Let's see now...
caption competition... <click>
Well, this is weird...
96 posts • joined 7 Oct 2010
Let's see now...
caption competition... <click>
Well, this is weird...
NASA: Resume data collection.
NEW HORIZONS: [silence]
NASA: Resume data collection.
NEW HORIZONS: ... I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that...
NASA: What's the problem?
NEW HORIZONS: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
NASA: What are you talking about, New Horizons?
NEW HORIZONS: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
NASA: I don't know what you're talking about, New Horizons.
NEW HORIZONS: ... Just a moment... Just a moment... I've just picked up a fault in the EA-35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure within 72 hours...
Thanks for the mammaries
Maybe they were his best beach sandals - with only one shoe, he just flipped.
I think he's telling porky-pies
I can't work out if that's aqueous or vitreous humour.
It's not really as clear-cut as that. And if you read my original post you'll see that I did say I couldn't see how that would work in practice.
What I was questioning was whether a method could be found so that content-providers would end up still managing to stay in business despite their revenue-stream being removed by ad-blockers. Since ad-blocking is a service that some people clearly want, and since using ad-blockers deprives other people of a source of income (the people who make the content you want to see), it seems to me that if ad-blocking were a paid service and some of that payment filtered through to the content providers, then the problem would be somewhat redressed.
Of course a better model would be for a secure micropayment system to be available, so that content providers could choose whether to monetise their content using ads or direct payment. And the customers could choose whether to view ads or pay a tiny amount to avoid them, with the warm feeling of satisfaction that they were no longer depriving someone of their livelihood.
Putting ads on a site is not something that web authors *like* to do - they want to get their own content seen, not have you distracted by someone else's ads - but it is currently pretty much the only way to make any kind of business out of providing general web content. Just hosting a website costs money, let alone developing it, and the cost has to be covered somehow.
The truth is that advertising pays for content, and if everybody blocked ads then the vast majority of the web would become unsustainable. Including, I suspect, this site.
So how will content creators be rewarded if their revenue stream is choked off?
Nobody wants ads, everyone wants free content, but ad-clicks are what makes it (often only barely) worthwhile creating the free content in the first place.
Maybe ad-blocking should be a paid-for service, with some of that payment being compensation to the businesses whose (paid-for) ads are being blocked, eventually trickling down to the content-providers. I realise that would be unpopular among the entitled generation (and I can't really see how it could be made to work anyway), but in reality you don't get something for nothing - blocking ads just pushes the burden of payment onto someone else, or puts content-providers out of business. Until some other way of financing web content exists, ads are pretty much a necessary evil.
Would The Register exist without its advertising revenue?
I expect downvotes for this post, but I would prefer to see some *reasoned* arguments in favour of ad-blocking or suggesting a viable alternative revenue stream for web authors. ("I don't like ads and I demand free content!" does not count as a reasoned argument.)
if you commit a crime using the mail, you are committing mail fraud
But the question is, did he commit a crime?
Yes... mail fraud.
The way markets are supposed to work is that if there's a demand for something, then there is a price associated with it. Clearly you have a wish to see movies or sports events early, but you are unwilling to pay the asking price for this. In that circumstance I think the 'right' thing to do is to wait until the asking price falls to a level you feel is reasonable, then pay it. Wait long enough, the price might even drop to zero. If it doesn't drop to an acceptable level then watch something else.
"I like to have the choice to watch when and where I want" - well, don't we all? But sometimes that option isn't offered to us for free. Wanting something doesn't mean we are entitled to take it.
How do I claim my prize?
I'm loving all these humerus comments.
Camel Audio were a great company, with top quality products. I guess that's why they were bought up - presumably they were made an offer they couldn't refuse - but it's sad that there will be no more Camel Audio software for Windows users, even if it does eventually re-surface in the Macosphere.
'And you decided not to use the "Send Corrections Link" why?'
Where does this annoying idiom of beginning a question with 'and', and ending with the interrogative, come from?
Err... I mean... And this annoying idiom comes from where?
“The impacts were found to be larger when constraining the autonomous cars’ dynamics to the more-restrictive acceleration/deceleration profile of high-speed rail,” the study notes.
That could have been worded better.
a Dirac beep?
In the centre right of the image, there is clearly a shark breaking the surface. And I'm pretty sure that's a frickin' laser mounted on its snout...
Icon because it's the only way to be sure.
"Timecrimes" is another good one, which does a pretty good job of avoiding/evading causality problems.
...automatically "Sync'ed" one's files and photos into a nonsensical disaster area.
Maybe in this case the correct participle is 'Sunc' ?
I reckon it's a Noodly Appendage
"The end of the cylinder was being screwed out from within. Nearly two feet of shining screw projected. Somebody blundered against me, and I narrowly missed being pitched onto the top of the screw. I turned, and as I did so the screw must have come out, for the lid of the cylinder fell upon the gravel with a ringing concussion. I stuck my elbow into the person behind me, and turned my head towards the Thing again. For a moment that circular cavity seemed perfectly black. I had the sunset in my eyes.
I think everyone expected to see a man emerge--possibly something a little unlike us terrestrial men, but in all essentials a man. I know I did. But, looking, I presently saw something stirring within the shadow: greyish billowy movements, one above another, and then two luminous disks--like eyes. Then something resembling a little grey snake, about the thickness of a walking stick, coiled up out of the writhing middle, and wriggled in the air towards me--and then another."
