Um... you do understand the circumstances that would necessitate an "isolation" event, right? By the time BART declares a problem and shuts down your phone, they've already become aware of an emergency. Calling 911 is moot; the fire (or bomb scare or disaster, etc) is probably the cause of your cell going dark. In fact, that might be comforting... someone already knows what's happening.
BART may be doing a favor to Bay Area Municipal Services by mitigating dozens (hundreds?) of redundant calls.
The point about the heart attack is still valid, but then again you wouldn't exactly be safer having an infarction in the middle of a "situation" with or without a working cellphone. The phone isn't going to save your life, but people could. To that end, could the EMT's get to you amid the chaos? Could they even find you? (GPS is also moot; underground, remember?) Are you going to dial while you're seizing? Maybe someone around you could help? Maybe someone is a doctor? (maybe not?) It's really not that different than any other time having a heart attack; you either get lucky or you don't. The lesson here is; look after your own health, dammit.
Here's a scenario; the terrorists have called in a bomb threat. It's determined to be a remote triggering mechanism and likely tied to a cellphone. Would you want your personal freedom to call/text/email someone at the expense of sustaining the very technology that makes the bomb go off? Cutting the signal could very well grant the space to de-fuse the threat. Is that what your precious mobile service is worth; innocent lives?
Next, you would probably argue that cutoff should only be "last resort"; only after confirming that a threat is tied to cellphone services. Here's a likely dramatization of such an event:
Field Agent: "Dispatch, Bravo Delta"
Dispatch: "Go Bravo Delta"
Field Agent: "Indigo Echo Delta, package visible"
Dispatch: "Indigo Echo Delta confirmed, report status"
Field Agent: "Package is hot, trigger remo--" [burst of static]
Ka-boom.
The insurgent in this scenario had a public-band scanner and heard the conversation as it happened. He(She) blew it up before anyone learned how to disarm it.
That conversation would have continued if the bomb (or bomber) was cut-off from the signal. Think about it.
If you need to make a call so badly, take the stairs.
Micro Center is a store here in south Denver, CO. It has many other stores nationwide. Visit them to learn more.
They are selling a refurbished D-Link DIR-601 (hardware rev. A1) for something like fifteen bucks. Typical WiFi router; one aerial and four LAN ports.
That hardware is confirmed to work with current DD-WRT builds AND you can easily convert it back to OEM. There's OpenWRT support as well, but I just prefer the browser GUI over CLI.
I bought one, immediately converted it, and it's working like a champ. If you want to stay with the OEM firmware, it's IPv6 ready with QoS, traffic filters and all the typical bells and whistles. It's actually quite impressive out-of-the-box, considering the price.
My old WRT54GS is still in use... as a switch. (DD-WRT Repeater Bridge mode with radio off, WAN port bridged to switch, still hummin')
Does Shuttleworth honestly think he's drawing the line between "cool" and "hip" here? Is cognitive dissonance somehow perceived an sovereign right of industry leaders?
Let's turn back the clock a bit... see who else has made claims that cut across the "cool" grain: NOTE: Emphases are my own.
In 1987, Bill Gates said:
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."
In 1994, he said:
"I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years."
...and the infamous one:
"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
(s/good/slick)
Let's hear from Steve Ballmer as well (circa 2007):
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."
If I were Mark Shuttleworth, I would STFU and learn from the foot-and-crow gourmets that came before me. There's no reason to get personally invested in your own innovations. Steve Jobs once insisted that the Macintosh would never have a cooling fan, didn't he get fired once? (What? Too soon?)
This Unity farce kinda reminds me of the rally MS put forth for "Microsoft Bob" after the first few bad reviews. Yeah, I said Microsoft Bob and they said it "looks really slick" too... back in the day. I admit it. I was, and am "too cool" to use Microsoft Bob. I don't use Unity either.
I'm sure Unity has it's place, it's place just doesn't happen to be on the desktop.
Parent modded "insightful", personally I would have gone with "funny".
I agree with others in thread; context is key to preserving spatial memory. POTS dialing is essentially dead, we all dial with thumbs now, if not with our voice.
I'm typing this with my Android(R) keypad, also using thumbs. Has it destroyed my ability to touchtype? I can say, with certainty, no.
I also use Swype (TM), which similarly has a negligible effect on my typing abilities.
Like others, I'm sure, I practice 10-key by touch. This discipline is absolutely dependent on the 7-8-9 top-row keys. So, unless you're proposing to re-wire 99% of the calculator-like devices in existence, I suggest you cut your losses and learn to work the numbers like the rest of humanity.
By "something", I would mean the true spirit of this "freedom" thing y'all are talking about.
Think about it. Keep your WEP, WPA, MAC filters and all intact... but get with your neighbors and interlink your routers. Nobody gets to "steal" that bandwidth, but you both get to benefit from each other's bandwidth.
Now a two-neighbor scenario may not seem like much freedom. Get a whole neighborhood involved—maybe a dozen routers or more—and you're talking something like a movement. Contribute to each other, provide guidance and security wisdom, don't let it be a one-way street. In the end, everyone benefits from the shared bandwidth, reduced downtime and maybe even get to put a few new dots on the Internet map. When Comcast blacks out, make FiOS take up the slack, and vice-versa. Pity the poor community that ever has to rely on someone's DSL... but a whole building of DSL connections could make for some sweet bandwidth.
