And before anybody gets pedantic with me, I know that objects like black holes cause massive warping of time and space, so the theory that gravity affects it isn't new. I seem to remember that this theory was somehow...different. I just don't remember what the difference was:)
Physics majors are welcome to correct me here (I'm a bit outside of my field), but I seem to remember reading an article a while back discussing the possibility that gravity warps time/space (Scientific American or Popular Science...I don't remember which). The theory held that large gravitational wells, and especially large rotating gravitational wells, literally pull at the fabric of time/space and stretch it out near the center of the affected area. To prove/disprove the theory, the scientists involved were going to put a satellite into orbit and set a high mass object into a rapid spin. If the theory was correct, spacetime distortion would be detectable around the outer edges of the rotating test object.
Could this be what we're seeing, only on a much larger scale? Perhaps the Sun, with its massive gravity well, has caused time/space to stretch within our solar system, and what we're seeing here is the effect of the probes re-entering "normal" space. From our perspective within the "stretched" area, it would appear that the craft was slowing down.
I would love it if someone could provide more info on this theory, and fill me in on whether or not it could possibly apply here.
Environmentalists that stand in the way of this one will be shooting themselves in the foot. What do environmentalists want? Renewable energy! One of the best zero impact renewable energy sources happens to be orbital solar collectors. Limitless energy, no pollution, no adverse impacts from its use. So why aren't we using them? Because it costs too much. The pricetag on hauling the parts into orbit is so astronomically high that nobody takes it seriously.
There's a cool old saying that applies here: "Necessity is the mother of invention". By bringing commercial interests into the picture, there will be plenty of people trying to find cheaper ways to get up there. The same technology that will make it cheaper for Joe Tourist to visit the Astro Ritz will also slash the pricetag on your enviro-friendly power station.
Besides, would you rather have them building hotels in space, or on the edge of some delicate tropical beach?
I seem to recall that on the Apollo missions, and to a lesser extent the Gemini missions, NASA discovered a potentially serious problem with cosmic rays. Many of the early astronauts were reporting seeing "white streaks" when they closed their eyes along with bright bursts of color and light. After some investigation, NASA discovered that the light was from cosmic rays (?) passing through the eyeballs of the astronauts and momentarily becoming visible. With further investigation, NASA discovered microscopic craters and divots in the helmets and equipment of the early capsules. It seemed that while the cosmic rays were passing through the spacecraft and the astronauts, they were interacting with the matter they came into contact with.
NASA's next concern was obvious. What health risks are involved here? The answer was revealed in experiments conducted during the latter part of the Apollo program and it wasn't very comforting. When the cosmic rays came into contact with normal cellular tissue, they caused immediate decay (ruptured cell walls, DNA damage, etc.) Even more frightening were the neurological effects. When a cosmic ray hit a neuron, the neuron died. While cellular damage can heal itself, a dead neuron is dead forever. A full battery of tests on the astronauts showed slight decreases in memory, reflexes, high motor functions, and even personality changes. The effects weren't serious, but they were there.
For obvious reasons none of this has ever been given much media coverage. By the latter part of the Apollo program, public support for manned space travel was already waning and a public admission that the astronauts were in danger was the last thing NASA wanted to deal with. The problem here is, those astronauts were up for what? Maybe two weeks? What kind of exposure would a staff on a permanent space station see? In order to keep a station like this in orbit for any appreciable amount of time, its orbit would have to be well outside of the Earths sphere of protection (the Mercury astronauts didn't have a problem because they didn't get high enough). What kind of liablility suits would a hotel be facing by exposing employees to this kind of danger? Hell, what kind of suits would they face from customers?!?! Would you take a vacation in space if you knew that brain damage might result?
Disclaimer: I am working solely from memory here, and it's been many years since I read the NASA papers on this. I also haven't seen any recent data on this topic from the shuttle or Mir, just the original Apollo findings. If I improperly stated any points don't flame me, correct me:)
While many people consider the GPL to be a "code to live by", we must remember that it's just a legal document and we must think in legal terms. Legally, a corporation is a single entity, and as such internal dissemination cannot be considered distribution. According to U.S.and Canadian law, transfers can only be considered distribution when it passes between entities, the number of actual people handling it is irrelevant. If a manager hands a modified Linux distro to 10 employees within the company for review, that doesn't qualify as distribution. As employees, those 10 people are legally considered to be part of the corporation, hence no new entities have received it. If Corel considers it's beta testers to be sub-contractors, then the distro is still legally internal to the corporation and no GPL violation has taken place.
