I saw it around that time, and it was great, not much on special effects but excellent in creating the atmosphere of Eternity. Other people want blinky lights and fiery explosions everywhere, but I'd say this movie is similar to "Stalker".
The links there say "AVI,DVD" and "HD,BlueRay" but they do not lead to direct downloads, and there seems to be no digital copy to download, only traces of it... but I haven't looked too hard.
Yes, degrees. But your two examples differ in the "guilty mind" area. When you complain about Bush you do not mean any harm to anyone, and can't be expected to foresee any harm, and your actions have independent positive value, minus the unfortunate outcome. It's neither illegal nor antisocial nor in any other way unusual to talk politics and express opinions about the world in general.
But now take this Lori Drew thing. She, reportedly, told the girl that "the world would be better without you." Well, in more words than just that, probably, but this summary is probably correct, since they have all the evidence. What is the redeeming value in this communication? Note that it was done by an adult who had no business in talking to the girl in the first place. These actions have no positive value at all. They may be legal, but surely they are antisocial and unusual.
So the difference between these examples (and my own example) is clear. If you do something intentionally, and that "something" has no independent positive value then if things go bad your guilt magnifies. We are talking about justice here, not law - they are not necessarily linked. Take my example: if the first driver brakes because there is a deer on the road, and the tailgater dies - sorry about that, just an accident. Why? Because braking in front of the deer is a positive act (it's the fist driver's duty to preserve his life, avoid an accident of the 1st order, etc.) and expected and not illegal at all. The fact that the following guy got himself killed is unfortunate, but it wasn't something that the 1st driver chose to cause.
If we look at Lori Drew again, we see that she chose a specific course of action - unexpected, unusual, and negative to all parties involved, and she chose to do so all by herself - there was no deer on the road, no mind control beams from planet Mongo. Basically, she meant to hurt, and she only miscalculated in how much it actually hurt.
If you point at your first example (an overreaction hearing about politics) the answer here is simple: what a reasonable person would think and do? You aren't guilty if someone hears about global warming and offs himself because it's not what a reasonable person would expect. If I tap my brakes for an instant, on a downslope, I don't expect the following driver to foolishly slam on his and sweep clean all lanes of a major freeway.
On the other hand, if a reasonable person would expect certain harm to occur then such actions may carry guilt. It would not do to talk about advantages of suicide to depressed, suicidal people. It does not help to discuss the taste of a new strong drink in presence of a family member who is a recovering alcoholic. It is bad manners to push a deeply religious man into a corner with your atheism. It is bad practice to even keep a tailgater, for his own safety (let him pass, if he is so intent on crashing - just let it be on his own, and ahead of you.)
Either way, she didn't know that if she took this course of action, she was going to commit suicide
Then if I were the judge I would ask her: "and what, pray tell, did you expect? Did you not know who you were traumatizing? What was your reason to do what you did, and what were your expectations? What moral right did you have to hope for what you thought will happen?" That would quickly expose Lori Drew as a dangerous creature, out there just to bite and claw those who are weak, ill and can't fight back. In other words, if she can kick a child that she has a dislike for, she will. Do we want such a person in the village? IMO, what Lori Drew did may be not illegal, but it is deeply amoral. I'd say 1000 years ago she'd be stoned to death by the villagers.
but she -didn't- kill the girl, she did that herself
Maybe a car analogy, a tradition on/., will help here. Out of spite you want to "teach" a tailgater, and brake hard on a tight turn. The tailgater overreacts, spins off the road and into a wall, and dies. Your car has not a scratch on it. Are you responsible in any way? After all, the tailgater lost control all by himself.
And to make the decision more apparent, imagine that it was you, or someone from your family, who was tailgating, probably without thinking too much of it. Now you, or a loved one, are dead, because the driver of the car ahead intentionally acted in a specific, unusual way and created a trouble out of nothing. Maybe he didn't mean to kill you, but he definitely wanted to "do something" to you, and that "something" exceeded his expectations. Again, is that driver in any way responsible for the death?
