"The intent is to make sure that we can have a safe house, so you can sit in here and watch TV while we strike it with lightning," laughs Uman.
It might be safe, but that still would be damn loud. I still wouldn't want to be the guinne pig that gets to sit in the house while they lure lightening bolts toward it. I don't care how good you say bullet proof vests are, I don't want you taking shots at me.
There isn't enough hours in the day to learn every tongue used around the world by people either. The amount of languages is a partial indicator of the diversification of programming. Each language brings something different to the table. French, Spanish, German, Russia: they all have their different connotations and ways of expression. It shouldn't necessarially be your goal to learn all these languages, but choose the language that best meets your needs. And hey, having that Ruby reference book can be as useful when you get in a jam as when you end up in Mexico with an English-to-Mexican and vice-a-versa dictionary.
Yeah, and making a trip to the "New World" from Europe use to be so cheap. These things had to be financed by Royalty (aka the rich people). No peasants or middle class like people were funding these trips. Now my brother could finance a trip to London on a Cruise ship and he's dirt poor. Heck people with no money can leave Cuba by sea whenever they want as is. It may not be affordable now, but with more use (and eventually more competition), prices will go down.
Well, sort of. They're already doing that with Motel 6. Orbit, moon, they booh go around us, so what's the difference? After all, we are the center of the Universe, right?:)
I was completely amazed by the first few minutes of FF; the graphics were absolutely stunning - you could barely tell it was fake. The only problem was that the chracters didn't always seem to express the appropriate emotions. There are hundreds of muscles that have to be contorted to capture the essence of a human smile, grin, smirk, snort, etc. They just didn't model enough of them. I didn't personally see the problem between voice and mouth movements; I thought they did that fine. It just didn't look human. But this was SquareSoft's first real big CG movie - I expect they'll get better.
The other thing I didn't like was some parts of the plot. Forgetting the fact that it can be considered sacreligious (although it's a story, so it can get away with it - it's a Fantasy afterall), it didn't always make sense. These big phantom things can go through poisonous pipes that no living thing could survive through, and yet bullets hurt them. And why the heck are the phantoms eating souls? Is there a reason? Finally.... what happened to nuclear technology? Why didn't the try that? It is 2056, so I'd assume they've got some pretty sweet fission bombs.
Oh, and why did most of the characters die? That's so unlike the FF series. Usually the core group of 9-12 characters have a final show down with some big monster and they all live. Sure a couple may die along the way, but most characters live.
Oh well, I thought it was an overall good step in the right direction, and will defintely see the nex Square Picturers movie when it comes out.
Heck, why even direct the rocket up with any type of controls? We have the atmosphere (wind) anyway. Without rocket fuel to land, we have no way to know how th rocket will land, or where. As someone already mentioned, a rocket fueling landing makes it easier to correct a landing objects position, while with a parachute your fate is pretty much determined by the will of random luck.
Uhmmm.... the outside is heat resistant, so I'm going to doubt any backfire or exahuast will damage the rocket (unless you;re refering to the parachute, in which case the rocket is probably screwed). Also, wasting fuel isn;t the issue, it's whether it is cheaper to make rocket fuel or to build a whole new rocket? I'm thinking rocket fuel is cheaper.
Granted, because the US has to maintain a large military, that to a degree retards scientific research, but it was militray research that helped invent such things as the CD. An overstretched military may one day render the US less powerful, but I doubt Japan will be the successor. They don't have a lot of natural resources, just a lot of hard working people. That can get you far, but once a lot of those African nations (move) if ever to a more democratic way of life (not saying that they should, as that obviously would be me imposing my western views on them, blah blah blah; just I believe they ultimatelty will Westernize more... well, if we don't keep screwing with them... well, that's another story altogether), they're going to kick some serious butt.
This is an outrage. Renewable rockets are going to be the end of the rocket industry as we know it. If we can simply reuse rockets, what will be the incentive for rocket users of all kinds to buy new ones? Think of the hundreds of jobs that will be lost because of this new found effieciency. We should throw away all used rockets and waste millions of dollars on complete replacements to help supplant this industry which is an integral part of our economy.
The same reason why companies have to spend tons of money doing inventory. If machines get moved around, or *lost*, or missplaced, etc, then if that hardware is important to the company, then they'll need to higher people to sort out the mess. Nuclear data is REALLY REALLY important, and since it's sort of missplaced, they're going to have to do a lot of sorting out. Not everything can be sorted out with simple perl scipts.
