Slashdot Mirror

Reference for those too young to remember it ;)

I'll make a mental note to stay away from 18 wheelers for the next few weeks :P

Professional white hat. See Sneakers

Looks to me more like the ship in George Pal's "When Worlds Collide": http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3091372032/tt0044207

So who did the seventh?

Ron Howard

If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.

That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around

No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.

Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?

Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.

This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.

No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.

Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?

I wish you the best of luck with it

Thanks.

Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.

I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.

Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.

Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.

Falcon

If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.

That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around

No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.

Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?

Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.

This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.

No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.

Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?

I wish you the best of luck with it

Thanks.

Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.

I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.

Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.

Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.

Falcon

If you want to be a full-time author, except in very few cases, you need to keep writing and publishing.

That's my point, artists should keep on creating.

And one of the ways that it encourages creation is by saying that nobody can take your work and profit for it while you're still around

No, for a limited tyme not for the rest of your life. Thomas Jefferson was originally against copyright, and patents, however his friend James Madison convinced him that they could encourage progress. Once he was convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuarial table of life spans and wrote the original term limits of copyrights and patents, 14 years with one 14 year extension possible. He felt this was optimal for the creation of new works. With today's technology these terms can be cut in half and still leave creators with an incentive to create. Artists, musicians and writers, are no longer locked into one publisher, unless they sign a contract with that as part of it.

Publishers who can print out unlimited Stephen King novels that cost them nothing are unlikely to then spend much effort, or more importantly money, on a new author. Why should they?

Who said publishers wouldn't have to pay anything? The work would still be under copyright even if for only 7 years. If one publisher won't print then another can, or the artist, writer, can publish him or herself. So publishers have the incentive because that work could be the next best seller but if they don't then they don't make money and publishers are in business to make money. While it may but probably won't be that does not mean it won't be a money maker. Redhat made $442.36 million in gross profits in 2008.

This overlooks a couple of facts, one that once the copyright expires anyone can print and sell a work.

No it doesn't. Loads of publishing houses print and sell books that are out of copyright. Shakespeare is a good market. The number of people who download or print their own doesn't seem to be seriously denting this market, and probably won't for some time to come.

Yet Shakespeare still wrote. I have an anthology of his, as well as an anthology of Chaucer. "Beowulf", "The Mask", and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were all made into movies because any copyright expired long ago. Do you really think they would have been made if they were still under copyrights?

I wish you the best of luck with it

Thanks.

Ugh, now there's a sorespot....wedding photographers.

I couldn't be a wedding photographer myself, shooting a wedding occasionally is ok but not shooting only weddings. Me, I like nature and cultural photography. Ten or 15 minutes bike ride from me there's a lake which I can get shots of wind surfers on the ice during the winter or on the water in the summer. About a month ago I bought a telescope with a mount for my camera. Originally I got it to use as a telephoto lens however I want to find a place I can go to for astrophotography, away from light pollution. I would also like to try fine art photography.

Don't treat someone's wedding as an art project. Make the terms clear to them, otherwise nobody will be happy with the arrangement in the end.

Oh, I agree. And not just with photography, it should be applied to many other fields as well. For instance don't sign an NDA without having an attorney vet it and don' sign away your work on an open source project.

Falcon

Gordon Freeman is yet another Hollywood douche, who is patiently failing upwards.

...oh, right. They lost one in the Ford administration...

weapons (in case they have to land in an unsecured location)

Unless this changed after 9/11, there is no secret gun locker on Air Force One. That gun locker was made up as a plot device for Air Force One.

You are as big a part of the problem as anyone else. Here is a simple idea. "VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE CRIMINALS".

The kid did not steal the car because he played GTA. Your claim that it did is simply stupid. My 4 year old watches plenty of movies and plays video games that would make many parents go white with shock. Of course, I talk about right and wrong with my child. He knows what is pretend and what is real, so I have no fear of him stealing my car. Of course I've also made it clear that as soon as he can reach the peddles, he won't have to steal my car. I'll find private land where he can legally drive the car and show him how.

This current trend of thinking that we should teach kids about right, and hide wrong from them is crazy. Kids are eventually going to be faced with wrong. When they are, you don't want them to get it confused with the infinant number of right things that they haven't yet experienced.

Not teaching your kid the difference between real and imaginary is just as crazy.

Not only should the parents NOT get additional charges because of GTA, the fact that the kid played GTA should not even be an issue. The parents are certainly where there is a problem, but that problem is that the parents are raising an unruly child who does dangerous illegal activities.