The answer is simple; America loves things American. So-called "imperial" measurements are now so unique to America, that switching from them and conforming to the global economy's systems of measurement would be... don't tell me... "un-American".
I would have to disagree with the "hidden cost" part. There's a real cost that's been happening for decades and continues today; conversion to-and-from metric as well as pointless cohesion to archaic ad-hoc standards is already an obstacle for overseas companies to do trade. The Trade Deficit is surely inflated by an invisible barrier of mathematics, additional (redundant) labeling and loused-up bills of lading. The only thing that exceeds the reluctance to trade with America is the high demand of Americans for imported goods. Who knows how many loopholes there are alone in the kilo-to-pound, litre-to-gallon and cu/ft-m^3 conversions?
Ask any car nut and they'll be sure to rattle-off the displacement of their engine in litres, unless it's an American build, then it has to be cubic inches. Those numbers are pretty pointless anyway, since there are engines under 2L that will easily blow away a small-block 350 any day of the week.
Conversion is inevitable, and most people don't even realize that it's already (in a glacially slow fashion) underway. Since the 80's, there has been secondary units of measurement on all consumer packaging. (X oz. = Y g; P fl. oz. = Q ml) Find me a car made after 1990 that doesn't also have KpH on the speedo.
It's down to having it both ways, but still having it the American way. Like other pointless bonds, metric will ultimately dominate out of simple attrition and negligence; one day, imperial measures will be dropped for being "unfashionable". That's just the way America does it.
You know how it will begin? Fuel prices. Cost-per-litre is just a bit more than 1/4 the cost-per-gallon. For the oil and petroleum industry, that would be a lucrative marketing move. When the numbers change at the corner pump, don't believe it too quickly. Your high school science teacher was right; units are everything in the equation.
The thing is that as action movies in their own right, the 2nd and 3rd movies were fine. They just didn't have the epic mindblowing nature of the first. [...]
Indeed! What always bothered me about the trilogy* was that the first movie opened up a big mind-blowing can of whupazz, slathered on some really good action and suspense, and left it open-ended.
We cheered, "More! More! More!"
What we got was a lifetime supply of action, padded-out suspense, and a trickle of story to bridge one scene to the next. They messed with the well-seasoned, tender, juicy steak recipe and gave us a goopy bowl of action; to borrow a dichotomy from the first film.
If they want us to like Matrix again, the Wachowskis should focus on what made the first film great... balance in the mix.
IMHO, if they took the respective stories of Reloaded and Revolution, patched them into one film and shaved a good 1:30 from the oh-god-when-will-Neo-finally-frickin-get-there suspense, they would have had a worthy successor.
* <offtopic> RE: the word "trilogy" Maybe three is the magic number, but seriously, is there any such thing as a trilogy anymore? Thanks to Lucas and Spielberg, there's a bastard 4th film for Indiana Jones. There's already a 4th Pirates of the Carribbean movie, and it was being planned when the second and third were conceived. Now that it's been finalized, The Hobbit will become the 4th Lord of The Rings film as well. Will we start hearing of quadrologies next?...pentologies? --not quite the same ring to it, IYAM.
You want to make a successful show from true science? An idea so ludicrous, it makes the 1980's V look like a documentary.
To have gripping sci-fi, you must mix the "sci" and the "fi" in proper proportions. The "sci" must not exceed the "fi", failing that, the show would fall to the same fates as Mr. Wizard and Modern Marvels. (i.e., shows you may like on occasion, but won't dare watch unless it's one you haven't seen before... and even then, only if it's about something interesting.)
To wit, Fringe has introduced a perplexing realm, but in true sci-fi fashion, one that remains adherent to certain rules and laws by the creator. Season 2 explains half of the stuff in Season 1, and Season 3 is just getting started with this inter-universal war idea. Maybe the whole will-Peter-actually-bring-the-end-of-all-things? arc is a bit trite, but the journey to that eventual conclusion is becoming quite compelling.
Douchebaggery does not a solid argument make. Calling "bullshit" means that you have proof of it's disingenuous nature. Well, do you? Who is the more fooled, the fool that makes a weekly television program or the one that watches said program just to call it "pseudoscientific"? That someone appears to be you.
They won't bother to fathom the subtleties or measure the depth of a franchise that they failed to understand in the first place. They use the 28-year gap between the films as an excuse to dismiss it.
They fail to understand that it's the only 28-year sequel out there, and a successful one. The only follow-up in a franchise that even comes close is the Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull debacle. Indeed, I believe they use that as a quantitative standard for aging filim franchises.
It's right there in his quote; "it... can't be understood". Funny. I understand it. I'm pretty sure a lot of you understand it. What's his barrier? His distaste for the new film must be a pent-up frustration from failing to understand either film. A point that he makes perfectly clear in those quotes. The narcissism of his conclusion leads me to my own; Ebert doesn't know squat about Tron, therefore his review is preeminently invalid.
Speaking from the group that saw the 1982 original in a theater, I also embrace the new storyline; the change-up, the suspension of disbelief and the "evolution" of the Tron world. I was just a grade-school kid then, and Tron was a completely unique film for the time.