I could see similiar products with similiar names causing some user confusion (probably more on the non-linux user end). People might try to use Killustrator FAQ's and other resources to fix problems with Illustrator, or try to use Killustrator on OS's only supported by Illustrator, etc. It's just be easier if they choose another name. If eMachines lost their case to Apple about eMacs vs iMacs, then I think it's probably in Killustrator's author's best interests to change the name.
because according to the "models" of doomsaying ecological apocalypsters (my favorite phrase), we've already kicked up enough CO2 in the atmosphere that will cook us all (remember, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50 years+). Also, I'd doubt any models that have researchers with vested interests. That is, they need money, and the best way to ensure funds is to create a threat worth researching.
Global Warming proponents may have the IPCC (1000 some scientists, and hardly unanimous), but those more sane have the letter of 10,000 scientists against the Kyoto treaty.
Best course of action - don't panic. If global warming is going to kill us all, it's already to late. But, hey, I'm sure all those really cold countries (that have been getting the majority of warming) would be against it. And since most warming happens at night, farmers are going to hate how warming prevents frosts that kill crops. Oh yeah, let's not return to the greener period of the last millenium, when Greenland was really green (oh yeah, temperaturers were higher then too).
Okay, forget about opion polls, lets get make policy options based on facts.
Even if microsoft products are over priced, schools aren't given free reign to pirate them. That'd be sort of like saying "I don't like the restrictions of the GPL, so I'm going to ignore them." The solution for poorer schools is two-fold: one, use cheaper software (aka free). Even if Linux was to mysteriously fall off the face of the earth, the general computer skills the students would gain would still be very helpful. Hey, I learned on AppleWorks for an AppleIIgs up through 1993ish, and that really hasn't hindered my ability to figure out other word processors.
The other solution doesn't have to do with software, but how we fund schools. It's too bad politicians give lip service to providing equal education to all, while not funding all schools equally. Schools with low funding not only can't afford Microsoft products, but not even books, classroom supplies, musical instruments, gym clothes, good teachers (as they usually lean toward the better paid schools, and who can blame them?). Heck, if I hadn't moved from the central Illinois school system (meaning: no money), to a suburban Chicago school system (meaing: tons of money), I wouldn't be going to a 30,000+ student University. The opportunities to simply travel around the country were infintely more available than at my old school.
If anyone tells you funding doesn't effect the ability of students to succeed at all, they've just never seen under funded schools.
They meant CBOSSI. That is, Community-Based Open Source Security (CBOSS) initiative, as is indicated in the press release, not Community-Based Open Source initiative (CBOSI).
RIGHT. It's not like BSD is going to have the largest desktop install base of any UNIX in the next several months because of the roll out of OS X. Lack of implemented featurers != dieing. You see the BSD market shrinking, developers running away, etc, then you give us a call.
You can tell that it's a mistake in the title - no one writes 12. million. He just hit his 2 before his period. 12 million would be a lot cooler, but they'll take 1.2 million, I'm sure.
Last time I checked they weren't licensed to only run on Linux. They're open sourced, under the GPL, and can be ported to other unixes, etc. My post makes more sense in context of the original post, not just my reply by itself.
First of all, quicktime is coded in Carbon last time I checked, so that means it's as close to linux compatibility as any other Classic Mac OS 9 application - aka not at all. Second of all, there are plenty of apps that run on linux that don't run on windows. The only difference is that there are usually similiar programs that run on one platform, but not another. So, run out and license some technology and make it only availiable on linux and wait for it to catch on... oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program.
"Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license."
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
If Steve Jobs gave me a gift, I definetly would want their top of the line powermac. If you like apple's stuff, then think about 1.5Gigs of Ram, a RADEON graphics card, a total of 216Gigs of hard disk space, a 22in flat screen monitor... now if only motorola would come pull their heads out of their arses and apple market's 8-processor machines, man, I'd be in heaven... unless I bought this machine, then I'd also be in debt ($17,000) and probably laying in a ditch somewhere, unshowered and filthy... but I'd least I'd have my dream machine!
Jeremy S. Anderson: "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Slashdot Mirror
"The intent is to make sure that we can have a safe house, so you can sit in here and watch TV while we strike it with lightning," laughs Uman.