Now IANAL, but I got a little bit of experience here a few years back. The software company I was employed at licensed a bunch of beta testers for a new product. One of these beta testers was an IT Manager in a large company, who ended up distributing it to several of their other offices nationwide as well as a few subcontractors. My former employer sued him and his employer (they had signed off on his application), but the judge threw it out. Since the software had never passed to any third party, the judge said the distribution charge was bunk. The lawyer who wrote our license was an idiot who forgot to write in anti-duplication provisions (he got fired), and we ended up getting boned.
Oh, and I read the Corel application and didn't see the word "license" anywhere...I just saw a "Beta Testing Agreement". While this may seem like semantics to some, there's a huge legal difference between the terms. They're not claiming ownership of the distro, they're just forbidding the redistribution of their own (not-yet-GPL'd) code. If you were to sign that agreement, strip out the Corel proprietary stuff, and post it on the Internet, they couldn't do anything to you (it'd just be Debian!). I just can't figure out what the flap is all about...
I wholeheartedly agree. Microsoft should have a freedom to innovate. But remember that freedom to innovate != freedom to dominate. I remember a time in the early and mid 80's when I actually respected Microsoft for innovating. Sure, their products may not have been completely original but they were trying to open computing to the masses...and that was still a new idea.
The problem is that MS has gone from innovator to dominator, and they are slowly strangling the computer industry. MS essentially sees all other software companies as competition, and rather than compete, MS would rather buy or crush them. If you look closely at Microsofts history, you'll find dozens of software companies that have been bought out, and hundreds of products or ideas that have either been "borrowed" or blatantly stolen. MS doesn't compete, it destroys.
The hipocrisy of Microsofts statement is that they want to keep their dominance of the computer industry, but the lack of competition stifles innovation. Microsoft knows this, and they want this. Innovation is Microsofts worst enemy. The Internet was a major innovation in computer communication. The OSS movement is a huge innovation in software distribution. Java was a big innovation in the war against platorm dependence. Fact is, every time another "innovation" occurs MS is forced to fight even harder to maintain it's position. MS isn't interested in innovation, this is just a desperate shot by a company that has finally realized that it's days are numbered.
Not really. My experience in tracing people on the 'Net has shown me that most ISP's will hand over a lot of info without a warrant or any identification. As an example... Several months ago I had some script kiddie trying to bring down our companies web server by using a DOS attack. While the kid didn't have a chance in h*ll of actually crashing the server, it was annoying. So, I traced his IP, identified myself to to his ISP over the phone, and explained the problem. I was promptly given the users name, address, and telephone number. You shoulda heard his mom go off on him when I called:)
That's not a solitary incident either. I've requested this type of info, for legitimate reasons, several times in the past and I've never had an ISP tell me no. The closest thing I've ever had to "verification" was an ISP that asked for my telephone number, and called me back. Identifying people is easy if you know how to ask properly..
perhaps if both men and women recognised the need to compromise when it comes to cleaning, cooking, looking after the kids, looking after the family in general, you would find that men and women would be able to acheive the same standards.
That's something women need to work out with their husbands, not their employers. I have nothing against women in programming if they are willing to make the same sacrifices as men. If a woman can get her husband to take more responsibility with the kids and allow her to work, great! If not, she shouldn't expect the job to change to fit her needs.
As it is, if you have a family why would you work 16 hours a day?! Or even 12 hours! Children are more important than a job!
I agree entirely, which is why I stopped programming when my children were born. Kids+serious programming just don't go together. It is possible to find 8 hour a day programming jobs that will allow you to balance work and family, but you'll be giving up the high pay that makes this job so desireable. Money or family, you can't have both in this job.
How do domestic responsibilities affect someone's ability to program?