Aside from being the pioneer of CGI effects, it was also a tale of oppression, tyranny and fighting for liberty. Only later in life did I recognize the paradigm of centralism vs. independence in computing; what one may interpret as the first glimmers of what the Internet should be. (nobody really knew of such a thing then)
In so much as Kevin Flynn wasn't even the "hero" of the movie, he was a sort of everyman/genius figure that we the audience accompanied through his adventure. He was a vidiot with a golden ticket to wonderland. His pivotal role moves the plot along, but only to reveal the true hero; Tron, a program created by the Alan Bradley character.
Although, there were video games and that just about wraps-up Tron's connection to the real world. Of course, I wasn't even a teenager, so for me, that's the only connection it needed.
Barring all that, it was still a fantastic film for the sheer idea that there's an entire world in that one computer; specifically, a certain Encom 511 mainframe.
Learning about CS later in life showed me that the writers weren't completely tuned-in to the reality of computers, (Gibson put them to shame in that regard) but it was interesting to think that Tron represented a version of computing that may exist sometime... somewhere. To me, the fictional Encom corporation represents an application of computer science that we have yet to see... maybe if Amiga had the assets of Redmond, WA to innovate; maybe there's another permutation of IBM Cell architecture around the corner; maybe chips designed from neurological science? It was The Matrix that made the connection between "virtual reality" and identity projection via neuron stimulation. If that much is possible, then projecting one's ego into a Tron-like universe is not out of the question. There's no telling if the study of quantum entanglement will ever manifest into a cube-sucking laser... I'm not holding my breath for that one.
Responding to TFP: Yes, the proliferation and ubiquitous nature of higher technology in our everyday lives has altered our vision of technology. This isn't so much about the over-abundance or dearth of "imagination" for a film, but the presumptions on the part of the audience. If the audience's imagination is limited to what their iThing can do, then there's no way to stretch it to those super-computer dimensions, where this film exists.
The original Tron sparked my imagination about computers in a way that no other film can, from a time when "supercomputers" were actually super. The creation of Tron: Legacy has furthered the ideology of the first film, while managing to shake the Disney-fication veneer enough to make a visceral and gripping experience, and in classic "five steps of epic" style. For consummate film-goers like myself, it was a moving and inspiring tale with a delightfully imaginative and romantic ending.
Part perception -- Linux is seen as so "ultra precise" and "non conformist" that it's perceived as a difficult platform. It's not difficult... Windows is difficult, (dev-POV) Linux is just different. Anyone who's explored it knows that WINE is not a solution, in and of itself. Therefore, it cannot be viable as the end-all be-all of Linux gaming. Native ports *always* run (or crash) like greased lightning, and with the right "sandbox" (a'la what Steam could be) it could mop the floor with Microsoft.
Part deception -- The overall PC game industry is partnered with Wintel on the front of having a "consistent gaming experience". Even if that doesn't fully deliver, it assures developers they have to allow for only a certain range of variables. While these are essentially the same variables hardware-wise on a Linux system, addressing the differences—as a developer—are an inherently different approach than with Wintel; something game dev's don't want to re-learn. The general tactic is, "[we] can't have a consistent experience with Linux, every box is just soooo different!" True, but they're all Linux! Also, there's the impression that there's no money in Linux... other respondents seem to agree; Linux users will pay good money for good software, even games.
It comes down to this: pioneers
Whosoever tackles this Everest will end-up on top, but they will also be the first of many. If not Valve, then somebody! (Looking at YOU, GameTap!) Blazing this trail (and making money doing it) will break-out Linux as the gaming platform it could be. What do so many FOSS games lack? Professional polish and/or looking like they're last-gen throwbacks; the bread-and-butter of commercial games. What could retail gaming bring to Linux? The same games we know and love from Wintel on a crash-resistant platform with unbounded emulation possibilities.
Valve really had something going there... and they are the first to truly bring native ports of top-tier games to the Macintosh. No more re-makes of Dark Castle... no sir! Them's are the real deal; TF2, Portal, Half Life and more. They blazed that trail, and there's more to come.
Whether it happens with current-market titles or simply occurs through a slow adoption of free/abandonware native ports, I believe there's a future in Linux gaming.
Whether the meme is acceptable or not, the meaning is pretty clear. The only thing of value was the $1,200 USD before it was spent on in-game PLEX. Once it was spent, it only has value to one person; the player that owns them. CCP, the company that develops and hosts EVE Online, didn't lose a dime... they got $1,200... see what they did there?
In that light, what OP says is true... anyone on/. could not care less about one gamer's loss. The rest of us haven't lost anything here, and what we have is a valuable lesson on how to handle virtual-world items that cost (but are not *worth*) real-world money. Something like, "Don't go all-in on a blind bluff."
But wait... there's more...
Let's say you go to a local Dave & Buster's (FYI: a prominent restaurant/bar/video-arcade chain) and load-up a card for the arcade with a thousand bucks. Nobody steals your card. Nobody "makes you lose" the card. During a game of Whack-A-Mole, you happen to drop it into the machine and it gets shredded. I don't think you'll get one lick of sympathy from the manager. He still gets to report your $1,000 as revenue.