It might be safe, but that still would be damn loud. I still wouldn't want to be the guinne pig that gets to sit in the house while they lure lightening bolts toward it. I don't care how good you say bullet proof vests are, I don't want you taking shots at me.
F-bacher
If they collect a lot of good data, then that would be like catching lightening in a bottle, huh?
F-bacher
There isn't enough hours in the day to learn every tongue used around the world by people either. The amount of languages is a partial indicator of the diversification of programming. Each language brings something different to the table. French, Spanish, German, Russia: they all have their different connotations and ways of expression. It shouldn't necessarially be your goal to learn all these languages, but choose the language that best meets your needs. And hey, having that Ruby reference book can be as useful when you get in a jam as when you end up in Mexico with an English-to-Mexican and vice-a-versa dictionary.
F-bacher
This is exactly why we need a missle defense! We can add mini missle defenses on the moon to protect our all-so-important hotels.
F-bacher
I think you should add this "Anonymous Coward"... He seems to troll a lot....
F-bacher
Yeah, and making a trip to the "New World" from Europe use to be so cheap. These things had to be financed by Royalty (aka the rich people). No peasants or middle class like people were funding these trips. Now my brother could finance a trip to London on a Cruise ship and he's dirt poor. Heck people with no money can leave Cuba by sea whenever they want as is. It may not be affordable now, but with more use (and eventually more competition), prices will go down.
F-bacher
Well, sort of. They're already doing that with Motel 6. Orbit, moon, they booh go around us, so what's the difference? After all, we are the center of the Universe, right? :)
F-bacher
I was completely amazed by the first few minutes of FF; the graphics were absolutely stunning - you could barely tell it was fake. The only problem was that the chracters didn't always seem to express the appropriate emotions. There are hundreds of muscles that have to be contorted to capture the essence of a human smile, grin, smirk, snort, etc. They just didn't model enough of them. I didn't personally see the problem between voice and mouth movements; I thought they did that fine. It just didn't look human. But this was SquareSoft's first real big CG movie - I expect they'll get better.
The other thing I didn't like was some parts of the plot. Forgetting the fact that it can be considered sacreligious (although it's a story, so it can get away with it - it's a Fantasy afterall), it didn't always make sense. These big phantom things can go through poisonous pipes that no living thing could survive through, and yet bullets hurt them. And why the heck are the phantoms eating souls? Is there a reason? Finally.... what happened to nuclear technology? Why didn't the try that? It is 2056, so I'd assume they've got some pretty sweet fission bombs.
Oh, and why did most of the characters die? That's so unlike the FF series. Usually the core group of 9-12 characters have a final show down with some big monster and they all live. Sure a couple may die along the way, but most characters live.
Oh well, I thought it was an overall good step in the right direction, and will defintely see the nex Square Picturers movie when it comes out.
F-bacher
Heck, why even direct the rocket up with any type of controls? We have the atmosphere (wind) anyway. Without rocket fuel to land, we have no way to know how th rocket will land, or where. As someone already mentioned, a rocket fueling landing makes it easier to correct a landing objects position, while with a parachute your fate is pretty much determined by the will of random luck.
F-bacher
Uhmmm.... the outside is heat resistant, so I'm going to doubt any backfire or exahuast will damage the rocket (unless you;re refering to the parachute, in which case the rocket is probably screwed). Also, wasting fuel isn;t the issue, it's whether it is cheaper to make rocket fuel or to build a whole new rocket? I'm thinking rocket fuel is cheaper.
F-bacher
Granted, because the US has to maintain a large military, that to a degree retards scientific research, but it was militray research that helped invent such things as the CD. An overstretched military may one day render the US less powerful, but I doubt Japan will be the successor. They don't have a lot of natural resources, just a lot of hard working people. That can get you far, but once a lot of those African nations (move) if ever to a more democratic way of life (not saying that they should, as that obviously would be me imposing my western views on them, blah blah blah; just I believe they ultimatelty will Westernize more... well, if we don't keep screwing with them... well, that's another story altogether), they're going to kick some serious butt.
F-bacher
This is an outrage. Renewable rockets are going to be the end of the rocket industry as we know it. If we can simply reuse rockets, what will be the incentive for rocket users of all kinds to buy new ones? Think of the hundreds of jobs that will be lost because of this new found effieciency. We should throw away all used rockets and waste millions of dollars on complete replacements to help supplant this industry which is an integral part of our economy.