When you're sitting in front of a computer coding, it doesn't. When it comes to the actual skills involved in programming, I've met women that could code circles around me. BUT, when it comes to your definition of acceptable working conditions, there's a huge difference. When you must take care of a family, if you actually want to be involved in it, you lose your ability to excel at your job. When I was programming, I gave everything I had to the job in return for a huge financial reward. I was willing to make that sacrifice because I considered the reward to be worthwhile. Domestic responsibilities get in the way of that. If you can't devote whatever time is needed to the job, you shouldn't be doing it.
16 hour days??? Are you insane????
You know, I actually had to think long and hard before answering that one, and my answer is a definite maybe. The real question is, was it worth it for me to work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for $160k a year? For me, a college dropout who never took a CS class in his life and taught himself to code, the answer is yes. If that makes me nuts, so be it.
I see... so you expected to be adequately compensated because you willingly deprived your children of a father during the most needy part of their lives?
No. I didn't have any kids at the time. I now have two, and my family is more important to me, so I gave up programming. I now make $48k a year, a $112,000 pay cut, and work as a network administrator just so that I could spend time with my kids. I realized that I had a choice, a successful career as a programmer or a successful career as a father, and I chose the latter. I knew I couldn't continue programming so I gave it up and did something else.
There is a reason why the law protects the 8 hour work day.
The fact that you said this shows me that you missed the point of my entire post. People work long hours because they choose to work those hours. They want high pay, and they are willing to make the required sacrifices to get it. Employers are rewarding this with some of the highest wages in the country. If programming becomes an 8 hour a day job, that high pay will become a thing of the past. Companies will be forced to hire more programmers to get the jobs done, and thus be less inclined to pay as much. Alternately, they could accept longer development times, but that will cost them in profits. When profits suffer, they will want to cut expenses. Jobs and wages are usually the first thing on the chopping block. Finally, if an 8 hour programming day becomes the norm, tens of thousands of ex-programmers like myself are going to be interested in getting back into it, flooding the job market and driving wages even further down. I loved programming but I wanted a shorter workday. If the workdays get shortened, people like me will return in droves.
As a side note, I just had a discussion with my mother-in-law, and was quite suprised to find that she agreed with me. She became quite a talented programmer during her career from 1974-1984, working for companies like IBM, Apple, and others. She left her career in 1984 to take care of her family. She told me that as the computer industry developed, the demands on programmers grew greater and greater. More and more, programming and family became mutually exclusionary. To excel in programming, you must be willing to give up a real family life. She wasn't willing to do that, and neither are most women.
The truly sad thing is that it is the money of the industry that is attracting these women. What many people (men and women alike) fail to look at is WHY our pay is so high. We are EXPECTED to work long hours and to put our jobs ahead of all else. For people willing to do that, the reward is high. People that aren't willing to do that wont last, and don't succeed. My greatest fear is that a large influx of women into the industry will cause employers to rethink the way programmers work, and cut our hours to placate all of the women. While this may sound like a good thing, it will cost us dearly. We WILL lose the high wages we're accustomed to. We're paid a lot simply because we're willing to put our jobs ahead of all else and work long hours. If we lose that, if programming becomes "just another job", then programmers wages will decline dramatically. Think about it.
Maybe females are less profitable computer programmers because they are not as likely to stay up all night?
There's more truth to this than you might think. I, personally, don't care for the vast majority of female computer programmers. I am not sexist (my wife is an advertising exec and makes twice as much as I do), but in my experience women programmers are not nearly as efficient as male programmers. Case in point:
Several years ago I was hired by a "new" software company that was just making the transition from a garage-based operation to a fully legitimate company. When they hired programmers, they did everything possible to get a fair mix in their employees. Male, female, white, black, asian, and hispanic...they were all represented in the programming staff. Well, it wasn't long before problems started developing with the women.
First it was the hours. The company paid us extremely well, but expected us to work our asses off for it. Sixteen hour days were the norm, and the women didn't care for it. They objected to the highest management, and we were ordered to cut our workdays to 12 hours max. The women still objected, and were given permission to leave after working 8 hours. Their objections were fair (they had to pick up their kids, they had to make dinner for their families, they wanted to spend time with their kids, etc.), but because of this they didn't get nearly as much work done as the men.
