Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What was the main plot again?
In my opinion..?
I'd say the main plot is fate vs. free will - what parts of our lives do we control, and what is preordained and unescapable? (And generally, Lost tends to tell us that free will is preferable.)
Summary wise, it's a matter of peeling the onion - each season brings us one step closer to the source of the mystery (pardon the pun).
Ah... The problem is...the store's just as obligated as the developer. They distributed it. The GPL is a derivative works and publication/distribution license on whatever is protected by it.
By selling the app, they're in a pickle. Much like Verizon was with the Actiontec routers with BusyBox in them that was just as non-compliant.
The whole situation seems a bit.. contrived, somehow. It's interesting that the FSF makes no mention of the developer that submitted the software (knowing full well that GPL and AppStore don't mix). It makes me wonder if perhaps someone did this on purpose to make a stink.
For comparison - if I take GPL'ed writing, stick it in a book with my copyright notice on it, and convince Barnes & Noble to sell it, do the headlines say "Barnes & Noble in violation of GPL"?
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I was under the impression that the Egyptians were the beginning of the "protector" line - the Source Room had hieroglyphics as well, and a larger original group would explain the statue, temples, etc. - all part of the original Protectors, from which the line descended.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Of course, that's also a perfect analogy for any sort of romance in television - the mystery (will they? won't they? will they again?) is far more interesting than the resolution.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I was of the understanding that all stories get one "what if" at the beginning - the one hook that makes this story different. Lost's is "What if the source of all life was stored on an island?"
If you start from there, a lot of things start to fall together. (Not all, but that's TV for you.)
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
The heart of the island is filled with energy.
That's dangerously close to my quota of bullshit. What type of energy?
I'm gonna guess "electromagnetic", since that's what (a) the hatch emitted when the failsafe was turned, (b) that's what they specifically state Desmond has a resistance to.
Beyond that, it's unimportant - to explain it moves us past the Laforgean limit for technobabble. It's there, we see what it does, we hear what various people *think* it is. It's not really important what it really is, because that doesn't enter the plot.
Re:Babylon 5 / Firefly / Star Blazers
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Likewise Firefly -- there is a secret, we are hooked on the secret, secret is revealed, and it is a real tear jerker / food for thought / both!
I love Firefly (to the point of owning a second copy to loan out), but I would never consider it to be a case of "secret is revealed". The only secret remotely revealed is River and Miranda (and that's only in the movie, and wasn't foreshadowed in the series, so I'd hesitate to say the series showed anything). As for things never explained, let's start with:
Hugo and Ben stay on the island as protector and sidekick. Kate and Sawyer escape (again, for Kate), and "live happily ever after".
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
"Yes like any good book, questions were left unanswered." BZZZZT!!!
No, actually, a good book tells a coherent story.
Of course, a book also has the luxury of being completed, then edited. Contrast with a serial, where each chapter you write is published and permanent. If an author gets to book 5 and realizes he needs Bob to be in place X rather than Y back in chapter 2 of book 1, he can go fix it. TV shows don't get that luxury.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
In the end, very little was answered.
I'd agree that very little was spelled out. But Lost never really did that anyway.
I'd disagree that little was answered - most of the pieces are there, but you have to put them together. (Which fits with their stated intention of making "smart" television.) I'd also mention that a lot of the background pieces aren't really necessary to the main plot, so I never expected them all to be answered.
Do we know anything about why the Dharma Initiative was there? Why food fell from the sky?
Dharma was a scientific expedition, studying the "unique properties" (read: weird stuff happens here; I wonder why?) of the island. The food drops were part of the Swan setup (which was supposed to study isolation, as well as keeping the world intact). After the Purge, Dharma either (a)continued the drops to the Swan station, since the Others seemed to be ignoring it, or (b) made arrangements with the Others (since we see the Others having access to a lot of Dharma resources both on and off-island).
Why the Egyptian symbolism was there?
Safest guess would be that the original colonists/scientists/worshippers of the island were Egyptian. The statue, the lighthouse, even the markings around the Source indicate that Egyptians were likely the original protectors as well.
Where the island came from? What its purpose was?
It came from the earth. It doesn't have a purpose. Might as well ask what gravity is.
Why people were "studying" the island?
Because strange things constantly happen there. You have strange unexplainable energies, smoke monsters... lots of stuff that will make people want to come figure it out.