So where's the evil here? It's in the way the gaming company continues to gain real-world revenue from a player's virtual losses... whether it's part of the game or not. Yes, it's the player's fault for making such a dumb move, but that money represents real-world efforts... this isn't Vegas we're talking about. It's a virtual world that people pay (often, hard-earned) money to enjoy.
The PLEX are meant to open the door to monetize additional subscription time within the game-world itself (I think there's an existential paradox there somewhere...) but does that mean that they are to be treated the same as "found", "harvested" or "quested" items? They weren't imagined-up as part of the world, they mean something real to each and every player that possesses them. They have worth, more-so than "monopoly money" and more-so than a virtual spaceship, even if there is no cash value.
With enough persuasion (and a quick look inside the Whack-A-Mole machine) it would be fair for management to provide another card loaded with the last-known amount. I think something like that should happen for this player in EO as well.
The entire PLEX idea is flawed... it shouldn't be represented as an actual in-game item. While it can be possible to barter subscription time (don't know *why* it should be possible, tho') it should be tied to a player's master account... not represented as a destructible, vulnerable game-world item.
Respondents abound with arguments about code-indentation... this is not about code! This is about content.
In the age of the IBM Selectric, the authoritative stance was that two spaces were needed between the period of one sentence and the capitalized first-letter of the next.
This was before the age of the word processor. Many 'dotters have it correct; the programming of the modern word processor already accounts for the proper amount of space between sentences. Roughly, the heuristic for the added space is based on the exact sequence of [period/space/char:A-Z]... mind you that the real trigger is when the first-occurring letter after the period is capitalized. This holds true for HTML content as well, all the way back to v3. When you publish content, it doesn't matter how many taps of the spacebar you made. The published page will display the same amount of space between sentences if you use one, two or five (regular) spaces between them.
While Chicago Manual of Style affirms this notion, it should be heeded for all WYSIWYG content generation; like e-mails, simple printed documents and presentations.
There is a compendium that attests to this, and other specific notions of modern typography; The PC Is Not a Typewriter by Robin Williams. (ISBN: 978-0938151494)
This book has been around for over fifteen years and should have put this discussion to rest then. It appears that ignorance and sheer Luddite influence has brought it back into the spotlight. How this came to be a worthy topic on/. is anyone's guess.
Precedent, schmecedent... the foundation of the litigation is the determination.
Why is a software publisher trying to enforce a concurrent-users limit under the DMCA!? It should be as Contract Law under the terms of their own licensing agreement... you know, the mile-long writ of legal-ese that constitutes a binding agreement for using said software?
Good call, Judge. The DMCA has nothing to do with the per-user security of a particular software platform.
Putting a 30 page wall of text full of legalese and word games does NOT constitute a useful document. I'm paying for a product, not to play lawyer.
Durn tootin'.
Let's call it the "EULA syndrome" (I know other publishers use different acro's... just go with it for now) It's how a legal agreement for the basic use of software is more language and more legal definitions than what the average end-user is willing/able to read/understand. This stunt by the UK game house is just putting a highlight on the particular phenomenon.
I think PP (coward) makes an excellent point; legally, there could be a premise by which the average consumer states that the EULA is overly complex and wordy, thereby defying its own comprehension. If enough cases are won on this premise, it could become legal precedent and eventually undermine the effectiveness of all EULA language. It wouldn't be surprising if this eventually finds its way to the Supreme Court; should this ever come to light in the US.
Picture this: What if legalese was actually an obscure form of source code?
Legal definitions are a finite set of rules and instructions, right? Sound familiar? How about C++? How about Ruby? How about Java? There's a surprising parallel between legalese and programming languages; the only real difference is that legal definitions have a much broader scope than just making an app' to find your local coffee shop. Though it's a tall order, the creation of a comprehensive "legal programming lexicon" is conceivably plausible, isn't it?
Take a look at creative-commons licensing; it's a concise, iconified and finite system of rules. They have laid the groundwork for a revolution in their own way; a simplified expression of legal rights.
What if there was an Eclipse module for building legal boilerplate in the same manner as building an iPhone app? There's conditional branching (you can't do X, you can do Y, but only when Z is true, etc.) there's common variables, (licensor, licensee, third parties) there's even constants (legal precedent) and snippets (legal definitions common to specific markets).
Take that a step further: Once the boilerplate is made, it gets "compiled" or refined into talking-point bullets or iconography that outlines the basic facts about the contract. The most-probable and most-important definitions become the framework, populated with finer details that you can reveal by drilling down. If any-given EULA could be expressed in the same manner as a CC matrix, wouldn't it be much easier to comprehend the licensing at-a-glance?
Many will argue that this is a doomed prospect, since so many software companies are "evil" and therefore rely on the obfuscation of obtuse language for their profiteering ends. That may be so... but isn't it the point to at least try?
Slashdot Mirror
Um... you do understand the circumstances that would necessitate an "isolation" event, right? By the time BART declares a problem and shuts down your phone, they've already become aware of an emergency. Calling 911 is moot; the fire (or bomb scare or disaster, etc) is probably the cause of your cell going dark. In fact, that might be comforting... someone already knows what's happening.
BART may be doing a favor to Bay Area Municipal Services by mitigating dozens (hundreds?) of redundant calls.