F-bacher
The same reason why companies have to spend tons of money doing inventory. If machines get moved around, or *lost*, or missplaced, etc, then if that hardware is important to the company, then they'll need to higher people to sort out the mess. Nuclear data is REALLY REALLY important, and since it's sort of missplaced, they're going to have to do a lot of sorting out. Not everything can be sorted out with simple perl scipts.
F-bacher
Sort of like that penny shaving thing they did in Office Space. I'd rather have 1 trillion pennies than weapon grade nuclear material, though.
F-bacher
I could see similiar products with similiar names causing some user confusion (probably more on the non-linux user end). People might try to use Killustrator FAQ's and other resources to fix problems with Illustrator, or try to use Killustrator on OS's only supported by Illustrator, etc. It's just be easier if they choose another name. If eMachines lost their case to Apple about eMacs vs iMacs, then I think it's probably in Killustrator's author's best interests to change the name.
F-bacher
because according to the "models" of doomsaying ecological apocalypsters (my favorite phrase), we've already kicked up enough CO2 in the atmosphere that will cook us all (remember, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 50 years+). Also, I'd doubt any models that have researchers with vested interests. That is, they need money, and the best way to ensure funds is to create a threat worth researching.
Global Warming proponents may have the IPCC (1000 some scientists, and hardly unanimous), but those more sane have the letter of 10,000 scientists against the Kyoto treaty.
Best course of action - don't panic. If global warming is going to kill us all, it's already to late. But, hey, I'm sure all those really cold countries (that have been getting the majority of warming) would be against it. And since most warming happens at night, farmers are going to hate how warming prevents frosts that kill crops. Oh yeah, let's not return to the greener period of the last millenium, when Greenland was really green (oh yeah, temperaturers were higher then too).
Okay, forget about opion polls, lets get make policy options based on facts.
F-bacher
Even if microsoft products are over priced, schools aren't given free reign to pirate them. That'd be sort of like saying "I don't like the restrictions of the GPL, so I'm going to ignore them." The solution for poorer schools is two-fold: one, use cheaper software (aka free). Even if Linux was to mysteriously fall off the face of the earth, the general computer skills the students would gain would still be very helpful. Hey, I learned on AppleWorks for an AppleIIgs up through 1993ish, and that really hasn't hindered my ability to figure out other word processors.
The other solution doesn't have to do with software, but how we fund schools. It's too bad politicians give lip service to providing equal education to all, while not funding all schools equally. Schools with low funding not only can't afford Microsoft products, but not even books, classroom supplies, musical instruments, gym clothes, good teachers (as they usually lean toward the better paid schools, and who can blame them?). Heck, if I hadn't moved from the central Illinois school system (meaning: no money), to a suburban Chicago school system (meaing: tons of money), I wouldn't be going to a 30,000+ student University. The opportunities to simply travel around the country were infintely more available than at my old school.
If anyone tells you funding doesn't effect the ability of students to succeed at all, they've just never seen under funded schools.
F-bacher
They meant CBOSSI. That is, Community-Based Open Source Security (CBOSS) initiative, as is indicated in the press release, not Community-Based Open Source initiative (CBOSI).
F-bacher
RIGHT. It's not like BSD is going to have the largest desktop install base of any UNIX in the next several months because of the roll out of OS X. Lack of implemented featurers != dieing. You see the BSD market shrinking, developers running away, etc, then you give us a call.
F-bacher
You can tell that it's a mistake in the title - no one writes 12. million. He just hit his 2 before his period. 12 million would be a lot cooler, but they'll take 1.2 million, I'm sure.
F-bacher
Long stay-awake-and-come-into class-with-QWERTYs-on-your-face Zych!
F-bacher
Last time I checked they weren't licensed to only run on Linux. They're open sourced, under the GPL, and can be ported to other unixes, etc. My post makes more sense in context of the original post, not just my reply by itself.
F-bacher
First of all, quicktime is coded in Carbon last time I checked, so that means it's as close to linux compatibility as any other Classic Mac OS 9 application - aka not at all. Second of all, there are plenty of apps that run on linux that don't run on windows. The only difference is that there are usually similiar programs that run on one platform, but not another. So, run out and license some technology and make it only availiable on linux and wait for it to catch on... oh wait, the whole catching on thing doesn't work when only 5% of all computer users can use the program.
F-bacher
"Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license."
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
F-bacher
Jeremy S. Anderson: "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."