It isn't like all things developed for Redhat were utterly useless on Ubuntu
They may be - dependencies hell is alive and well, and it's all manual work. Most commercial software requires a specific Linux distribution, if it offers any Linux binaries to begin with. For example, Xilinx ISE is supported (and works out of the box) only on RH or CentOS; I tried SuSE and got quite a few missing libraries; chasing those is doable, of course, but not a trivial thing, not something you'd gladly recommend to others at work.
Saying that companies are there only to serve their shareholders, that is, only to make profits, is just a justification for all sorts of dirty business practices.
You may not like it, but that's how the world operates. People who invest their money (investors / shareholders) are the primary focus of the company. Customers really exist only to help the company to make money. Anything that is not illegal is allowed and is expected to be done if it furthers the goal of making more money. In fact, if the business managers do not do what is expected to make more money ("fiduciary duty") then they can be sued and/or replaced by investors.
To exclude someone you'd need to prove that the person never had access to a certain camera. This is tough, considering that cameras are bought and sold for cash, with no ID required.
the thing that annoys me most about it is how it turns black when you change the page
I wanted to buy the Sony reader, but once I saw how it flips pages I almost ran out of the store. Effects during the change of the image are truly painful. Think of an art gallery where nice, pleasant paintings are hung on walls that are bizarrely painted by a team of mad monkeys. Transitions have to be considered. Anyway, I will never buy any eInk device until they sort this out.
I third this. You can't expect your employees to comply to boring rules in a boring piece of paper. You need to make it plain impossible to connect using home computers. Give the user a laptop and he can carry it home if he wants. Give him an RSA token to be doubly sure.
If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes, if that was used to pay for proper healthcare for people doing the less honorable and underpayed jobs around me, like the janitor and the parking attendants
Your proposal is quite similar to what Soviet Union used to do. People worked all day long but, at the end of the day they were paid only a pittance. Most of their labor's value was instantly sucked up into the coffers of The State. Which, of course, paid for the healthcare (sometimes even a proper one, but usually not) and subsidized your housing so that you can afford it with your 150 roubles that you were given as a salary every month.
This removed the power of money from the hands of the people. The people still could buy their daily bread and butter, but not much more. Cars were out of question for most people (if you earn R$ 150/mo and a Lada model 1 was R$ 6,000 how many months you need to save to buy one?) And of course they could not buy a house or a condo without a long (25 years) mortgage. And of course they could not invest, especially because any such thing was illegal to begin with.
So your proposal can be summarized this way: "let the workers work, and let the government to spend their earnings."
Could some of you fine upstanding penguins please [...] help our poor bewildered little FreeBSD creature rebuild his USB nest?
I'm sure many penguinista will have an issue with the BSD license for their new code. Reuse of GPL code of Linux will be also problematic. I looked at {free|net}bsd usb stack some good number of years ago, and it was totally unlike Linux's, not very modular but it worked then. Linux's approach to drivers in general and USB stack in particular is modular and hierarchical, with modules loading on demand and such. I am unsure if *BSD has that prerequisite taken care of already.
The purpose is to stop Mum and Dad and the kids from stumbling upon this stuff.
It's not easy, considering that "this stuff" is at arm's length. That's how people learned "the stuff" before Internet - and apparently it worked just fine.
A president who is about to become an ex-president may have some offers that he can't refuse. From the height of his office the only way is down, and you'd need to be a saint to turn people away who can take care of your needs for the rest of your life.
some people may think "life begins at 40," all it seems to do is slow down
There is no contradiction, IMO. I know people who are so fast they don't have time to live, they are always five minutes late for something. Life begins when you can slow down, relax and think.
The purpose of clamav on a *nix box is to protect email and other documents as they [harmlessly] pass through your box. Sooner or later you'll receive an infected email or document and forward it to a Windows user, or save it onto a server where it can be seen by Windows machines.
Sure things are possible, but I want to see these processes modeled and demonstrated on Earth before we launch anyone to Mars. Some of these processes are very demanding on energy, like making steel. But even before that you need to make iron, and on Earth it's done using carbon. There is CO(2) in atmosphere, however thin it may be, and in polar caps, but you have to get rid of oxygen again... and on Earth we have plants for that. So while all this is possible in a well-stocked chemical lab, we need to see how it will work together. It might well be that one colonist needs 1000 acres of renewable forests, for example, to support all that (see ethanol as fuel.) If so, there isn't much sense in further planning until we get better in either transportation or terraforming.