The point about the heart attack is still valid, but then again you wouldn't exactly be safer having an infarction in the middle of a "situation" with or without a working cellphone. The phone isn't going to save your life, but people could. To that end, could the EMT's get to you amid the chaos? Could they even find you? (GPS is also moot; underground, remember?) Are you going to dial while you're seizing? Maybe someone around you could help? Maybe someone is a doctor? (maybe not?) It's really not that different than any other time having a heart attack; you either get lucky or you don't. The lesson here is; look after your own health, dammit.
Here's a scenario; the terrorists have called in a bomb threat. It's determined to be a remote triggering mechanism and likely tied to a cellphone. Would you want your personal freedom to call/text/email someone at the expense of sustaining the very technology that makes the bomb go off? Cutting the signal could very well grant the space to de-fuse the threat. Is that what your precious mobile service is worth; innocent lives?
Next, you would probably argue that cutoff should only be "last resort"; only after confirming that a threat is tied to cellphone services. Here's a likely dramatization of such an event:
Field Agent: "Dispatch, Bravo Delta" Dispatch: "Go Bravo Delta" Field Agent: "Indigo Echo Delta, package visible" Dispatch: "Indigo Echo Delta confirmed, report status" Field Agent: "Package is hot, trigger remo--" [burst of static]Ka-boom.
The insurgent in this scenario had a public-band scanner and heard the conversation as it happened. He(She) blew it up before anyone learned how to disarm it.
That conversation would have continued if the bomb (or bomber) was cut-off from the signal. Think about it.
If you need to make a call so badly, take the stairs.
Micro Center is a store here in south Denver, CO. It has many other stores nationwide. Visit them to learn more.
They are selling a refurbished D-Link DIR-601 (hardware rev. A1) for something like fifteen bucks. Typical WiFi router; one aerial and four LAN ports.
That hardware is confirmed to work with current DD-WRT builds AND you can easily convert it back to OEM. There's OpenWRT support as well, but I just prefer the browser GUI over CLI.
I bought one, immediately converted it, and it's working like a champ. If you want to stay with the OEM firmware, it's IPv6 ready with QoS, traffic filters and all the typical bells and whistles. It's actually quite impressive out-of-the-box, considering the price.
My old WRT54GS is still in use... as a switch. (DD-WRT Repeater Bridge mode with radio off, WAN port bridged to switch, still hummin')
Good luck!
When someone makes a robot to travel the diameter (rather than a circumference arc) of the Earth, then I'll be really impressed.
What. A. Hipster. Doofus.
Does Shuttleworth honestly think he's drawing the line between "cool" and "hip" here? Is cognitive dissonance somehow perceived an sovereign right of industry leaders?
Let's turn back the clock a bit... see who else has made claims that cut across the "cool" grain:
In 1987, Bill Gates said: "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time." In 1994, he said: "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years." ...and the infamous one: "If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."NOTE: Emphases are my own.
(s/good/slick)
Let's hear from Steve Ballmer as well (circa 2007): "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance."If I were Mark Shuttleworth, I would STFU and learn from the foot-and-crow gourmets that came before me. There's no reason to get personally invested in your own innovations. Steve Jobs once insisted that the Macintosh would never have a cooling fan, didn't he get fired once? (What? Too soon?)
This Unity farce kinda reminds me of the rally MS put forth for "Microsoft Bob" after the first few bad reviews. Yeah, I said Microsoft Bob and they said it "looks really slick" too... back in the day. I admit it. I was, and am "too cool" to use Microsoft Bob. I don't use Unity either.
I'm sure Unity has it's place, it's place just doesn't happen to be on the desktop.
Parent modded "insightful", personally I would have gone with "funny".
I agree with others in thread; context is key to preserving spatial memory. POTS dialing is essentially dead, we all dial with thumbs now, if not with our voice.
I'm typing this with my Android(R) keypad, also using thumbs. Has it destroyed my ability to touchtype? I can say, with certainty, no.
I also use Swype (TM), which similarly has a negligible effect on my typing abilities.
Like others, I'm sure, I practice 10-key by touch. This discipline is absolutely dependent on the 7-8-9 top-row keys. So, unless you're proposing to re-wire 99% of the calculator-like devices in existence, I suggest you cut your losses and learn to work the numbers like the rest of humanity.
Agreements to all of the above, adding that Ballmer is a crazed monkey to boot. Time to retire. A pension of 640k should be enough for anybody.
...and you might be on to something.
By "something", I would mean the true spirit of this "freedom" thing y'all are talking about.
Think about it. Keep your WEP, WPA, MAC filters and all intact... but get with your neighbors and interlink your routers. Nobody gets to "steal" that bandwidth, but you both get to benefit from each other's bandwidth.
Now a two-neighbor scenario may not seem like much freedom. Get a whole neighborhood involved—maybe a dozen routers or more—and you're talking something like a movement. Contribute to each other, provide guidance and security wisdom, don't let it be a one-way street. In the end, everyone benefits from the shared bandwidth, reduced downtime and maybe even get to put a few new dots on the Internet map. When Comcast blacks out, make FiOS take up the slack, and vice-versa. Pity the poor community that ever has to rely on someone's DSL... but a whole building of DSL connections could make for some sweet bandwidth.