The numbers are a bit odd, but Hurley's bad luck can just as easily be explained as Jacob's meddling.
As mentioned elsewhere, until someone actually files suit, that's just innuendo and propaganda. MPEG LA says it's covered, but keep in mind it's in their best interest if everyone keeps paying them royalties - they stand to lose a lot if a comparable alternative exists.
Sorry, but Google is not as altruistic as everyone likes to believe and they're also not flawless in their execution of new ideas.
No, they're not altruistic - no for-profit company is. (Because, well, they want you to give them money.)
What Google has done well is align their interests with the common person, and particularly in being honest about what they're doing. They didn't make Gmail out of the goodness of their heart - they made it so they could sell search results from your email to advertisers. This makes it in their corporate interest to have the best email client they can build (since that brings in more users, which turns into money). Their interest coincides with mine (I get a better email client).
YouTube is no different - for all intents and purposes it's a network at this point. Networks make their money by drawing viewers, and selling that attention span to advertisers. Making a royalty-free codec means more people will make content. More content = more eyeballs = more money for Google.
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow....
on
H.264 and VP8 Compared
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Devil's advocate here...
It's also possible that MPEG LA is "forming a patent pool" because they want to create the appearance of infringement - it's certainly better for them if VP8 dies from lack of support than if they have to go fight Google in court.
Remember, until someone actually pulls the trigger and files the suit, it's all talk and propoganda.
Just as we decided that hey, it makes more sense for us to go around the sun than the other way around.
Pluto is a perfect example - we've got a better grasp on what's going on in our solar system, and now our previous viewpoint doesn't work. So we change our viewpoint. (If memory serves, if we count Pluto as a planet then there's a *lot* of planets in the solar system. Heck, Ceres was demoted back in 1802).
Someone has to control education - would you rather it be a large corporation?
"If Timmy has a delicious Big Macs, and Bobby has a horrid Whopper, explain why Bobby is a poor citizen who doesn't want to enjoy the delicious taste of Big Macs"
I'd recommend Jennifer Government for a take on a corporate world.
Ok, let's start by physics. Which part of what was widely accepted as true two thousand years ago ended up being true?
This would be a good point, if we were teaching class 2000 years ago.
All I want in my classroom is the best information we have at the time - no-one's asking for The One True Truth here. (Heck, you only have to go back 10 years to find differences in physics - we lost a planet, didn't ya know.)
I wouldn't object to religion being taught in school - just teach *all* of them, and put it in "Religion" class.
I realize I'm using the Wikipedia article as a source, and thus is suspect (chemistry was never my strong subject), but it does appear to actually explode. Entirely possible I'm misremembering some details, though.
(It's also possible this is a troll, or even a very subtle gag about Texas chemistry textbooks. In either of those events, I salute you.)
I'll quote Fred Thompson on this one:
"The Times Square bomber wasn't flagged at the airport even though he paid cash for his ticket. Which is understandable. Why would you worry about a nervous, cash-paying Pakistani when there are grandmothers in wheelchairs to be searched?"
Obvious counter - do you know how much explosives you could hide in a wheelchair? (Hell, it's been widely shown that at best, you can only make it mildly inconvenient to get a bomb on an airplane - beyond the laptops and video players having enough empty internal space to hold C4, I recall someone positing a way to soak a paperback in nitro. Reading material + match = boom.)
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins.
One obvious reason - because for companies that currently use Blackberries (and the related apps), the current inability to run custom software is a deterrent to switching to iPhones. (Example use: trucking companies use GPS-enabled Blackberry software to track their trucks in realtime). Opening the gates a bit to capture the corporate market would be a win for Apple.
Also, there would easily be enormous demand for such an ability. A HUGE potential market that is completely untapped. If you don't understand it, then watch a sci-fi movie or show. Most have tablet computers. And it is obvious why. Imagine a simple, specific program, which can monitor certain factors. A warehouse, you can have things in and out tagged, and spots tagged. (snip)
These things already exist - at my company we have handhelds to select product in the warehouse, check inventory, etc. Hell, if an iPhone/iPad can run telnet, they could talk to most of our current warehouse software as-is. The future is here, as it were.
My point here is that making statements as you do, so boldly, quickly, and conceitedly, is not only rude, but stupid. If you are going to say "I suspect" then say why.
At the risk of restating the obvious, I suspect Apple will do these things because it will make them a metric assload of money.
