With the whole HP TouchPad fiasco going on, I was wondering something. Tablet PCs are so ubiquitous these days, and yet something like the Wacom Cintiq is still so ungodly expensive. I realize they can price it that way since Wacom has a de facto monopoly on good graphics tablets, but what are the chances that somebody will eventually make some competing device featuring a built-in LCD screen? I can't imagine the cost to build a Cintiq is anywhere near the cost to build an iPad2, and yet the Cintiq costs twice as much anyway.
This thread is for stupid questions that don't deserve their own individual threads
- Thread starter Chairman Yang
- Start date
- Status
So I'm starting a website with a few friends.
It's been awhile since I've done this. What is a good company to go through to
1) Acquire the domain name
2) Host the site
?
I'm not sure how much traffic we'll be getting, so a basic amount of bandwidth is probably good for now, but I'd like to be able to upgrade easily in the future if the site takes off.
It's been awhile since I've done this. What is a good company to go through to
1) Acquire the domain name
2) Host the site
?
I'm not sure how much traffic we'll be getting, so a basic amount of bandwidth is probably good for now, but I'd like to be able to upgrade easily in the future if the site takes off.
MikeE21286
Member
JackEtc said:
pretty sure you can delete them manuallly by just going to the folder through windows explorer
I have a couple AV questions that Im not ashamed to say are so stupid I dont dare post them in the home theater threads..
1. Why do people run their HDMI cables through a receiver instead of just hooking them up directly to the TV? Isnt the main function of a receiver to run the audio to whatever speaker setup you have..why bother running the video source through the reciever (which usually converts then uncoverts the source) when you can just hook it up directly to the TV??
2. Is it ALWAYS better to have two front speakers and a stand alone sub, versus just two front speakers with built in subs?
1. Why do people run their HDMI cables through a receiver instead of just hooking them up directly to the TV? Isnt the main function of a receiver to run the audio to whatever speaker setup you have..why bother running the video source through the reciever (which usually converts then uncoverts the source) when you can just hook it up directly to the TV??
2. Is it ALWAYS better to have two front speakers and a stand alone sub, versus just two front speakers with built in subs?
TacticalFox88
Banned
In movies/shows/video games, when a protagonist has a katana in its sheath on his/her back they can always draw it no problem. Why is this not so in real life?
1. Because not everything has two HDMI outputs, the PS3 for example, if you want HDMI audio you have to go the reciever then from there to the TV.tapedeck said:
2. This is kind of an odd question, if you care about watching action films or playing games yes, it produces considerably more impressive lows than you'll get from normal speakers.
even after a complete format of my mom's laptop, I can't get the F keys to do the regular stuff, like F5 = refresh browser etc. All of them have special functions like lower the screen brightness or mute all sounds. These functions seem to work as intended but I have no idea what program governs that :S It's a Compaq Presario CQ56 (so, HP). There shouldn't be any HP specific programs left apart from some network and intel graphics chip drivers plus a program for the touchpad. Any ideas?
TheOrangeKid007
Member
Tenck said:
Depending on where you live (US or elsewhere) you will have to go through an apprenticeship as well as going through some sort of technical training in welding. The training in welding can be done at a technical academy but then to become a certified pipefitter able to work in certain environments (i.e. explosion proof or nuclear) you need to log a certain amount of hours under a pipefitter.
Do you like to work outside in the summer when its ridiculously hot? Are you comfortable working on standing platforms sometimes 30+ feet in the air? How do you feel about working around dangerous chemicals? These are some of the questions you need to ask yourself.
Hope that helps.
Are power cords universal? Bought a new TV but the power cord is short and set at an angle and doesn't work well with my wife's stipulation of hiding wires. I have a non-angled cord from a printer that fits just fine. It looks like this:
Is it safe to use with my TV? Are there different gages?
Is it safe to use with my TV? Are there different gages?
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Cool.ReiGun said:
alt-shift-K on a Mac creates an apple symbol: 
Windows user's cannot see it, however, and instead see the "private use F8FF" default symbol instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U+F8FF
I was driving yesterday and I was behind this guy in a Mazda RX8 and he had water swishing around in his tail lights. A good amount, too. It's been hot and humid here so obviously it's from condensation but how bad is that for the lights and how hard/expensive is it to fix?
AbsoluteZero
Banned
Ubermatik said:
I almost picked up a Sony CRT TV I saw on the side of the road the other day but I'd hate to have to lug it all the way home only to find out it's truly busted and not just being replaced in that home.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
When the iPhone 5 comes out, how does the process of upgrading from the 4 work out?
I have had mine since October, 2010.
Is there anything that would stop me from upgrading? (I am with At&t)
Can I sell my current iPhone to pay for at least the partial cost of the 5?
Do I have to pay any fee's?
I don't know if this is necessarily a stupid question...
I have had mine since October, 2010.
Is there anything that would stop me from upgrading? (I am with At&t)
Can I sell my current iPhone to pay for at least the partial cost of the 5?
Do I have to pay any fee's?
I don't know if this is necessarily a stupid question...
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Which router would be best to connect 3 or 4 Xbox 360's wirelessly on? i.e. not have to open up any ports
Maklershed
Member
Looks like there was already a thread about it ...StuBurns said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=441935
Anyone?Birbo said:Are power cords universal? Bought a new TV but the power cord is short and set at an angle and doesn't work well with my wife's stipulation of hiding wires. I have a non-angled cord from a printer that fits just fine. It looks like this:
Is it safe to use with my TV? Are there different gages?