Just... think about it.
...this little nugget again.
The answer is simple; America loves things American. So-called "imperial" measurements are now so unique to America, that switching from them and conforming to the global economy's systems of measurement would be... don't tell me... "un-American".
I would have to disagree with the "hidden cost" part. There's a real cost that's been happening for decades and continues today; conversion to-and-from metric as well as pointless cohesion to archaic ad-hoc standards is already an obstacle for overseas companies to do trade. The Trade Deficit is surely inflated by an invisible barrier of mathematics, additional (redundant) labeling and loused-up bills of lading. The only thing that exceeds the reluctance to trade with America is the high demand of Americans for imported goods. Who knows how many loopholes there are alone in the kilo-to-pound, litre-to-gallon and cu/ft-m^3 conversions?
Ask any car nut and they'll be sure to rattle-off the displacement of their engine in litres, unless it's an American build, then it has to be cubic inches. Those numbers are pretty pointless anyway, since there are engines under 2L that will easily blow away a small-block 350 any day of the week.
Conversion is inevitable, and most people don't even realize that it's already (in a glacially slow fashion) underway. Since the 80's, there has been secondary units of measurement on all consumer packaging. (X oz. = Y g; P fl. oz. = Q ml) Find me a car made after 1990 that doesn't also have KpH on the speedo.
It's down to having it both ways, but still having it the American way. Like other pointless bonds, metric will ultimately dominate out of simple attrition and negligence; one day, imperial measures will be dropped for being "unfashionable". That's just the way America does it.
You know how it will begin? Fuel prices. Cost-per-litre is just a bit more than 1/4 the cost-per-gallon. For the oil and petroleum industry, that would be a lucrative marketing move. When the numbers change at the corner pump, don't believe it too quickly. Your high school science teacher was right; units are everything in the equation.
The thing is that as action movies in their own right, the 2nd and 3rd movies were fine. They just didn't have the epic mindblowing nature of the first. [...]
Indeed! What always bothered me about the trilogy* was that the first movie opened up a big mind-blowing can of whupazz, slathered on some really good action and suspense, and left it open-ended.
We cheered, "More! More! More!"
What we got was a lifetime supply of action, padded-out suspense, and a trickle of story to bridge one scene to the next. They messed with the well-seasoned, tender, juicy steak recipe and gave us a goopy bowl of action; to borrow a dichotomy from the first film.
If they want us to like Matrix again, the Wachowskis should focus on what made the first film great... balance in the mix.
IMHO, if they took the respective stories of Reloaded and Revolution, patched them into one film and shaved a good 1:30 from the oh-god-when-will-Neo-finally-frickin-get-there suspense, they would have had a worthy successor.
* <offtopic> RE: the word "trilogy"Maybe three is the magic number, but seriously, is there any such thing as a trilogy anymore? Thanks to Lucas and Spielberg, there's a bastard 4th film for Indiana Jones. There's already a 4th Pirates of the Carribbean movie, and it was being planned when the second and third were conceived. Now that it's been finalized, The Hobbit will become the 4th Lord of The Rings film as well. Will we start hearing of quadrologies next?
You want to make a successful show from true science? An idea so ludicrous, it makes the 1980's V look like a documentary.
To have gripping sci-fi, you must mix the "sci" and the "fi" in proper proportions. The "sci" must not exceed the "fi", failing that, the show would fall to the same fates as Mr. Wizard and Modern Marvels. (i.e., shows you may like on occasion, but won't dare watch unless it's one you haven't seen before... and even then, only if it's about something interesting.)
To wit, Fringe has introduced a perplexing realm, but in true sci-fi fashion, one that remains adherent to certain rules and laws by the creator. Season 2 explains half of the stuff in Season 1, and Season 3 is just getting started with this inter-universal war idea. Maybe the whole will-Peter-actually-bring-the-end-of-all-things? arc is a bit trite, but the journey to that eventual conclusion is becoming quite compelling.
Douchebaggery does not a solid argument make. Calling "bullshit" means that you have proof of it's disingenuous nature. Well, do you? Who is the more fooled, the fool that makes a weekly television program or the one that watches said program just to call it "pseudoscientific"? That someone appears to be you.
That is all.
Reviewers know one thing: flim culture
They won't bother to fathom the subtleties or measure the depth of a franchise that they failed to understand in the first place. They use the 28-year gap between the films as an excuse to dismiss it.
They fail to understand that it's the only 28-year sequel out there, and a successful one. The only follow-up in a franchise that even comes close is the Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull debacle. Indeed, I believe they use that as a quantitative standard for aging filim franchises.
It's right there in his quote; "it... can't be understood". Funny. I understand it. I'm pretty sure a lot of you understand it. What's his barrier? His distaste for the new film must be a pent-up frustration from failing to understand either film. A point that he makes perfectly clear in those quotes. The narcissism of his conclusion leads me to my own; Ebert doesn't know squat about Tron, therefore his review is preeminently invalid.
Speaking from the group that saw the 1982 original in a theater, I also embrace the new storyline; the change-up, the suspension of disbelief and the "evolution" of the Tron world. I was just a grade-school kid then, and Tron was a completely unique film for the time.