Also, you totally ignored the fact that companies would be unlikely to hand over source code of software to apple, and at the same time unlikely that apple would open a possibility of losing their stranglehold on applications which allows it to milk money from everyone with EASE. (snip ranting about how everyone else is an idiot.)
Even presuming that Apple requires source and not binary (and would enforce that requirement on its corporate clients), it ignores the fact that much of the software the companies use is third-party. For an example, look at MobileCast (made by UPS Logistics). You can buy dedicated widgets, or they have a Blackberry app. Seems like a reasonable assumption that they'll release an iPhone version at some point. (I'm actually a bit surprised that it hasn't already come out).
Also, this doesn't release the "stranglehold" in a bit - for $99 you can buy a developer license and put anything you want on your iWidget. Even if you assume you need once license per device, $99/year is completely in the realm of possibility for any reasonable sized company. So Apple already has given people the ability to run their own software. All I'm suggesting is that it's a reasonable guess that if/when the Fortune 500 starts nudging Steve to give them a way to do this, a way will present itself.
So you write software for the iPad. How then do you ensure it is installed on all of a set of iPads, and never leaves the doors of your company? How is that possible with the appstore?
My point is that you can write software for yourself on another OS, and use it to your pleasing. You can write it to a disk and transport it. It is something. but with apple? from what I understand it is different. Of course, the horror stories I have heard from literally everyone I know that has an iProduct that is not jailbroken are too terrible for me to risk paying that much and not being able to have freedom over the device.
I'd love to hear some of those stories. Most of the horror stories I've heard stem from poor backups.
I was fairly sure NES was licensee-only, but then I remembered the Tengen Gauntlet games, so I suppose it can't be considered a completely locked system...
Slashdot Mirror
What was the main plot again?
In my opinion..?
I'd say the main plot is fate vs. free will - what parts of our lives do we control, and what is preordained and unescapable? (And generally, Lost tends to tell us that free will is preferable.)
Summary wise, it's a matter of peeling the onion - each season brings us one step closer to the source of the mystery (pardon the pun).
Ah... The problem is...the store's just as obligated as the developer. They distributed it. The GPL is a derivative works and publication/distribution license on whatever is protected by it.
By selling the app, they're in a pickle. Much like Verizon was with the Actiontec routers with BusyBox in them that was just as non-compliant.
The whole situation seems a bit.. contrived, somehow. It's interesting that the FSF makes no mention of the developer that submitted the software (knowing full well that GPL and AppStore don't mix). It makes me wonder if perhaps someone did this on purpose to make a stink.
For comparison - if I take GPL'ed writing, stick it in a book with my copyright notice on it, and convince Barnes & Noble to sell it, do the headlines say "Barnes & Noble in violation of GPL"?
I was under the impression that the Egyptians were the beginning of the "protector" line - the Source Room had hieroglyphics as well, and a larger original group would explain the statue, temples, etc. - all part of the original Protectors, from which the line descended.
Of course, that's also a perfect analogy for any sort of romance in television - the mystery (will they? won't they? will they again?) is far more interesting than the resolution.
I was of the understanding that all stories get one "what if" at the beginning - the one hook that makes this story different. Lost's is "What if the source of all life was stored on an island?"
If you start from there, a lot of things start to fall together. (Not all, but that's TV for you.)
The heart of the island is filled with energy.
That's dangerously close to my quota of bullshit. What type of energy?
I'm gonna guess "electromagnetic", since that's what (a) the hatch emitted when the failsafe was turned, (b) that's what they specifically state Desmond has a resistance to.
Beyond that, it's unimportant - to explain it moves us past the Laforgean limit for technobabble. It's there, we see what it does, we hear what various people *think* it is. It's not really important what it really is, because that doesn't enter the plot.
Likewise Firefly -- there is a secret, we are hooked on the secret, secret is revealed, and it is a real tear jerker / food for thought / both!
I love Firefly (to the point of owning a second copy to loan out), but I would never consider it to be a case of "secret is revealed". The only secret remotely revealed is River and Miranda (and that's only in the movie, and wasn't foreshadowed in the series, so I'd hesitate to say the series showed anything). As for things never explained, let's start with:
What happened to Hugo, Ben, Kate, Sawyer, etc.?
Hugo and Ben stay on the island as protector and sidekick. Kate and Sawyer escape (again, for Kate), and "live happily ever after".