After all, there are hundreds if not thousands of childrens movies where kids illegally drive cars. Would you also suggest that parents who let their kids watch The Last Mismsy should also be arrested?

Have these people lost their minds? I spend $60,000 for an automobile and now it will spam me while driving it? Are you serious, Lexus? What could possibly motivate these people to want to spam their customers AFTER a purchase? We are getting closer and closer to Idiocracy.

Playboy? More like Hustler, since everyone knows that earth girls are easy.

Because of the message from the hacked britney spears account, I found out about a cool indie horror flick - Teeth - found it online and enjoyed it for the quirky little story that it was.

Don't talk to him, it sounds like he's talking backwards.

This is an obvious Twin Peaks reference, which is apt, considering how surprising it is to see a manufacturer mine our sales receipts for information.

A retail outlet must obtain consent from you to give your personal information to a third party, and no clear consent was given in this case.

This is a job for that quirky Special Agent Dale Cooper, who possibly moonlights for the EFF.

Is there amummy involved?

It's been done before.

Michael McDonald already has experience at it and could do it quite nicely I think.

Except Noah Wyle looks much more like Steve (or at least Steve when he was younger).

I'm not sure that many teenagers are going to have "badass" scars. Less "badass" ones are more like it.

Also, I think you need to spend a little more effort imagining yourself in the position of someone who is permanently disfigured. Even if their scar looks "badass" to a teenage boy, living with it is not quite like the movies.

Are you insane?

I'm making an obscure movie reference; whether that makes me insane is an opinion for someone else to form.

To be fair, it seems that (according the army) terrorists were firing mortar shells from structure moments earlier.

Yet, amazingly, for all the aerial drones, balloons (yes, balloons) and other visual devices they have, no image of said mortar firing will ever be provided for the public to view. Instead, we're supposed to rely on the word of a military who attacked a U.S. warship in international waters, who deliberately rammed and nearly sank a humanitarian aid ship and who in 2006, destroyed the only power plant in Gaza.

I'm all for people retaliating when they are attacked, but to deliberately kill journalists, attack your "friends", deny humanitarian aid to those who need it, attack refugee camps, and a whole list of other offenses, is where I draw the line. You want to shape world opinion to your point of view? Quit playing the victim card and start acting like you learned something from everything that's been done to you.

And since when is someone defending their land from an invader a terrorist? Apparently all those Iraqis who fought against the U.S. invasion were terrorists. Same goes George Washington. Hell, by that standard, Red Dawn was nothing but a propaganda story about terrorists.

I take it you haven't read, or seen hogfather? The tooth fairy could lead to the end of existance!

Your copy will do what you would do, react in the same way, make the same decision and evolve the way you do based on your daily input and ability to output, process, link, associate and store creating a dynamic internal cerbral evolution. But he or she will be able to do that. You will still be stuck in your conscience, and not being able to be transfered in a way you get to experience it. Why not? it will still be a copy. Your copy will, if fully "transfered", have your conscience and feel like (s)he is you with your memories, but you yourself wont.

Sort of like this...

About the planet and all, Dr. Mills with his crew did some computer simulations revealing that if they could harness the energy of the male members of Martin Sheen's family they could put the state of Illinois to Pluto. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095687/maindetails. As the necessary technology develops carefully timed jerks will be able to power half the people right out of the galaxy. (see the reference)

O Rly?

Yep. All over Osama bin Laden, or so we are told. The very man formerly propped up by our own CIA, during the cold war between the Soviets and the US, where Afghanistan was simply a pawn, caught between two powerful factions, and left to fester afterwards.

And you are surprised they would be so inclined to flay a couple of planes into our buildings? That's nothing compared to the damage the US and the Soviet Union has done to that country over the decades.

Just saw Charlie Wilson's War. My understanding is that most of it is pretty on target about the story, but I'll admit it probably glossed over pieces. The general gist though, that the U.S. supported the Afghans up till the U.S.S.R. pulled out, and then Charlie was unable to support even a miniscule fraction of the money to build a school and help rebuild the country, is properly summed up by the quote used on the ending Title Card of the movie: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world ...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

The U.S. has never learned much about the "End Game", China thinks ONLY of the "End Game".

Yep. The US can't think past the next election. China is into long-term planning. Who will be better positioned to seize the future?