Aside from being the pioneer of CGI effects, it was also a tale of oppression, tyranny and fighting for liberty. Only later in life did I recognize the paradigm of centralism vs. independence in computing; what one may interpret as the first glimmers of what the Internet should be. (nobody really knew of such a thing then)
In so much as Kevin Flynn wasn't even the "hero" of the movie, he was a sort of everyman/genius figure that we the audience accompanied through his adventure. He was a vidiot with a golden ticket to wonderland. His pivotal role moves the plot along, but only to reveal the true hero; Tron, a program created by the Alan Bradley character.
If you're talking about basing the film in fantasy... gotta say it; you're right! While there were only a few dozen computers in 1982 that could accomplish the 3D modeling and effects; there certainly weren't any smooth-glass full-interaction terminals in a desk, conversations with autonomous AI's that speak with a british accent or lasers that could digitize/record living matter through 'sucking cubes'. [sic]
Although, there were video games and that just about wraps-up Tron's connection to the real world. Of course, I wasn't even a teenager, so for me, that's the only connection it needed.
Barring all that, it was still a fantastic film for the sheer idea that there's an entire world in that one computer; specifically, a certain Encom 511 mainframe.
Learning about CS later in life showed me that the writers weren't completely tuned-in to the reality of computers, (Gibson put them to shame in that regard) but it was interesting to think that Tron represented a version of computing that may exist sometime... somewhere. To me, the fictional Encom corporation represents an application of computer science that we have yet to see... maybe if Amiga had the assets of Redmond, WA to innovate; maybe there's another permutation of IBM Cell architecture around the corner; maybe chips designed from neurological science? It was The Matrix that made the connection between "virtual reality" and identity projection via neuron stimulation. If that much is possible, then projecting one's ego into a Tron-like universe is not out of the question. There's no telling if the study of quantum entanglement will ever manifest into a cube-sucking laser... I'm not holding my breath for that one.
Responding to TFP: Yes, the proliferation and ubiquitous nature of higher technology in our everyday lives has altered our vision of technology. This isn't so much about the over-abundance or dearth of "imagination" for a film, but the presumptions on the part of the audience. If the audience's imagination is limited to what their iThing can do, then there's no way to stretch it to those super-computer dimensions, where this film exists.
The original Tron sparked my imagination about computers in a way that no other film can, from a time when "supercomputers" were actually super. The creation of Tron: Legacy has furthered the ideology of the first film, while managing to shake the Disney-fication veneer enough to make a visceral and gripping experience, and in classic "five steps of epic" style. For consummate film-goers like myself, it was a moving and inspiring tale with a delightfully imaginative and romantic ending.
...and it's got a bangin' soundtrack to match.
...and only if they get to ride in their EVA suits,
...and get it on tape,
...to the sweet, sultry sounds of Journey.
Rigor Rodents to Rain on Scrappy Snake Scourge Thoroughly Tainted with Tylenol
...FTW
You know, if they could make the actual release date on April 1st it would be rather funny. NOBODY would believe the press releases :-)
Ha-HAH!
Beautiful irony.
Make it so.
You clearly haven't even begun to over-nerd it...
For instance, how many of those trips were done with the TARDIS and how many were with a simple wrist-bound Vortex Manipulator?
Stick around... we skool y'all on how ta nerd it up.
There, fixed that for ya.
The issue with Linux is twofold:
It comes down to this: pioneers
Whosoever tackles this Everest will end-up on top, but they will also be the first of many. If not Valve, then somebody! (Looking at YOU, GameTap!) Blazing this trail (and making money doing it) will break-out Linux as the gaming platform it could be. What do so many FOSS games lack? Professional polish and/or looking like they're last-gen throwbacks; the bread-and-butter of commercial games. What could retail gaming bring to Linux? The same games we know and love from Wintel on a crash-resistant platform with unbounded emulation possibilities.
Valve really had something going there... and they are the first to truly bring native ports of top-tier games to the Macintosh. No more re-makes of Dark Castle... no sir! Them's are the real deal; TF2, Portal, Half Life and more. They blazed that trail, and there's more to come.
Whether it happens with current-market titles or simply occurs through a slow adoption of free/abandonware native ports, I believe there's a future in Linux gaming.
I don't know about you, but I just thought of a whole new dimension in spell-checking...
Make typos painful!
Whether the meme is acceptable or not, the meaning is pretty clear. The only thing of value was the $1,200 USD before it was spent on in-game PLEX. Once it was spent, it only has value to one person; the player that owns them. CCP, the company that develops and hosts EVE Online, didn't lose a dime... they got $1,200... see what they did there?
In that light, what OP says is true... anyone on /. could not care less about one gamer's loss. The rest of us haven't lost anything here, and what we have is a valuable lesson on how to handle virtual-world items that cost (but are not *worth*) real-world money. Something like, "Don't go all-in on a blind bluff."
But wait... there's more...
Let's say you go to a local Dave & Buster's (FYI: a prominent restaurant/bar/video-arcade chain) and load-up a card for the arcade with a thousand bucks. Nobody steals your card. Nobody "makes you lose" the card. During a game of Whack-A-Mole, you happen to drop it into the machine and it gets shredded. I don't think you'll get one lick of sympathy from the manager. He still gets to report your $1,000 as revenue.