Mars has water, apparently, but a civilization needs abundant energy, then wood, metals, and finally plastics (which are made out of oil and gas, organic materials.) If Martian colony is supposed to use only inorganic raw materials then we'd better develop a set of new technologies first that let us build a home, a factory, and a vehicle out of what is available on Mars. Nuclear reactors need known supplies of radioactive materials; solar panels need to be manufacturable there. Otherwise it's cheaper to commit suicide before the liftoff.
MAFIAA can cause the Earth court to hold shipments of essential materials (like medical supplies) to Mars until the colony bows down. Collective punishments are used on Earth even today.
To add to this concern, currently there is no working plan on how to soft land on Mars. It was discussed on/. maybe a year ago.
Basically, you can't use the airbag method that robots use because it's still too hard for humans. You can't use a parachute because it won't work in a very thin atmosphere of Mars. You can't use rockets because the atmosphere is dense enough to extinguish the flames. You can't use fixed or rotating wing aircraft because the atmosphere is too thin.
One of the easiest methods is, of course, antigravity. If you don't have that yet, somehow, then maybe a specialized jet engine can be developed specifically for the Martian atmosphere, or an extremely large hot air (or helium) balloon. But as of now there is no way to land a human on Mars without killing him.
they seem to have some major gullibility issues when it comes to politics
It's all in the past, nobody in Russia wants "European democracy" any more; thanks for the lesson, though - it won't be soon forgotten. Russian form of democracy now features strong, charismatic - but elected - leaders, and this seems to work best. It's practically identical to Bush's years in the USA, with the only exception that Putin and Medvedev care about their country and act in interest of the people. Take the 13% flat income tax, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw it around that time, and it was great, not much on special effects but excellent in creating the atmosphere of Eternity. Other people want blinky lights and fiery explosions everywhere, but I'd say this movie is similar to "Stalker".
Read here
The links there say "AVI,DVD" and "HD,BlueRay" but they do not lead to direct downloads, and there seems to be no digital copy to download, only traces of it... but I haven't looked too hard.
What's even the point of this protection?
Shareholders say "Do something!" and so they do something. Doesn't have to be effective, though, but works great as a "feel good" measure.
The Forge of God
It's all there.
Yes, degrees. But your two examples differ in the "guilty mind" area. When you complain about Bush you do not mean any harm to anyone, and can't be expected to foresee any harm, and your actions have independent positive value, minus the unfortunate outcome. It's neither illegal nor antisocial nor in any other way unusual to talk politics and express opinions about the world in general.
But now take this Lori Drew thing. She, reportedly, told the girl that "the world would be better without you." Well, in more words than just that, probably, but this summary is probably correct, since they have all the evidence. What is the redeeming value in this communication? Note that it was done by an adult who had no business in talking to the girl in the first place. These actions have no positive value at all. They may be legal, but surely they are antisocial and unusual.
So the difference between these examples (and my own example) is clear. If you do something intentionally, and that "something" has no independent positive value then if things go bad your guilt magnifies. We are talking about justice here, not law - they are not necessarily linked. Take my example: if the first driver brakes because there is a deer on the road, and the tailgater dies - sorry about that, just an accident. Why? Because braking in front of the deer is a positive act (it's the fist driver's duty to preserve his life, avoid an accident of the 1st order, etc.) and expected and not illegal at all. The fact that the following guy got himself killed is unfortunate, but it wasn't something that the 1st driver chose to cause.
If we look at Lori Drew again, we see that she chose a specific course of action - unexpected, unusual, and negative to all parties involved, and she chose to do so all by herself - there was no deer on the road, no mind control beams from planet Mongo. Basically, she meant to hurt, and she only miscalculated in how much it actually hurt.
If you point at your first example (an overreaction hearing about politics) the answer here is simple: what a reasonable person would think and do? You aren't guilty if someone hears about global warming and offs himself because it's not what a reasonable person would expect. If I tap my brakes for an instant, on a downslope, I don't expect the following driver to foolishly slam on his and sweep clean all lanes of a major freeway.
