only thing, really, that it has over PCs) is their closed nature. It's much, much harder to cheat on a console than on a PC game. Don't get me wrong. I fully support their right to mod their own hardware. But I don't want to play them online.
>Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is >kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's >characterized by surrounding yourself by people >who exclusively think like you already think, and >not being challenged.
No, it isn't. Being open-minded is believing things because there is evidence and proof. Being close-minded is believing in things (or not) despite any and all evidence that comes your way.
Staking a claim on it's own isn't being close minded, and being a scientist isn't "just as close minded" as being a crazy fanatic. There's a difference between basing opinion on fact and fantasy.
The title is "ISS To Become Second Brightest Object In the Sky."
Dark Knight Returns
Because he tried to kill Jean-Luc Picard.
>Personally, mine at home are named after >mythological deities. Ditto. My nameserver is Jesus.
I've always been partial to "sources of knowledge," so my current laptop is Mimir.
Right now, the document server I run is called Alexandria, and the samba share it runs is called Library.
This is an American site. It uses American English. It's called consistency.
I know it's popular to hate on American football because it's American, but the types of hits and tackles legal in the NFL would mean half a rugby team would be paralyzed by the end of the season.
Add to that, the plays of the NFL are much more intricate... the NFL is more of a tactical contest between coaches than probably any other professional sport.
First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, so? Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans. People want healthcare, and responsible end to the war in Iraq, etc. McCain/Palin, on the other hand, basically accused him of being a terrorist. If there's more positive going on with Obama, there will be more positive stories. That's not bias, that's just basic common sense. What I thought was stupid were the ridiculous "false equivalence" stories where they'd critize both candidates for "going negative" when Obama was talking about the fact that McCain would tax healthcare (ie, telling the truth) and McCain was accusing him of palling around with terrorists (ie, a lie).