"Yes like any good book, questions were left unanswered." BZZZZT!!!
No, actually, a good book tells a coherent story.
Of course, a book also has the luxury of being completed, then edited. Contrast with a serial, where each chapter you write is published and permanent. If an author gets to book 5 and realizes he needs Bob to be in place X rather than Y back in chapter 2 of book 1, he can go fix it. TV shows don't get that luxury.
In the end, very little was answered.
I'd agree that very little was spelled out. But Lost never really did that anyway.
I'd disagree that little was answered - most of the pieces are there, but you have to put them together. (Which fits with their stated intention of making "smart" television.) I'd also mention that a lot of the background pieces aren't really necessary to the main plot, so I never expected them all to be answered.
Do we know anything about why the Dharma Initiative was there? Why food fell from the sky?
Dharma was a scientific expedition, studying the "unique properties" (read: weird stuff happens here; I wonder why?) of the island. The food drops were part of the Swan setup (which was supposed to study isolation, as well as keeping the world intact). After the Purge, Dharma either (a)continued the drops to the Swan station, since the Others seemed to be ignoring it, or (b) made arrangements with the Others (since we see the Others having access to a lot of Dharma resources both on and off-island).
Why the Egyptian symbolism was there?
Safest guess would be that the original colonists/scientists/worshippers of the island were Egyptian. The statue, the lighthouse, even the markings around the Source indicate that Egyptians were likely the original protectors as well.
Where the island came from? What its purpose was?
It came from the earth. It doesn't have a purpose. Might as well ask what gravity is.
Why people were "studying" the island?
Because strange things constantly happen there. You have strange unexplainable energies, smoke monsters... lots of stuff that will make people want to come figure it out.
The numbers are a bit odd, but Hurley's bad luck can just as easily be explained as Jacob's meddling.
As mentioned elsewhere, until someone actually files suit, that's just innuendo and propaganda. MPEG LA says it's covered, but keep in mind it's in their best interest if everyone keeps paying them royalties - they stand to lose a lot if a comparable alternative exists.
... but you can't use it without paying royalties. People will need to make their tradeoffs between quality and cost (as they always do).
You're confusing "better" with "supported"
For historical examples, see VHS vs Betamax.
(And for the younger, my friend still has a working Betamax with old 80's MacGyver episodes, and the quality is noticeably better than VHS.)
Sorry, but Google is not as altruistic as everyone likes to believe and they're also not flawless in their execution of new ideas.
No, they're not altruistic - no for-profit company is. (Because, well, they want you to give them money.)
What Google has done well is align their interests with the common person, and particularly in being honest about what they're doing. They didn't make Gmail out of the goodness of their heart - they made it so they could sell search results from your email to advertisers. This makes it in their corporate interest to have the best email client they can build (since that brings in more users, which turns into money). Their interest coincides with mine (I get a better email client).
YouTube is no different - for all intents and purposes it's a network at this point. Networks make their money by drawing viewers, and selling that attention span to advertisers. Making a royalty-free codec means more people will make content. More content = more eyeballs = more money for Google.
Devil's advocate here...
It's also possible that MPEG LA is "forming a patent pool" because they want to create the appearance of infringement - it's certainly better for them if VP8 dies from lack of support than if they have to go fight Google in court.
Remember, until someone actually pulls the trigger and files the suit, it's all talk and propoganda.
Just as we decided that hey, it makes more sense for us to go around the sun than the other way around.
Pluto is a perfect example - we've got a better grasp on what's going on in our solar system, and now our previous viewpoint doesn't work. So we change our viewpoint. (If memory serves, if we count Pluto as a planet then there's a *lot* of planets in the solar system. Heck, Ceres was demoted back in 1802).
Someone has to control education - would you rather it be a large corporation?
"If Timmy has a delicious Big Macs, and Bobby has a horrid Whopper, explain why Bobby is a poor citizen who doesn't want to enjoy the delicious taste of Big Macs"
I'd recommend Jennifer Government for a take on a corporate world.
Ok, let's start by physics. Which part of what was widely accepted as true two thousand years ago ended up being true?
This would be a good point, if we were teaching class 2000 years ago.
All I want in my classroom is the best information we have at the time - no-one's asking for The One True Truth here. (Heck, you only have to go back 10 years to find differences in physics - we lost a planet, didn't ya know.)
I wouldn't object to religion being taught in school - just teach *all* of them, and put it in "Religion" class.