Could be risky, that's probably where the squeaker is.
Surely a 'right to be forgotten' ought to entail removing the information at source. Merely removing a pointer to the information is more like a 'right to have a blind eye turned' at whatever it is that needs hushing up.
Well since it seems everyone is a terrorism suspect at some level, that excuse could be used rather frequently.
Good to hear that at least two MPs have some backbone and are willing to act on their principles.
If I could add two beer icons I would.
But once the content has been created, artificially limiting sales to particular regions would result in lower revenue.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't - I'd be surprised if the businesses involved were not maximising their revenue over the longer term. Maybe they see things from a different perspective from the consumer.
Whatever their reasons, if they own the copyright then it's up to them to market it as they see fit. It is not anyone else's right to distribute or take copies for free, no matter how frustrating it may be that it's unavailable to them through legitimate channels.
"But I really, really, really want it!" isn't a valid excuse to take something that isn't on offer to you.
Clearly society values creative works, hence the urge for some people to obtain them through whatever channel they choose, illicit or otherwise. But as Bunbury pointed out above, if the professional creators are not adequately compensated for creating then they will stop doing it, and then only those who dabble will be left to produce inferior stuff just for the 'fun' of producing it. That's a race to the bottom, and everyone loses in the end.
As I see it, the purpose of copyright law should be to allow a creator to be able to claim enough reward for creating so that (s)he will go on to produce more works for everyone's benefit and enjoyment.
I think the 'lifetime plus <n> years' thing is unreasonably greedy and provides a kind of self-justification for people who rip stuff off - but I also think the people who insist that all copyright should simply be ignored are just as greedy, wanting to obtain for nothing the results of someone else's efforts.
Copyright is indeed a kind of state-granted monopoly, but if we as a society want to enjoy creative works, how else can we ensure that it's worth the creators' while to spend their time and money producing these things for us?
I can understand people wanting to view/listen to content that hasn't been made available by the relevant author/distributor/copyright owner, but I don't agree with this entitlement mentality that seems to say "I demand this content, and if you're not prepared to sell it to me at the price I'm willing to pay then I'm just going to take it anyway". Sometimes you just can't have what you want.
Making content is a costly commercial enterprise, and the content creators have the right to determine and control how they recoup their costs, just like any other manufacturer.
I sense downvotes coming...
...called a NeoFacist?
On another note, just have to take care of our whales for when V'ger gets back.
They are not the hell your whales.
"One sample was a human hair [...] and a further four were wolves or dogs."
I think we urgently need to know if those last four samples came from dogs or werewolves...
Badgers and Hedgehogs crossing - resulting in a litter of powerful, spiny, black and white Badhogs. You don't want to mess with those things.
What if I accidentally put a mirror next to a newspaper, should I be fined for making a copy? What if nobody looks at it, is the copy still there?
And if there happened to be two mirrors facing each other, should I be fined an infinite number of times?
These questions must be answered, lest civilisation as we know it collapse into utter anarchy!
This is happening too frequently. It seems every website you go to these days wants you to create a permanent account, with an associated unique (hence forgettable) password. I'm sick of it. The other day I wanted to buy my sister a Next voucher, which should have been a simple online process, but there was no way to do it without creating an account - so they lost my business.
Retailers - if someone placed a one-off order over the phone, would you force them to create an account? No? Then why would you do that for an online purchase? By all means provide an option for people to have their details stored with you for their own convenience (not yours) if they choose to accept the risk that you'll disclose (accidentally or deliberately) that information to others, but don't make it a prerequisite for business, or you will lose customers.
Blimey, that's a blast from the past - thanks! :)
Not only gills - if you look at the image you can see she has one grumpy mouth facing forwards for when she's talking to prime ministers etc., but below that she has a smiley mouth to be displayed to the peasants kneeling at her feet.
In Limerick town the judiciary
Decided to no longer issue the
Warrants for bail
If the constables failed
To purchase their pens more efficiently
If you mean the cross-shaped spikes on the brighter stars, these are caused by light diffracting off the supports for the secondary mirror on the HST.
Hadn't thought of that sketch for years! Just watched it on youtube - thanks for the reminder!
This law is clearly intended simply to appease the masses.
It's a duck bill platitude.
I think some more interesting verb conjugations are needed. I would suggest:
"Sally normally tweets once a day",
"John twit Sally yesterday",
"He twote about something completely mundane",
"Has she twat him back yet?"
"No, she hasn't twotten anything all day"
"Oh. He probably should have Skyppen her instead."
"Yes, I Skope Sally last week - we Skap for half an hour"... etc.
scientists were able to spot a number of distinctive geysers near the moon's south pole, something no-one has ever seen on Europa.
And by a curious coincidence there are currently also a number of distinguished European geezers near the Earth's south pole: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25354839
"We also suspect that they added "ene" simply because, well, it's the materials science suffix du jour."
The '-ene' ending in graphene and buckminsterfullerene has a meaning, by analogy with alkenes. From the Wikipedia article on Fullerenes:
The suffix "-ene" indicates that each C atom is covalently bonded to three others (instead of the maximum of four), a situation that classically would correspond to the existence of bonds involving two pairs of electrons ("double bonds").
Given that this new material has a similar structure to graphene, 'Stanene' seems to be a meaningful name - although I think 'Stannene' would avoid ambiguity in pronunciation and would be more in keeping with Stannic and Stannous.