Like I said, it's time to start learning Mandarin!

I bet you don't give them as much attention as Dr. Richard H. Thorndyke did in High Anxiety. That guy was really obsessive-compulsive about it.

Yep. All over Osama bin Laden, or so we are told. The very man formerly propped up by our own CIA, during the cold war between the Soviets and the US, where Afghanistan was simply a pawn, caught between two powerful factions, and left to fester afterwards.

And you are surprised they would be so inclined to flay a couple of planes into our buildings? That's nothing compared to the damage the US and the Soviet Union has done to that country over the decades.

Just saw Charlie Wilson's War. My understanding is that most of it is pretty on target about the story, but I'll admit it probably glossed over pieces. The general gist though, that the U.S. supported the Afghans up till the U.S.S.R. pulled out, and then Charlie was unable to support even a miniscule fraction of the money to build a school and help rebuild the country, is properly summed up by the quote used on the ending Title Card of the movie:
  "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world ...and then we fucked up the end game." - Charlie Wilson

The U.S. has never learned much about the "End Game", China thinks ONLY of the "End Game".

But at least all the info on imdb is verified

You might like to try creating a fraudulent IMDb profile sometime, I think you'd find the experience educational.

Here's an example: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1885979/

Rose porn... that would be Secret Diary of a Call Girl

Amtrak has never once turned a profit in it's entire history.

Instead, it relies on a constant flow of public funds...all the while pretending to be private property. With it's own police force too, roughing people up like "Cigarette and A no. 1"

It's hard to take you seriously when you say Davidson every time.

It's Peter Davison. (Yes, yes, it's really Peter Moffet, you're very clever.)

He's already done it and been regenerated (many times...) - more info here. It was written by Steven Moffat as well.

I think Seth Rogen should be The Doctor. He'd be awesome in that role.

You might try his imdb page instead. Most of the wikipedia article is stolen from there anyway (like almost all film / tv / actor bios on wikipedia) But at least all the info on imdb is verified -- unlike wikipedia.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1741002/

Looks like he has worked with Billie Piper before. Would be interesting if she was still on the show..

Since it wasn't included in the summary and searching for "Matt Smith" brings up page after page of listings on IMDB, here's the profile of the actor in question.

It looks like he hasn't done much in his career so far, and (other than one episode of Secret Diary of a Call Girl) I don't see anything that American audiences would be familiar with there.

Still, it would be a good plot for a Roland Emmerich movie. IMax 3D, for sure, so you can watch the pyroclastic flow hit you in the face.

I think you will find yourself pleasantly surprised by how accurate you are in your Roland Emmerich predictions. Posting AC because I'm working on it now.

... security checkpoints wil look like the compound gate in Mad Max.

This is on BBC today..

Supervolcano

*wearing tinfoil hat* How did they know?! ;)

No it's a job for Michael Riley in Supervolcano. Possibly my favourite disaster movie because it is told as a documentary and dramatisation by the survivors of the event and amazingly the science is good.

That's "Testa o croce", an Italian movie from the early 80's :)

But, lo and behold, in the late 1990s, it gained new attention. Die Blechtrommel, imdb

As an aside, the actor, David Bennent, grew slowly himself. I was suprised to learn that he was 19 when he appeared in an episode of the Derrick series. He looked more like a prepubescent 13 year old, and still had a child's voice. But his character was (again) supposed to be older than he looked.

Now, if he had enacted something erotic then, would it only be kiddie porn if...

• the character was younger than the age of consent?
• if any of the viewers just might get a little confused?
• if some of those getting confused enjoyed it?

I sense that the prevailing attitude is "someone got confused, let's ban it!"

It's not cheap to build a bridge to Terabithia

Whooshh... :)

Whooshh... :)

Just some examples of people interacting as avatars in a virtual 3d environment.

Just some examples of people interacting as avatars in a virtual 3d environment.

of course, that is one motivation. have you ever seen the movie mercury rising ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120749/ )? basically a govt agency calls for people to crack their code and an autistic kid manages it. the agency (nsa?) declares the code uncrackable and hunts down the kid.

in the end, we have the same thing here. the fib wants to know how the wild geeks manage with the code. according to the responses they can statistically surmise the probability of their code being cracked - thus categorising their encodings and letting them know how secure it will eventually be.
first and foremost it's about finding out how easily it can be cracked. then it's often about hiring talent. I've never actually seen a LEA go down this path, though.