The next step was predictable. Time came for promotions and raises...and the men got FAR more than the women. To me, and the rest of the male programmers, this was fair. We did more work and we got a greater reward for it. To the women it was discrimination, and after hiring a lawyer to look into it the company relented and gave them equal raises. But that was the beginning of the end. By the end of the following year, all of the women had left the company and no new women were ever hired.
I can't blame women for being poorly suited to programming, but it doesn't change the fact that most of them are. They have other priorities that, to them, are more important than their work, and rightly so. But there are certain sacrifices that employers expect, that many women aren't prepared to make.
Note: To be entirely fair, I have met several unattached women with no family or responsibilities who were very well suited to programming. But they are very rare and, presumably, will end up married and no longer suited to the job.
But what about the dinosoars?
on
High Tech Junk
·
· Score: 1
I've never tossed any computer, and I've still got every machine I've ever owned (current count:24 machines). While I run my 386+ machines in various places around my house, I'm stumped as to what to do with my REAL old machines. I've got 2 Commodore PET's and a 128D, several old Tandy's (TRS-80's, CC's, & 1000's), XT's and AT's galore, and even an old Heath kit. All of thse machines still work, but what use are they? What can I do with them? I don't have the heart to toss them.
Alright then, smile at an honest comparison. I've been working on computers for 17 years and I'm an MCSE. By your reasoning, I should be pro-NT, right? Wrong. Our LAN (at work) runs a mix of WinNT4 and Debian servers, and I can honestly say Debian is the preferable server platform. Our NT boxes lock up and require reboots at least once a week, and they always bomb at the worst possible time (like when I'm at lunch). Our Debian machines were all rebooted about two weeks ago because we were doing hardware checks on them...it was the first time in 6 months that any of them had been offline.
Up until a month ago our company webserver ran NT Server 4 with IIS 4, and it required daily reboots. A month ago we installed Debian+Apache, and it's been up, unaided, ever since.
I'll agree that some people here seriously exaggerate the instabilities of NT, but Linux actually is the more reliable OS for mission critical servers.
Extracted from "Fingerprints Of The Gods"; Crown Trade, 1995 -
"Consider the crowning jewel of Maya calendrics, the so-called 'Long Count'. This system of calculating dates also expressed beliefs about the past - notably, the widely held belief that time operated in Great Cycles which witnessed recurrent creations and destructions of the world. According to the Maya, the current Great Cycle began in darkness on 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, a date corresponding to 13 August 3114 BC in our own calendar. As we have seen, it was also believed that the cycle will come to an end, amid global destruction, on 4 Ahau 3 Kankin: 23 December 2012 AD in our calendar. The function of the Long Count was to record the elapse of time since the beginning of the current Great Cycle, literally to count off, one by one, the 5125 years allotted to our present creation. So, at any rate, thought the Maya."
I should also point out that this so-called "Mayan Mythology" is actually not Mayan at all, it's Olmec. It is widely suspected that the Mayans were the descendants of the Olmecs, so it makes sense that many of their traditions would survive...it also makes this calendar thousands of years old. The Olmec prophecy stated that: "the Fifth Sun will end with the Earth 'toppling from its axis', and great earthquakes will level mountains and rend the continents apart."
I would like to posit (again, I'm not at all an expert) that individuals, not nations, pose the most significant threat to U.S. security.
But this is exactly why computer export controls should be maintained. Look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have a fanatic Middle Eastern terrorist organization hell bent on destroying the US (there's quite a few of them), and they want to build a nuclear bomb or missile to vaporize a large American city. The research and construction of said nuclear weapon will require a supercomputer. Now, if export controls were removed, the terrorist group, funded by some sympathetic oil baron, could easily buy a used supercomputer and have their numbers in a few days time. But with the export controls in place, they are forced into a more difficult situation. Programs like Beowulf may seem to make the solution simple, but do they really? First you'll need people familiar with maintaining a Beowulf cluster, and programmers capable of writing the needed software for Linux. This means more people will know about the plot (bad thing), and besides, how many Linux geek terrorists are out there? Also, what happens if you have a network or unit failure while the calculations are running (figure on a few days per calculation)? They'd have to start over.