On the other hand, if a reasonable person would expect certain harm to occur then such actions may carry guilt. It would not do to talk about advantages of suicide to depressed, suicidal people. It does not help to discuss the taste of a new strong drink in presence of a family member who is a recovering alcoholic. It is bad manners to push a deeply religious man into a corner with your atheism. It is bad practice to even keep a tailgater, for his own safety (let him pass, if he is so intent on crashing - just let it be on his own, and ahead of you.)
Either way, she didn't know that if she took this course of action, she was going to commit suicide
Then if I were the judge I would ask her: "and what, pray tell, did you expect? Did you not know who you were traumatizing? What was your reason to do what you did, and what were your expectations? What moral right did you have to hope for what you thought will happen?" That would quickly expose Lori Drew as a dangerous creature, out there just to bite and claw those who are weak, ill and can't fight back. In other words, if she can kick a child that she has a dislike for, she will. Do we want such a person in the village? IMO, what Lori Drew did may be not illegal, but it is deeply amoral. I'd say 1000 years ago she'd be stoned to death by the villagers.
but she -didn't- kill the girl, she did that herself
Maybe a car analogy, a tradition on /., will help here. Out of spite you want to "teach" a tailgater, and brake hard on a tight turn. The tailgater overreacts, spins off the road and into a wall, and dies. Your car has not a scratch on it. Are you responsible in any way? After all, the tailgater lost control all by himself.
And to make the decision more apparent, imagine that it was you, or someone from your family, who was tailgating, probably without thinking too much of it. Now you, or a loved one, are dead, because the driver of the car ahead intentionally acted in a specific, unusual way and created a trouble out of nothing. Maybe he didn't mean to kill you, but he definitely wanted to "do something" to you, and that "something" exceeded his expectations. Again, is that driver in any way responsible for the death?
It isn't like all things developed for Redhat were utterly useless on Ubuntu
They may be - dependencies hell is alive and well, and it's all manual work. Most commercial software requires a specific Linux distribution, if it offers any Linux binaries to begin with. For example, Xilinx ISE is supported (and works out of the box) only on RH or CentOS; I tried SuSE and got quite a few missing libraries; chasing those is doable, of course, but not a trivial thing, not something you'd gladly recommend to others at work.
Saying that companies are there only to serve their shareholders, that is, only to make profits, is just a justification for all sorts of dirty business practices.
You may not like it, but that's how the world operates. People who invest their money (investors / shareholders) are the primary focus of the company. Customers really exist only to help the company to make money. Anything that is not illegal is allowed and is expected to be done if it furthers the goal of making more money. In fact, if the business managers do not do what is expected to make more money ("fiduciary duty") then they can be sued and/or replaced by investors.
To exclude someone you'd need to prove that the person never had access to a certain camera. This is tough, considering that cameras are bought and sold for cash, with no ID required.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned newspapers and such.
Newspapers have web sites now, and the content there is usually free.
the thing that annoys me most about it is how it turns black when you change the page
I wanted to buy the Sony reader, but once I saw how it flips pages I almost ran out of the store. Effects during the change of the image are truly painful. Think of an art gallery where nice, pleasant paintings are hung on walls that are bizarrely painted by a team of mad monkeys. Transitions have to be considered. Anyway, I will never buy any eInk device until they sort this out.
I third this. You can't expect your employees to comply to boring rules in a boring piece of paper. You need to make it plain impossible to connect using home computers. Give the user a laptop and he can carry it home if he wants. Give him an RSA token to be doubly sure.
That line #3 with `echo` contains unbalanced round braces. Could it be that you had a bug and added echo to just make it work?
If I was an american earning 100k a year, I wouldn't mind paying 50% of my salary in taxes, if that was used to pay for proper healthcare for people doing the less honorable and underpayed jobs around me, like the janitor and the parking attendants
Your proposal is quite similar to what Soviet Union used to do. People worked all day long but, at the end of the day they were paid only a pittance. Most of their labor's value was instantly sucked up into the coffers of The State. Which, of course, paid for the healthcare (sometimes even a proper one, but usually not) and subsidized your housing so that you can afford it with your 150 roubles that you were given as a salary every month.
