Actually, I think you'll find it was rounded down to $.00.
Actually, I think you'll find it was rounded down to $.00.
Because you want to know who was lazy with your private information, so you can deal with that situation.
That's a download of a bluray disc every day of the month. I don't think anyone streams in anything near that quality. But I'm sure your argument wasn't just the number.
Is Comcast offering things through this service that they do not offer through their regular cable service? It's just their on-demand shows. The only difference is that it goes over IP to an XBox, instead of digital cable to a cable box.
As it stands, nobody else can offer their services through Comcast's digital cable lines, and there are no laws that would make them.
Why does it matter that this exact same service is now offered via a different protocol? The service doesn't ever touch the internet.
This is akin to AOL's special features back in the day. You could get to the internet through their service, but they had other non-internet offerings at the same time. Nobody argued that that was unethical or violated the spirit of the internet or anything like that. (The term 'net neutrality' hadn't been coined yet.) How is this any different?
But Sony's an information black-hole, and they never tell you anything before it's finished.
Why do we get so crazy when data is sent over IP rather than another way? If they had done this with their cable lines and not used TCP/IP, nobody would bat an eye. In fact, that's how content was always served in the past. When they decide to cut costs and use the newer, better infrastructure for the old stuff, people freak out.
A company serving their own service over their own lines is nothing to freak out about.
I will agree that if they were doing this with other companies' data, it would be worrisome. But not their own.
I imagine your usage of that password will be just as ethical as theirs, too. So yeah, fair trade.
When I was a kid, my parents bought a very expensive set of hardback encyclopedias. When I got my second PC Clone, it came with a free copy of Encarta.
One day, I needed to do a report and cite references, so I looked up the same entries in each. They were absolutely identical.
Crap as it may be, it was the same as paper encyclopedias when it first came out, except that it also had video.
I posted news of this kickstarter campaign to Facebook and my *sister* replied, "We played the **** out of Wasteland!"
Wasteland has the distinction of being the one game from my childhood that was too hard to beat, AND that I came back years later to finally beat it when I had the skills. I can't think of another game that I came back to beat later. It's definitely in my top 5, if not top 2 games from childhood.
I can't freaking wait.
"The man claims he was demoted and then let go for promoting his views on intelligent design,"
"alleges that he was discriminated against because he engaged his co-workers in conversations about intelligent design and handed out DVDs on the idea while at work."
Notice that he doesn't claim he was fired for having the belief. He claims he was fired for promoting it. His version of 'promoting' might be everyone else's version of 'harassment'.
"In the lawsuit, Coppedge says he believes other things also led to his demotion, including his support for a state ballot measure that sought to define marriage as limited to heterosexual couples and his request to rename the annual holiday party a "Christmas party.""
""The question is whether the plaintiff was fired simply because he was wasting people's time and bothering them in ways that would have led him to being fired regardless of whether it was about religion or whether he was treated worse based on the religiosity of his beliefs," said Volokh."
"He sued in April 2010 alleging religious discrimination, retaliation and harassment and amended his suit to include wrongful termination after losing his job last year."
And he was already suing before he was fired, so this is an on-going thing. I think with a lawsuit in progress, they'd have to be pretty ballsy to fire him over the thing he was suing about, unless they had really, really good reason for it. A court will have to make that determination, though, as we don't have all the evidence. What evidence I've seen isn't pointing in a direction he'd like, though.
I think you'll find that it's so roundly rejected *because* it's already been researched properly and didn't hold up.
I think that's an artifact of having to make it human-accessible. If you make it too complicated, too many people will complain about how hard they are. If you make them too simple, computers can solve them easily.
Unfortunately, what usually happens is that both of the above are true at the same time, which means there's no good solution there. You either let computers in, or you keep some humans out.
Looking at the samples on the screen as he was talking, I think those would be fun to write a decoder for... And possibly even easier than image captchas.
Why? Because they're moving, and you have a better chance to figure out the outline of each shape because of it. Also, you can use traditional techniques on each frame of the video and submit the one that has the highest confidence, and you could do that with existing tech.
Honestly, I don't see this being better than what we have.
Very few game devs are PS3-exclusive. The majority of them already have to deal with a few different architectures. Anything that brings one of the outliers closer to the rest of the pack is probably good for them.
Sony's never been known for having good software to work with. Microsoft is apparently quite a lot better about that. So I wouldn't bet that the PS3 ever gone anything to help with that situation. At least, not from Sony.
Good parody. When I think about the PS3's processor, I always remember them bragging at launch that devs will still be trying to optimize for the PS3 when it's lifetime is over. I'm still astounded that they thought that was something to brag about.
Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.