Fact is, it's easy for a large country to develop or build up the computing power needed to create nuclear weapons (look at Pakistan and India). For terrorist groups, it's a lot more difficult. The US government knows that there are ways around the export controls, but the idea is to make it such a huge pain in the ass that they won't bother. So far, it's worked.
Oh, and while I do support export controls on supercomputers. I don't support them on encryption. Two different issues.
The United States committed genocide against the entire Native American population. A large and diverse population that had grown for many thousands of years mostly died out within a few generations. First off, we need to put something in proper perspective. Up until this century, genocide was a regular and accepted part of war. I don't care what part of the world your forefathers hail from, EVERY race embraced genocide. The only way to ensure victory was to kill your enemy...and his children. I'm not saying it's ok, but singling one group out for that type of warfare is unfair. History is a bloody, violent thing. What isn't acceptable is that type of behavior today. We know better now...
Oh, and my wife is Northern Sioux (Osage). My children are half Osage. I can assure you that the beliefs, legends, and society built up by her ancestors was never destroyed. Badly damaged, yes. But never destroyed.
The United States imported humans from Africa and sold them as slaves on the open market. And unlike most other slave societies, the Americans kept a slaves' child as a slave as well; making an escape from slavery in one's family all but impossible. This is a twisted, politically correct view on history. 95% of the slaves imported into North America were brought in while we were still a British colony. The importing of slaves was banned shortly after we threw the Brit's out. Now, it's true that slavery lived on for a long time, but it was tolerated simply to keep the nation from breaking up. My own ancestors, who hailed from Maine, fought with the Mass. regiments in the civil war. My own ancestors put their lives on the line to free those slaves. Condemning all of America for slavery simply shows your ignorance of American history.
The United States stole a BIG chunk of Mexico, and then renamed it "Texas" Once more, you're displaying a serious lack of historical knowledge. Texas declared it's independence from Mexico, and fought hard for that independence. A short time later, the free and independent Republic of Texas petitioned the United States to accept it into the union. Mexico believed the US was behind the secession of Texas, and took a generally hostile stance to anything American. This led to the Mexican-American war. When we won that war, the Mexicans surrendered much of the now-Southwestern US to American control. They started it...but we won. You want me to be ashamed of that? I don't think so.
The United States stole a chunk of Columbia, renamed it Panama," and built the Panama Canal. To this day we're scheming to maintain control of this vital shipping way. Ok, were sorta guilty of this one, but at least put it in the proper perspctive. We wanted to build the canal, but the Columbians wanted too much money for the right of way. So we found a sympathetic bunch of Panamanian seccessionists and...umm...armed them. We didn't take it, we just aided a revolution. And how are we "scheming" to keep it? AFAIK, we're getting ready to hand it over to the Panamanian government.
The United States stole Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.
First off let me say that I agree with Yoshi's statement above. If you can only afford to gamble with $250, you should probably be looking into other investment options. I'd also like to remind you that you should never trade with money you can't afford to lose.
Having said that, if you really want to invest in stocks, and are looking for a cheap way to do it, I'd suggest DLJ direct. There's no deposit for most people, no opening or monthly fees, and they've got fairly decent information on the site. They have won several awards, they have the free Marketspeed software (which is pretty decent), and I've been using them for a few months now without a problem. I was recommended to the site by a friend, and the quality is definitely high enough to recommend to anyone else.
The only problem is the commision. $20 per trade won't kill you, but it's definitely NOT the cheapest out there. The value of your purchase has to increase by $40 just to break even. For neophytes and day-traders, that can kill any hope of making a profit. I personally hold my stocks a while, and don't trade much, so it doesn't get in my way (I earned about $25k after taxes last year. Not a fortune, but a nice bonus on top of my regular salary).
I'm also making a killing on my MSFT holdings. Before I get flamed: I don't look at it as "supporting" MS, instead it's the ultimate Windows refund:)
Last time I checked, all the politicians were too concerned with kissing the butts of the special interest groups and big business
This is a dumb argument. Politicians listen to whoever makes the most noise. With voter turnouts in the sub-30% range, we voters certainly aren't making much. On the other hand, the SIG's have people beating down the doors of our representatives every day trying to influence congressional votes. Given this situation, it's only NATURAL that the special interests get more attention. If the US people would get off their arses and VOTE, if they would pay attention to politics and CONTACT their congresspeople with their opinions, the system can change. The problem today is that we have 100 Million people whining about the futility of voting, and complaining that their opinions don't count. The system is NOT broken, it's just badly neglected.
And FYI, I vote in every election (local, state, and federal). I have also written my congressional representatives many times, over many issues, and I have ALWAYS recieved a personal reply from them. As long as your letters are well written, contain supporting information, and AREN'T flames, they DO pay attention to them.
Did you guys secure rejection rights for the advertising banners? Several years ago I worked as a content writer for an OS/2 site. Although the site was privately owned and controlled, bandwidth was provided by an ISP under the (contractual) agreement that we would run their banners. As you might imagine, we were all quite upset when Micro$oft banners started showing up in the rotation. When the site owner contacted the ISP, he was informed that he had NO rights of rejection and that the only way for him to get rid of the banners was to find a new bandwidth provider. He ended up doing this, but only after the site was accused of "selling out" and a sizeable number of readers abandoned the site.
You may not care specifically about MS ads, but I can imagine other types of ads that might be out of place here (pr0n). Will you still have the right to order banners removed from the site? Or does Andover have final word on advertisers?
Other than that one small question, I'd like to say WAY TO GO GUYS!! I've enjoyed reading/. daily for over a year now, and it's nice to see you guys getting something back. While donating your money to help support the movement is great, I'd also suggest putting some of that money back for a vacation. A sandy island beach, bikini-clad girls, sipping margaritas... You guys deserve it:)
Chill out man! I think you're missing the point of what he's saying. When you have a (technically) free operating system, more than a dozen free 2D UI's available, and a couple free 3D UI's under development, what are the odds that Joe Linux User is going to be interested in spending money on this one? Most Linux users, myself included, will pass this over and wait for one that is 1) Free and 2) Open Source (two happens to be a bit more important to me).
I have nothing against commercial software development either, but going commercial in this instance does mean that it's acceptance will be limited.
Anyone care to check a couple of claims? I remember seeing this a while back and discounted it as a hoax, but I just found some other info on their site that, if true, may add some credibility to their claim. Of course, these claims are so broad I'm a little incredulous.
1) Claims to have been around since the 60's 2) Claim to have developed the Router and SMP 3) Claims to have invented RAID. 4) Claims to have developed part of X.25
And quite a few more. You can view their claims here. I don't have time to check them myself, but I'd be interested to see what anyone else could dig up. If this resume is correct, I might not be so quick to discount them.
I live in the town Lucas grew up in, and because of this I've been buried under what is literally an avalanche of hype. Not only do I have to deal with the nationwide media frenzy you're all talking about, but there's also the inevitable onslaught of "hometown boy does it again" stories. Despite this, I think Katz's allegation of Lucas being a sellout is boneheaded and unresearched.
Last Friday our local paper scored an interview with Lucas and he addressed this very issue. Story: "Phantom" cost Lucas $115 million during its 4 1/2 years in production. Toy sales alone could cover that, and Lucas in unapologetic about turning his imaginary characters into plastic playthings. Lucas: "I'm an independent filmmaker. I've had to make sure I've exploited everything I possibly can. It's like an Indian killing a buffalo. You have to use everything. You can't leave the carcass out in the prairie to rot". He continued with "I'm a very small company relative to the studios, who have millions and billions of dollars. They make millions and billions on movies every year, so they can afford to just do whatever they want. I can't. Selling Star Wars toys has really helped finance the movies for me". --Excerpted from the Modesto Bee, Friday, May 14, 1999
Now, that quote may specifically deal with toys, but it's easy to see how he can expand that line of thinking to the rest of the marketing campaigns. Lucas may be a millionaire (or even a billionaire) but that doesn't mean he can carry the cost of the movies out of pocket. How much of his personal value is tied up in his companies? What's the land under Skywalker ranch worth? Remember, it's possible to be a billionaire and not have a dime to your name. Should he sell off ILM or the software division of LucasArts just to finance the films? No. The best way for him to make money is hype. Take Pepsi's money for marketing, take the toymakers money for spinoffs, lease out character rights for endorsements. He still has to make two more Star Wars movies, and he has to make sure he has the funds to complete them.
There's another statement in here that got my attention and showed me what kind of guy we're all talking about. Story: Lucas insisted that he has no interest in breaking box office records or winning film awards with "Phantom". He predicted that it would end up among the top-10 all time box office hits (due to the hype), but no higher than fourth...he's ok with that. Lucas: "This is not a contest. It's a movie. I made it because I enjoy making movies. I hope it does well but I dont have any interest or desire to be No. 1 or to win an Academy Award or anything like that. That's not what it's really about. It's about making a movie". He also said that "This is a Saturday afternoon serial for children. Somehow over the years people have kind of drifted away from that and tried to make it something other than what it is".
I think we all need to take a long hard look at that last line. No matter how you feel on the hype topic, don't forget that this is a kids movie. TPM wasn't written so that I would enjoy it, he wrote it for my 5 year old daughter. He wrote it "to stimulate young peoples imaginations and allow them to go on to other creative pursuits". He doesn't care what we think of his marketing campaigns, his endless line of toys, or even the movie itself. What he cares about is it's effect on kids...and rightly so.
First off, IANAL, but my mom is and I used to love reading her legal journals and case law books (and yet I passed up a carrer in law to program computers...yay)
To answer your question: Technically yes the bill would be paid off, but I wouldn't count on it standing up in court. When a note such as that it placed in a check, is IS legally binding because the party you give the check to has the option to refuse your check and payment. If there is an alternative option, and they cash it anyway, they legally accepted it.
So should we all try this? No. While your legally in the right, most US courts would find for the mortgage company. Unless you got really lucky most judges would see this for what it is, an attempt to dodge a legitimate bill, and require you to pay it. It's kind of a trivial argument anyway. Write that note on your next mortgage check and I'll bet they just return the check to you uncashed. Heck, they'll most likely nail you with late fees at that point too, since you didn't properly submit your payment.
I don't know if the guys from Id read Slashdot, but if you do, do me a favor. Next time you decide to delay a product like this, please give us more notice. I, and about 90% of the rest of the gaming community, expected it to be released last night. Because of this I sat up all night waiting for the release so that I could mirror it on my triple T1 FTP server. I gave up after the sun came up (first sunrise I've seen in years).
Frontier mentality mostly. It'd be kind of like the American Old West all over again...just with better technology. IMO, you would have a better quality of life on Mars than on Earth, simply because you wouldn't have to deal with idiots all the time. Martian survival would require intelligence, real skills, and a strong work ethic...all things that are becoming scarce in this part of the solar system. "Middle management" type positions wouldn't exist in any type of power hierarchy because they would be too much drag on the system.
I would move in a heartbeat. Wife, kids, and all. It's really the ultimate geek dream. The settlement of the Old West was done by imposing men with big guns and bigger mouths. The settling of Mars will be done by smart men (and women) with lots of technology and the brains to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
And before anybody gets pedantic with me, I know that objects like black holes cause massive warping of time and space, so the theory that gravity affects it isn't new. I seem to remember that this theory was somehow...different. I just don't remember what the difference was :)
Physics majors are welcome to correct me here (I'm a bit outside of my field), but I seem to remember reading an article a while back discussing the possibility that gravity warps time/space (Scientific American or Popular Science...I don't remember which). The theory held that large gravitational wells, and especially large rotating gravitational wells, literally pull at the fabric of time/space and stretch it out near the center of the affected area. To prove/disprove the theory, the scientists involved were going to put a satellite into orbit and set a high mass object into a rapid spin. If the theory was correct, spacetime distortion would be detectable around the outer edges of the rotating test object.