Region-free depends on the movie, unfortunately (due to rights issues). This is more true with Criterion films because they're classics and the rights can often be a mess. Reviews at www.bluray.com should mention whether the title is region-free.StuBurns said:
Thanks for the heads up. I tend to use this helpful little site for checking region-coding:XMonkey said:
http://bluray.liesinc.net/
But I might have just checked some of those films, and assumed they'd all be the same, so I'll hold out till it's confirmed.
I actually have another BluRay question, in the States, Alien/s are sold separately, is that going to happen in the UK?
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
I assume you're talking about movies that are not in the public domain or carry a license that explicitly allows online public viewing.KuroNeeko said:
Downloading (viewing implies downloading!) without consent of the author is unauthorized in and of itself, and thus unlawful provided the media license says so (most do). The term for this is copyright infringement. How you're treated when you're found out is a local matter. The law usually differentiates between uploader and downloader, thus recognizing that the uploader does far more financial damage to the property holder than the downloader.
You should apply common sense, meaning that unless the opposite is not made blatantly obvious, movies are not eligible for free viewing on the internet. Blatantly obvious insofar as the movie's license tells you it's cool.
The uploader and the downloader are infringers, the site that serves the file is supposed to follow its local law. For sites under US jurisdiction, they're supposed to delete the file upon notice (iirc, this is tied to the DMCA, but I'm not sure). Other countries have other laws. The copyright holder has to enforce the copyright himself, so there's no government body that contacts MegaUpload; that's something that FOX, Sony etc have to do themselves.
More on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Edit: Whoops, forgot to answer the question. Technically both, but most of the time, only the uploader is being looked at. This gets a bit fuzzy when it comes to torrents, where they usually only look at the big seeders. But because the research necessary tends to be rather expensive, most copyright holders only enforce that the file is being taken down and do not attempt to get uploaders or downloaders.
wolfmat said:
Interesting.
I wonder how this applies in other situations. Take a Drive-Thru (not that you really see them around anymore but) if you're sitting outside of the viewing area and can happen to see the screen - does that make you a criminal? Or what if you can see a movie that someone has rented / bought through their window. You don't have to be in their yard, crouched in their bushes and peering through the window - you could be walking past their house while walking your dog or maybe their TV is (unintentionally) positioned in a place where you can freely see it.
In that case, the responsibility for actively not watching something falls on viewer since you are watching it outside of the scope of the license?
I wonder if music works the same way. If someone buys a CD and then plays it in their car with their friends (or at a party / social gathering) does that constitute a copyright infringement as well?
In regards to my post above, I know it is illegal to upload a movie to the internet, same as it is illegal to distribute it. The site it clearly in the wrong. I imagined that it would also be illegal to push a button and watch it streaming as well but just wanted to check.
Oh well, too bad. Guess that brings an end to that.
wolfmat said:
Yeah, I can get that. I guess people shouldn't use that as an excuse to watch if it's wrong. Relying on negligence is never a good excuse to do something you shouldn't do.
Thanks for the reply!
KuroNeeko said:
when you really think about it, piracy is pretty similar to your buddy lending you his copy of a game or movie. you've both enjoyed the media for the price of one. The difference is piracy is at a much larger scale.
I think in the case of your friend playing a CD in the car, watching a movie from someone else's window, etc. the person displaying the movie/playing the CD doesn't have the intent to share it, unlike streaming sites.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Maybe technically, but not practically. It would be rather pointless to follow the law to the letter in that scenario, so noone would attempt to.KuroNeeko said:
It's not illegal everywhere though. It is a local distinction. All countries differentiate between commercial and noncommercial public viewing, both in legality itself as well as degree of punishment. Russia explicitly allows streaming and downloading movies for private purposes.
It's really diverse and confusing under the hood. For example, what are "they" gonna do if they can't enforce copyright because the country the servers stand in doesn't address the legality? Technically, the site doesn't do anything illegal because its country doesn't deem the serving illegal. So when you view it, how are you ever going to be found out if they can't actually look into the server logs because they can't raid the servers? They surely can't preemptively monitor you, or your ISP.
And there are other aspects, like anonymization measures on your end, generic data throughput (proxies and stuff), encryption, obfuscation
And the crazy numbers are another thing. There might be billions of people infringing copyright on one property alone. How are the logistics of prosecuting them even supposed to work? This hasn't been worked out at all so far!
Misanthropy
Member
Are peoples' teeth evolved to only be for eating vegetables? Yes I know we are omnivores but were our teeth evolved to be omnivoric? Need solid evidence please.
Misanthropy
Member
My friend tells me we aren't supposed to eat meat. That our teeth were specifically designed to only eat Vegetables and all these gastro-intestinal related diseases stem from us eating meat. I told him that he's wrong and that our teeth allow us to choose what to eat and if that wasn't the case then we wouldn't have the bacteria in our colon right now helping us digest meat then. I want to see who is right.StuBurns said:
He doesn't believe humans are carnivores? Sounds like a smart guy.
Jokes aside there are aspects of human biology that is oddly close to herbivores, and possibly more so historically.
EDIT: Reading up, it's apparently more hotly debated than I'd imagined. Google it, some interesting stuff.
EDIT2: It's really not that hotly debated actually, it's just websites claiming it is, humans are omnivores, meat eaters by nature.
Jokes aside there are aspects of human biology that is oddly close to herbivores, and possibly more so historically.
EDIT: Reading up, it's apparently more hotly debated than I'd imagined. Google it, some interesting stuff.
EDIT2: It's really not that hotly debated actually, it's just websites claiming it is, humans are omnivores, meat eaters by nature.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked