You said MP3. I have plenty of MP3 encoded files which I produced and recorded myself, and are thus mine in every sense of the word. Unless I whore myself out to the RIAA for some reason, there's no reason why they'd be concerned.
I can just see the scene ten years from now: "Oh, hey! It's 2011! Gotta go find that guy from Slashdot and force him to change his name!";D
But do you really think that it can scan all traffic? And that anything that isn't provably innocent will be handed on to a MiB for analysis?
I doubt this is how Carnivore works (or is planned to work). More likely, Carnivore logs all plaintext communication traffic (email, AIM, IRC), and logs that you sent a binary file "abstract_art.jpg".
Then, when the FBI raids your house and finds out "abstract_art.jpg" is really an encrypted message, they know who you sent it to. Or, if they suspect that you're sending messages, they'll just flip a switch and log everything coming from you and pick it apart later.
I went on a trip to Washington, DC this past January. We passed through our fair share of metal detectors, in airports and federal buildings we toured in Washington. There's one thing I noticed about all of them: they never check your wallet. I have a wallet with metal clips that would certainly set off the detector. You just put it in the tray, walk through, and pick it up on your way out. They don't even look at it. I commented at the time (to my friends, not to the guards--I didn't want them to get any ideas) that a small knife or a switch blade could easily fit inside a wallet. Perhaps I should have risked an interrogation and told the guards.
American domestic flights are notorious around the world for having lax security. Airlines are more concerned about getting passengers in and out than they are about terrorism. This is a trade-off we made because we felt that we were immune. Obviously, this is going to have to change.
This petition is a joke and will get nowhere. When a petition on the same site that starts out "We, the fans of the Backstreet Boys, feel that MTV is unfairly cheating them out of the recognition they deserve" has more signatures than the SSSCA petition, you know no one will take either petition seriously.
They let the sender know that you tend to read your pr0n spam rather than just delete it immediately.
It doesn't seem like they're putting that information to good use. I delete all the spam I get (or at least I don't read it) and they still send me more.
OK, first you say the light will be incredibly scattered, weakening and dispersing the light so much that it's worthless. Then you say that it's nearly impossible to hit the moon from such a distance.
Now, the question I pose is that if the light is so dispersed by the time it reaches the moon, couldn't you just point it in the general direction of the moon and have some miniscule fraction of the light reach it? Then with so many people contributing their tiny fraction, the net result might just be a noticeable effect.
However, depending how much the light is dispersed (presumably quite a bit) and how much light is absorbed by the time it reaches the moon (practically all of it), you'd probably need more than you and a couple of your buddies doing it.
They only share episodes which haven't yet been released on video, which makes it slightly more legal. (It might even be entirely legal, since the MST3K people encouraged fans to share tapes.)
'E-mail' (uncapitialized) is the preferred term for newspapers and magazines. See what the copy editor of the Washington Post has to say about it. However, I think 'email' is clearly winning out in the battle for the masses, and 'e-mail' will soon be deprecated.
As for punctuation and quotes, I'm with you there. Microsoft English says either is acceptable. AP style and most of what I'm reading says it isn't.
Another poster mentioned Max Payne, a recent game that has no multiplayer aspect at all.
I don't know the sales figures for Max Payne, but Starcraft (which is at heart a multiplayer game) sold millions world wide. Imagine if Blizzard had charged even a tiny amount for what they gave away for free -- that's what they're hoping for here.
You might like single player games, but subscription games are much, much more profitable. They're also much harder to copy. Max Payne had all sorts of fancy CD-copy protection, but was cracked and released quite quickly. Starcraft, however, is practically worthless without a legitimate CD-key for Battle.net.
Game companies don't care that they're not serving you and the few people like you. If a small handful of people don't like their game, that's OK, because a lot of people do, and collectively they'll shell out more money than you will. There will always be a place for games like Max Payne, made whenever a market segment goes unexplored, but they're just not the safe bet that multiplayer games are.
A number of my friends got hooked on Redmoon, then stopped and convinced me not to start. Apparently, there are horrendous problems with gameplay and game balance. Leveling up involves killing thousands upon thousands of the same creatures for hours. And once you finally get to the high levels, there's nothing to do but pick on lowel leveled players, who are basically defenseless.
And these kinds of criticisms came from the game's fans. I recognize that these problems might get fixed eventually, but why pay for a game that's only half done?
You don't have any "right" not to be cut off by your ISP. They don't have any "right" to cut you off.
What part of his post does this contradict?
Let's quit talking about rights here.
OK, but you started it. The word "right" is used only once in his post ("It's not right...") to mean that premature disconnections are not 3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate, legal issues aside.
I don't like "rights language" any more than you do, but for once when someone isn't using it, you go ahead and bash him anyway.
The CG, while good for stylish effects, should not be noticable in that "Oh my! That's a beautiful CG shot."
I absolutely agree. CG effects are often over-used, but that's not to say that they can't be under-used, and I think that's the case here. I didn't think the CG significantly contributed to the movie in a way that made the movie any better than it would have been if it were hand drawn. And yet, as you said, computer animation opens limitless possibilities. Why adhere to those limits when you don't have to?
You might argue that those limits make for a better film, but I would say that Anime filmmakers create such films despite the limits of the medium rather than because of it. Classic live action films rarely follow these limits, and I think with good results. I only wish that Blood would have done the same.
We were told by the staff there that it was the premiere. Knowing nothing about the film before we got there, I just believed them. Thanks for correcting me.
I caught the "American Premiere" at the 2001 Anime Expo in Long Beach that happened this July. (If you were there, I was in the group of guys shouting "BLOOD!" at the top of our lungs in the front of the line.) I put "American Premiere" in quotes, because as I understand it, the movie was released well over a year ago in Japan, and has been seen extensively in the US in the form of fansubs.
As far as the animation goes, it was as good as any other anime. If I hadn't known it was computer generated, I would never have known. Unfortunately, that was a problem. I was disappointed by how little they used that to their advantage. One time that I can recall did they use a moving background, a behind-the-head shot that was jerky and strangely disorienting. I was expecting massive and motive backgrounds and fewer of the static camera angles common to Anime. The movie doesn't make enough use of it to be really noticeable.
As for the movie itself, I enjoyed it. The movie's action is strong and well done, but the plot feels like it's been taken from the middle of a TV series without context. It's also very short and ends rather abruptly. All in all though, it was very good and worth the four hours spent in line. (Though you lucky SOBs just get to stream it. What's up with that?)
I read his book, read more than one of his articles, and actually talked with the man myself. He is a great guy. His work at BeTips was an invaluable service to the BeOS community. He's been a central figure in the BeOS community for years.
Most of what Scot talks about in this article is not unfamiliar to the BeOS community. Nearly all of it was slowly leaked by Be employees and then later directly confirmed by Gassee. I suppose if you don't trust Be or Gassee to be honest about their negotiations, Scot's article could be seen as dubious. Truly, nearly all of it comes from Be. However, Scot openly acknowledges this and makes no bones about his own speculation.
This isn't a news article. It's an editorial in which he offers his own opinion and explanation as to the downfall of Be and the severe lack of major OEMs shipping dual boot systems. To support this, he offers information from Be and Gassee, as well as public information from the Microsoft trial. No, he didn't get an exclusive interview from Gates. No, he doesn't have absolute support for some of his conclusions, but it's your job to evaluate those conclusions for yourself.
If you have a recent nVidia card, more than likely it's not supported out of the box. However, nVidia and Be have released a driver package that supports many of their chips and all of their recent ones. It and many other driver packages are listed at BeBits.
I was referring more to Compaq's Ipaq line, their response to the iMac craze. Basically any and all cases that try to be innovative, creative, or just otherwise different from the standard have to deal with these problems.
The limiting factor in all of this is that you can't mod a motherboard. Or at least you can't mod every motherboard anyone might want to use with your case.
Apple, SGI, even Sony and Compaq all have custom internals that don't have to comply to the industry standards because the cases don't need to support more than one motherboard. Unless you started bundling custom motherboards with your cases, you simply won't be able to do much. For a niche company, it's not worth it.
We can categorize by mass of course. And I don't know why people don't do that...(anybody has any ideas?)
The people who would use mass as a deciding factor would just set the mass above or below Pluto's mass to agree with their opinion.
The way I see it, there are only two possible definitions that would make people happy:
1.) Tradition says we have 9 planets, and there's no arguing with it.
2.) Anything larger than Pluto is a planet.
It occurs to me that as popular as the "archive" links are, it is hard to believe that no one has yet submitted an "archive" link with a story. I would speculate that the Slashdot editors deliberately remove these links as to not anger the NY Times.
Slashdot Mirror
You said MP3. I have plenty of MP3 encoded files which I produced and recorded myself, and are thus mine in every sense of the word. Unless I whore myself out to the RIAA for some reason, there's no reason why they'd be concerned.
;D
I can just see the scene ten years from now: "Oh, hey! It's 2011! Gotta go find that guy from Slashdot and force him to change his name!"
PS: If anyone has any MP3's (or any other un-hindered audio format) on their disk in ~10 years, I'll change my name.
I'm going to make it a point to save at least one MP3, just so I can you on that.
But do you really think that it can scan all traffic? And that anything that isn't provably innocent will be handed on to a MiB for analysis?
I doubt this is how Carnivore works (or is planned to work). More likely, Carnivore logs all plaintext communication traffic (email, AIM, IRC), and logs that you sent a binary file "abstract_art.jpg".
Then, when the FBI raids your house and finds out "abstract_art.jpg" is really an encrypted message, they know who you sent it to. Or, if they suspect that you're sending messages, they'll just flip a switch and log everything coming from you and pick it apart later.
I went on a trip to Washington, DC this past January. We passed through our fair share of metal detectors, in airports and federal buildings we toured in Washington. There's one thing I noticed about all of them: they never check your wallet. I have a wallet with metal clips that would certainly set off the detector. You just put it in the tray, walk through, and pick it up on your way out. They don't even look at it. I commented at the time (to my friends, not to the guards--I didn't want them to get any ideas) that a small knife or a switch blade could easily fit inside a wallet. Perhaps I should have risked an interrogation and told the guards.
American domestic flights are notorious around the world for having lax security. Airlines are more concerned about getting passengers in and out than they are about terrorism. This is a trade-off we made because we felt that we were immune. Obviously, this is going to have to change.
"below 1 ppm"
Is that pages per minute or parts per million? That's either one slow printer or one accurate parts-per-million-machiney-thing.
(Yeah, I know it's a typo. Please don't hurt me.)
BTW, here's a petition worth signing.
This petition is a joke and will get nowhere. When a petition on the same site that starts out "We, the fans of the Backstreet Boys, feel that MTV is unfairly cheating them out of the recognition they deserve" has more signatures than the SSSCA petition, you know no one will take either petition seriously.
They let the sender know that you tend to read your pr0n spam rather than just delete it immediately.
It doesn't seem like they're putting that information to good use. I delete all the spam I get (or at least I don't read it) and they still send me more.
OK, first you say the light will be incredibly scattered, weakening and dispersing the light so much that it's worthless. Then you say that it's nearly impossible to hit the moon from such a distance.
Now, the question I pose is that if the light is so dispersed by the time it reaches the moon, couldn't you just point it in the general direction of the moon and have some miniscule fraction of the light reach it? Then with so many people contributing their tiny fraction, the net result might just be a noticeable effect.
However, depending how much the light is dispersed (presumably quite a bit) and how much light is absorbed by the time it reaches the moon (practically all of it), you'd probably need more than you and a couple of your buddies doing it.
The MST3K Digital Archive Project. They share most of their stuff over eDonkey and IRC.
They only share episodes which haven't yet been released on video, which makes it slightly more legal. (It might even be entirely legal, since the MST3K people encouraged fans to share tapes.)
'E-mail' (uncapitialized) is the preferred term for newspapers and magazines. See what the copy editor of the Washington Post has to say about it. However, I think 'email' is clearly winning out in the battle for the masses, and 'e-mail' will soon be deprecated.
As for punctuation and quotes, I'm with you there. Microsoft English says either is acceptable. AP style and most of what I'm reading says it isn't.
Another poster mentioned Max Payne, a recent game that has no multiplayer aspect at all.
I don't know the sales figures for Max Payne, but Starcraft (which is at heart a multiplayer game) sold millions world wide. Imagine if Blizzard had charged even a tiny amount for what they gave away for free -- that's what they're hoping for here.
You might like single player games, but subscription games are much, much more profitable. They're also much harder to copy. Max Payne had all sorts of fancy CD-copy protection, but was cracked and released quite quickly. Starcraft, however, is practically worthless without a legitimate CD-key for Battle.net.
Game companies don't care that they're not serving you and the few people like you. If a small handful of people don't like their game, that's OK, because a lot of people do, and collectively they'll shell out more money than you will. There will always be a place for games like Max Payne, made whenever a market segment goes unexplored, but they're just not the safe bet that multiplayer games are.
A number of my friends got hooked on Redmoon, then stopped and convinced me not to start. Apparently, there are horrendous problems with gameplay and game balance. Leveling up involves killing thousands upon thousands of the same creatures for hours. And once you finally get to the high levels, there's nothing to do but pick on lowel leveled players, who are basically defenseless.
And these kinds of criticisms came from the game's fans. I recognize that these problems might get fixed eventually, but why pay for a game that's only half done?
You don't have any "right" not to be cut off by your ISP. They don't have any "right" to cut you off.
...") to mean that premature disconnections are not 3. Fitting, proper, or appropriate , legal issues aside.
What part of his post does this contradict?
Let's quit talking about rights here.
OK, but you started it. The word "right" is used only once in his post ("It's not right
I don't like "rights language" any more than you do, but for once when someone isn't using it, you go ahead and bash him anyway.
The CG, while good for stylish effects, should not be noticable in that "Oh my! That's a beautiful CG shot."
I absolutely agree. CG effects are often over-used, but that's not to say that they can't be under-used, and I think that's the case here. I didn't think the CG significantly contributed to the movie in a way that made the movie any better than it would have been if it were hand drawn. And yet, as you said, computer animation opens limitless possibilities. Why adhere to those limits when you don't have to?
You might argue that those limits make for a better film, but I would say that Anime filmmakers create such films despite the limits of the medium rather than because of it. Classic live action films rarely follow these limits, and I think with good results. I only wish that Blood would have done the same.
We were told by the staff there that it was the premiere. Knowing nothing about the film before we got there, I just believed them. Thanks for correcting me.
I caught the "American Premiere" at the 2001 Anime Expo in Long Beach that happened this July. (If you were there, I was in the group of guys shouting "BLOOD!" at the top of our lungs in the front of the line.) I put "American Premiere" in quotes, because as I understand it, the movie was released well over a year ago in Japan, and has been seen extensively in the US in the form of fansubs.
As far as the animation goes, it was as good as any other anime. If I hadn't known it was computer generated, I would never have known. Unfortunately, that was a problem. I was disappointed by how little they used that to their advantage. One time that I can recall did they use a moving background, a behind-the-head shot that was jerky and strangely disorienting. I was expecting massive and motive backgrounds and fewer of the static camera angles common to Anime. The movie doesn't make enough use of it to be really noticeable.
As for the movie itself, I enjoyed it. The movie's action is strong and well done, but the plot feels like it's been taken from the middle of a TV series without context. It's also very short and ends rather abruptly. All in all though, it was very good and worth the four hours spent in line. (Though you lucky SOBs just get to stream it. What's up with that?)
I read his book, read more than one of his articles, and actually talked with the man myself. He is a great guy. His work at BeTips was an invaluable service to the BeOS community. He's been a central figure in the BeOS community for years.
Most of what Scot talks about in this article is not unfamiliar to the BeOS community. Nearly all of it was slowly leaked by Be employees and then later directly confirmed by Gassee. I suppose if you don't trust Be or Gassee to be honest about their negotiations, Scot's article could be seen as dubious. Truly, nearly all of it comes from Be. However, Scot openly acknowledges this and makes no bones about his own speculation.
This isn't a news article. It's an editorial in which he offers his own opinion and explanation as to the downfall of Be and the severe lack of major OEMs shipping dual boot systems. To support this, he offers information from Be and Gassee, as well as public information from the Microsoft trial. No, he didn't get an exclusive interview from Gates. No, he doesn't have absolute support for some of his conclusions, but it's your job to evaluate those conclusions for yourself.
If you have a recent nVidia card, more than likely it's not supported out of the box. However, nVidia and Be have released a driver package that supports many of their chips and all of their recent ones. It and many other driver packages are listed at BeBits.
I was referring more to Compaq's Ipaq line, their response to the iMac craze. Basically any and all cases that try to be innovative, creative, or just otherwise different from the standard have to deal with these problems.
The limiting factor in all of this is that you can't mod a motherboard. Or at least you can't mod every motherboard anyone might want to use with your case.
Apple, SGI, even Sony and Compaq all have custom internals that don't have to comply to the industry standards because the cases don't need to support more than one motherboard. Unless you started bundling custom motherboards with your cases, you simply won't be able to do much. For a niche company, it's not worth it.
Randal was wearing his CCCP hockey jersey. Does that count?
I agree. I didn't like the book either.
We can categorize by mass of course. And I don't know why people don't do that...(anybody has any ideas?)
The people who would use mass as a deciding factor would just set the mass above or below Pluto's mass to agree with their opinion.
The way I see it, there are only two possible definitions that would make people happy:
1.) Tradition says we have 9 planets, and there's no arguing with it.
2.) Anything larger than Pluto is a planet.
It occurs to me that as popular as the "archive" links are, it is hard to believe that no one has yet submitted an "archive" link with a story. I would speculate that the Slashdot editors deliberately remove these links as to not anger the NY Times.