I realize I'm using the Wikipedia article as a source, and thus is suspect (chemistry was never my strong subject), but it does appear to actually explode. Entirely possible I'm misremembering some details, though.
(It's also possible this is a troll, or even a very subtle gag about Texas chemistry textbooks. In either of those events, I salute you.)
>
I'll quote Fred Thompson on this one: "The Times Square bomber wasn't flagged at the airport even though he paid cash for his ticket. Which is understandable. Why would you worry about a nervous, cash-paying Pakistani when there are grandmothers in wheelchairs to be searched?"
Obvious counter - do you know how much explosives you could hide in a wheelchair? (Hell, it's been widely shown that at best, you can only make it mildly inconvenient to get a bomb on an airplane - beyond the laptops and video players having enough empty internal space to hold C4, I recall someone positing a way to soak a paperback in nitro. Reading material + match = boom.)
The idea of apple allowing corp-specific apps is ludicrous. They have no reason to, it would not benefit them in any way, but the freedom would be dangerous to their profit margins.
One obvious reason - because for companies that currently use Blackberries (and the related apps), the current inability to run custom software is a deterrent to switching to iPhones. (Example use: trucking companies use GPS-enabled Blackberry software to track their trucks in realtime). Opening the gates a bit to capture the corporate market would be a win for Apple.
Also, there would easily be enormous demand for such an ability. A HUGE potential market that is completely untapped. If you don't understand it, then watch a sci-fi movie or show. Most have tablet computers. And it is obvious why. Imagine a simple, specific program, which can monitor certain factors. A warehouse, you can have things in and out tagged, and spots tagged. (snip)
These things already exist - at my company we have handhelds to select product in the warehouse, check inventory, etc. Hell, if an iPhone/iPad can run telnet, they could talk to most of our current warehouse software as-is. The future is here, as it were.
My point here is that making statements as you do, so boldly, quickly, and conceitedly, is not only rude, but stupid. If you are going to say "I suspect" then say why.
At the risk of restating the obvious, I suspect Apple will do these things because it will make them a metric assload of money.
Also, you totally ignored the fact that companies would be unlikely to hand over source code of software to apple, and at the same time unlikely that apple would open a possibility of losing their stranglehold on applications which allows it to milk money from everyone with EASE. (snip ranting about how everyone else is an idiot.)
Even presuming that Apple requires source and not binary (and would enforce that requirement on its corporate clients), it ignores the fact that much of the software the companies use is third-party. For an example, look at MobileCast (made by UPS Logistics). You can buy dedicated widgets, or they have a Blackberry app. Seems like a reasonable assumption that they'll release an iPhone version at some point. (I'm actually a bit surprised that it hasn't already come out).
Also, this doesn't release the "stranglehold" in a bit - for $99 you can buy a developer license and put anything you want on your iWidget. Even if you assume you need once license per device, $99/year is completely in the realm of possibility for any reasonable sized company. So Apple already has given people the ability to run their own software. All I'm suggesting is that it's a reasonable guess that if/when the Fortune 500 starts nudging Steve to give them a way to do this, a way will present itself.
Oh, and welcome to /.
So you write software for the iPad. How then do you ensure it is installed on all of a set of iPads, and never leaves the doors of your company? How is that possible with the appstore?
Considering that Apple already has a webpage for integrating iPhones into corporate environments (not to mention educational facilities), I suspect it won't be long until those tools include a way to add corp-specific apps. (Presuming there's enough actual demand for such an ability)
My point is that you can write software for yourself on another OS, and use it to your pleasing. You can write it to a disk and transport it. It is something. but with apple? from what I understand it is different. Of course, the horror stories I have heard from literally everyone I know that has an iProduct that is not jailbroken are too terrible for me to risk paying that much and not being able to have freedom over the device.
I'd love to hear some of those stories. Most of the horror stories I've heard stem from poor backups.
I was fairly sure NES was licensee-only, but then I remembered the Tengen Gauntlet games, so I suppose it can't be considered a completely locked system...
The word is 'appliance'.
Well, I for one am happy to have appliances that just do their function. I don't need to be troubleshooting the software on my toaster.
I see two problems with that scenario:
1. An iPad is not going to replace the general computer - corporations will continue to use desktops and laptops for generations to come.
2. Even if everything was locked down, the geeks will just buy the consumer version and hack it until it does what they want.