So where's the evil here? It's in the way the gaming company continues to gain real-world revenue from a player's virtual losses... whether it's part of the game or not. Yes, it's the player's fault for making such a dumb move, but that money represents real-world efforts... this isn't Vegas we're talking about. It's a virtual world that people pay (often, hard-earned) money to enjoy.
The PLEX are meant to open the door to monetize additional subscription time within the game-world itself (I think there's an existential paradox there somewhere...) but does that mean that they are to be treated the same as "found", "harvested" or "quested" items? They weren't imagined-up as part of the world, they mean something real to each and every player that possesses them. They have worth, more-so than "monopoly money" and more-so than a virtual spaceship, even if there is no cash value.
With enough persuasion (and a quick look inside the Whack-A-Mole machine) it would be fair for management to provide another card loaded with the last-known amount. I think something like that should happen for this player in EO as well.
The entire PLEX idea is flawed... it shouldn't be represented as an actual in-game item. While it can be possible to barter subscription time (don't know *why* it should be possible, tho') it should be tied to a player's master account... not represented as a destructible, vulnerable game-world item.
Respondents abound with arguments about code-indentation... this is not about code! This is about content.
In the age of the IBM Selectric, the authoritative stance was that two spaces were needed between the period of one sentence and the capitalized first-letter of the next.
This was before the age of the word processor. Many 'dotters have it correct; the programming of the modern word processor already accounts for the proper amount of space between sentences. Roughly, the heuristic for the added space is based on the exact sequence of [period/space/char:A-Z] ... mind you that the real trigger is when the first-occurring letter after the period is capitalized. This holds true for HTML content as well, all the way back to v3. When you publish content, it doesn't matter how many taps of the spacebar you made. The published page will display the same amount of space between sentences if you use one, two or five (regular) spaces between them.
While Chicago Manual of Style affirms this notion, it should be heeded for all WYSIWYG content generation; like e-mails, simple printed documents and presentations.
There is a compendium that attests to this, and other specific notions of modern typography; The PC Is Not a Typewriter by Robin Williams. (ISBN: 978-0938151494)
This book has been around for over fifteen years and should have put this discussion to rest then. It appears that ignorance and sheer Luddite influence has brought it back into the spotlight. How this came to be a worthy topic on /. is anyone's guess.
Precedent, schmecedent... the foundation of the litigation is the determination.
Why is a software publisher trying to enforce a concurrent-users limit under the DMCA!? It should be as Contract Law under the terms of their own licensing agreement... you know, the mile-long writ of legal-ese that constitutes a binding agreement for using said software?
Good call, Judge. The DMCA has nothing to do with the per-user security of a particular software platform.
Mr. Nimoy, live long and prosper.
In truth, he's already done both.
If you want me to read it, make it readable.
1. NO legalese 2. One page maximum length
Putting a 30 page wall of text full of legalese and word games does NOT constitute a useful document. I'm paying for a product, not to play lawyer.
Durn tootin'.
Let's call it the "EULA syndrome" (I know other publishers use different acro's... just go with it for now) It's how a legal agreement for the basic use of software is more language and more legal definitions than what the average end-user is willing/able to read/understand. This stunt by the UK game house is just putting a highlight on the particular phenomenon.
I think PP (coward) makes an excellent point; legally, there could be a premise by which the average consumer states that the EULA is overly complex and wordy, thereby defying its own comprehension. If enough cases are won on this premise, it could become legal precedent and eventually undermine the effectiveness of all EULA language. It wouldn't be surprising if this eventually finds its way to the Supreme Court; should this ever come to light in the US.
Picture this: What if legalese was actually an obscure form of source code?
Legal definitions are a finite set of rules and instructions, right? Sound familiar? How about C++? How about Ruby? How about Java? There's a surprising parallel between legalese and programming languages; the only real difference is that legal definitions have a much broader scope than just making an app' to find your local coffee shop. Though it's a tall order, the creation of a comprehensive "legal programming lexicon" is conceivably plausible, isn't it?
Take a look at creative-commons licensing; it's a concise, iconified and finite system of rules. They have laid the groundwork for a revolution in their own way; a simplified expression of legal rights.
What if there was an Eclipse module for building legal boilerplate in the same manner as building an iPhone app? There's conditional branching (you can't do X, you can do Y, but only when Z is true, etc.) there's common variables, (licensor, licensee, third parties) there's even constants (legal precedent) and snippets (legal definitions common to specific markets).
Take that a step further: Once the boilerplate is made, it gets "compiled" or refined into talking-point bullets or iconography that outlines the basic facts about the contract. The most-probable and most-important definitions become the framework, populated with finer details that you can reveal by drilling down. If any-given EULA could be expressed in the same manner as a CC matrix, wouldn't it be much easier to comprehend the licensing at-a-glance?
Many will argue that this is a doomed prospect, since so many software companies are "evil" and therefore rely on the obfuscation of obtuse language for their profiteering ends. That may be so... but isn't it the point to at least try?
I hope this device will be as successful as the zune.
It's running zunes os after-all.
If they keep that "classic Xbox green/black" color theme, then I'm sure they will. They will indeed.
Rodents of unusual size? I don't think they even exist.
Fixed.