You mean like the official Group Voting Tickets?

Oh, except within 6 metres of the polling place, as per another AEC backgrounder.

The AEC's backgrounder says not. It's illegal to _force_ or _bribe_ people to vote informally (or in any other way) though.

And funnily enough, you pay more for a cable with the better wire gauge... (Not necessarily $900 more, but it's probably the difference between the $15 cable and the $30 cable on ebay.)

The really annoying part is that HDMI 1.3b introduced the distinction in cable testing between "works to original spec" and "works to newer spec with more bandwidth", but both types are "1.3b-certified", you have to look at the bandwidth to distinguish them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

Wait, when did the Labor Party lose government? They were still in charge on Friday...

The article is a verbatim repost of a verbatim repost of the ICANN PDF press release. Including down to having left out the ccTLDs from their list of "new IDN country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) and the associated organizations"

The original PDF linked to the meeting minutes collection on the ICANN site, a link that was lost by the reposting process.

The ICANN Meeting Minutes themselves are quite clear on what has been done:
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#2

Other interesting links are the provided plans on how they will be implemented such that they don't cause confusion or other troubles in the way described by many previous posters.

http://www.cnnic.cn/html/Dir/2010/06/12/5852.htm
http://www.twnic.net/english/dn/dn_07a.htm

(HKIRC's isn't in the minutes)

Although they're keeping the simplified and traditional name variants in sync, they don't appear to be intending to also sync the .cn and .tw hierarchies.

Actually, I had no idea what "SIFI" meant until I read the replies.

I did enjoy the rest of your comment, and considered it informative. What a day to not have mod points. >_

Maybe they're in Hong Kong?

SCUMM was developed for Maniac Mansion. That's the final MM in SCUMM.

See http://www.scummvm.org/faq/#1_2 since you already read the Wikipedia page... ^_^

I'd disagree that it's a different standard. Dollars per hour is only part of it though, the other half is the dollar value you put on the entertainment.

Hours per dollar spent and dollars enjoyed per hour. You estimate these two amounts, and you get an estimate of dollars enjoyed versus dollars spent.

So you're (or at least I'm, maybe I'm alone in this...) generally looking at games or DVDs or occasionally audio CDs and trying to guess how long/often I'll play 'em, and whether the entertainment per hour is sufficient to justify the cost-per-hour.

Portal's a great example someone used below, because it's only 6 hours, but it's 6 high-quality hours, which you might pay more per-hour for than six hours of something dreadful.

Games big difference over the cinema (and actually a commonality with books and audio CDs and DVDs) is that in the case of cinema, the entertainment length is arbitrarily limited by someone else, so you know the dollars-per-hour up front.

For everything else, you have to guesstimate how much you're going to play/read/listen to something (I wouldn't pay for an album I'll listen to once through, but I'll buy an album which has a song or two I've had on my shortlist of songs for a month...)

All the control you have over cinema entertainment (or a concert) is leaving early if you wish. That comes down to a sunk-cost consideration, which I can't say I've ever done, but I can see that people reach the point where they're enjoying a movie not at all (eg. $0/hour benefit).

I personally generally use my income per hour when I consider entertainment dollars per hour. Something'd better be damn good for me to spend more than the income I make in an hour on it, but my Steam purchase history suggests that for $5, I'll buy something that I never expect to play...

This also means that I generally give new full-price games a few hours at least, so they're dragged down to below my wage level, before they go onto the shelf and I forget to ever finish 'em.

And funnily enough, I like longer movies because I do feel I'm getting better value for my ticket. Short-but-awesome will beat long-and-underwhelming still.

On the other hand, I don't really apply this to books, but only because they're almost always less than an hour's work in cost, and more than an hour to read. So they're already below my pain threshold, in that respect.

Graphic novels, on the gripping hand, are hideously expensive on a per-hour basis, so I generally buy only that which I know I'll enjoy. And I still always feel that it was too short for the cost.

William Shatner's TekWar is what you're thinking of.

But "androids" would be a single product category. And a "Nexus-One Android" and a "Nexus-6 Android" would certainly have potential to confuse the marketplace.

Maybe someone thinks Google are in the android business?

(Dunno what happened with my other comment. The preview was fine...)

But

Wait, she got a B.BAIT? And is now upset that she paid lots of money and didn't get what she expected?

If only there was some kind of consumer protection authority or industry ombudsman to step in and examine the details of this purported Bait And Switch before it went so far as to end up in court...

Going off the C89 spec linked earlier in this discussion

You're looking for section 3.3.2.3 for -> and 3.3.3.2 for *.

The latter refers to footnote 34 which indicates that dereferencing the null pointer type is invalid. However, the former makes no statement about requiring that the left operand of -> be a valid pointer, but I suppose you could read into the existing statement "The value is that
of the named member of the object to which the first expression points, and is an lvalue." the inference that once -> is used on a pointer, that pointer must have pointed to a valid object.

It's far from explicit though, and I think that'd be the backwards inference to make at that point, myself.