This removed the power of money from the hands of the people. The people still could buy their daily bread and butter, but not much more. Cars were out of question for most people (if you earn R$ 150/mo and a Lada model 1 was R$ 6,000 how many months you need to save to buy one?) And of course they could not buy a house or a condo without a long (25 years) mortgage. And of course they could not invest, especially because any such thing was illegal to begin with.
So your proposal can be summarized this way: "let the workers work, and let the government to spend their earnings."
Why do you care how we look to the rest of the world? Let's worry about the problems in our country.
Those two issues are related.
Could some of you fine upstanding penguins please [...] help our poor bewildered little FreeBSD creature rebuild his USB nest?
I'm sure many penguinista will have an issue with the BSD license for their new code. Reuse of GPL code of Linux will be also problematic. I looked at {free|net}bsd usb stack some good number of years ago, and it was totally unlike Linux's, not very modular but it worked then. Linux's approach to drivers in general and USB stack in particular is modular and hierarchical, with modules loading on demand and such. I am unsure if *BSD has that prerequisite taken care of already.
The purpose is to stop Mum and Dad and the kids from stumbling upon this stuff.
It's not easy, considering that "this stuff" is at arm's length. That's how people learned "the stuff" before Internet - and apparently it worked just fine.
I don't see President Obama doing that.
A president who is about to become an ex-president may have some offers that he can't refuse. From the height of his office the only way is down, and you'd need to be a saint to turn people away who can take care of your needs for the rest of your life.
some people may think "life begins at 40," all it seems to do is slow down
There is no contradiction, IMO. I know people who are so fast they don't have time to live, they are always five minutes late for something. Life begins when you can slow down, relax and think.
The purpose of clamav on a *nix box is to protect email and other documents as they [harmlessly] pass through your box. Sooner or later you'll receive an infected email or document and forward it to a Windows user, or save it onto a server where it can be seen by Windows machines.
Sure things are possible, but I want to see these processes modeled and demonstrated on Earth before we launch anyone to Mars. Some of these processes are very demanding on energy, like making steel. But even before that you need to make iron, and on Earth it's done using carbon. There is CO(2) in atmosphere, however thin it may be, and in polar caps, but you have to get rid of oxygen again... and on Earth we have plants for that. So while all this is possible in a well-stocked chemical lab, we need to see how it will work together. It might well be that one colonist needs 1000 acres of renewable forests, for example, to support all that (see ethanol as fuel.) If so, there isn't much sense in further planning until we get better in either transportation or terraforming.
Mars has water, apparently, but a civilization needs abundant energy, then wood, metals, and finally plastics (which are made out of oil and gas, organic materials.) If Martian colony is supposed to use only inorganic raw materials then we'd better develop a set of new technologies first that let us build a home, a factory, and a vehicle out of what is available on Mars. Nuclear reactors need known supplies of radioactive materials; solar panels need to be manufacturable there. Otherwise it's cheaper to commit suicide before the liftoff.
Let the MAFIAA reach you there!
MAFIAA can cause the Earth court to hold shipments of essential materials (like medical supplies) to Mars until the colony bows down. Collective punishments are used on Earth even today.
If I were you, I wouldn't want to keep squirrels within an inflatable dome.
To add to this concern, currently there is no working plan on how to soft land on Mars. It was discussed on /. maybe a year ago.
Basically, you can't use the airbag method that robots use because it's still too hard for humans. You can't use a parachute because it won't work in a very thin atmosphere of Mars. You can't use rockets because the atmosphere is dense enough to extinguish the flames. You can't use fixed or rotating wing aircraft because the atmosphere is too thin.
One of the easiest methods is, of course, antigravity. If you don't have that yet, somehow, then maybe a specialized jet engine can be developed specifically for the Martian atmosphere, or an extremely large hot air (or helium) balloon. But as of now there is no way to land a human on Mars without killing him.
they seem to have some major gullibility issues when it comes to politics
It's all in the past, nobody in Russia wants "European democracy" any more; thanks for the lesson, though - it won't be soon forgotten. Russian form of democracy now features strong, charismatic - but elected - leaders, and this seems to work best. It's practically identical to Bush's years in the USA, with the only exception that Putin and Medvedev care about their country and act in interest of the people. Take the 13% flat income tax, for example.