Could this be what we're seeing, only on a much larger scale? Perhaps the Sun, with its massive gravity well, has caused time/space to stretch within our solar system, and what we're seeing here is the effect of the probes re-entering "normal" space. From our perspective within the "stretched" area, it would appear that the craft was slowing down.
I would love it if someone could provide more info on this theory, and fill me in on whether or not it could possibly apply here.
Environmentalists that stand in the way of this one will be shooting themselves in the foot. What do environmentalists want? Renewable energy! One of the best zero impact renewable energy sources happens to be orbital solar collectors. Limitless energy, no pollution, no adverse impacts from its use. So why aren't we using them? Because it costs too much. The pricetag on hauling the parts into orbit is so astronomically high that nobody takes it seriously.
There's a cool old saying that applies here: "Necessity is the mother of invention". By bringing commercial interests into the picture, there will be plenty of people trying to find cheaper ways to get up there. The same technology that will make it cheaper for Joe Tourist to visit the Astro Ritz will also slash the pricetag on your enviro-friendly power station.
Besides, would you rather have them building hotels in space, or on the edge of some delicate tropical beach?
I seem to recall that on the Apollo missions, and to a lesser extent the Gemini missions, NASA discovered a potentially serious problem with cosmic rays. Many of the early astronauts were reporting seeing "white streaks" when they closed their eyes along with bright bursts of color and light. After some investigation, NASA discovered that the light was from cosmic rays (?) passing through the eyeballs of the astronauts and momentarily becoming visible. With further investigation, NASA discovered microscopic craters and divots in the helmets and equipment of the early capsules. It seemed that while the cosmic rays were passing through the spacecraft and the astronauts, they were interacting with the matter they came into contact with.
:)
NASA's next concern was obvious. What health risks are involved here? The answer was revealed in experiments conducted during the latter part of the Apollo program and it wasn't very comforting. When the cosmic rays came into contact with normal cellular tissue, they caused immediate decay (ruptured cell walls, DNA damage, etc.) Even more frightening were the neurological effects. When a cosmic ray hit a neuron, the neuron died. While cellular damage can heal itself, a dead neuron is dead forever. A full battery of tests on the astronauts showed slight decreases in memory, reflexes, high motor functions, and even personality changes. The effects weren't serious, but they were there.
For obvious reasons none of this has ever been given much media coverage. By the latter part of the Apollo program, public support for manned space travel was already waning and a public admission that the astronauts were in danger was the last thing NASA wanted to deal with. The problem here is, those astronauts were up for what? Maybe two weeks? What kind of exposure would a staff on a permanent space station see? In order to keep a station like this in orbit for any appreciable amount of time, its orbit would have to be well outside of the Earths sphere of protection (the Mercury astronauts didn't have a problem because they didn't get high enough). What kind of liablility suits would a hotel be facing by exposing employees to this kind of danger? Hell, what kind of suits would they face from customers?!?! Would you take a vacation in space if you knew that brain damage might result?
Disclaimer: I am working solely from memory here, and it's been many years since I read the NASA papers on this. I also haven't seen any recent data on this topic from the shuttle or Mir, just the original Apollo findings. If I improperly stated any points don't flame me, correct me
While many people consider the GPL to be a "code to live by", we must remember that it's just a legal document and we must think in legal terms. Legally, a corporation is a single entity, and as such internal dissemination cannot be considered distribution. According to U.S.and Canadian law, transfers can only be considered distribution when it passes between entities, the number of actual people handling it is irrelevant. If a manager hands a modified Linux distro to 10 employees within the company for review, that doesn't qualify as distribution. As employees, those 10 people are legally considered to be part of the corporation, hence no new entities have received it. If Corel considers it's beta testers to be sub-contractors, then the distro is still legally internal to the corporation and no GPL violation has taken place.
Now IANAL, but I got a little bit of experience here a few years back. The software company I was employed at licensed a bunch of beta testers for a new product. One of these beta testers was an IT Manager in a large company, who ended up distributing it to several of their other offices nationwide as well as a few subcontractors. My former employer sued him and his employer (they had signed off on his application), but the judge threw it out. Since the software had never passed to any third party, the judge said the distribution charge was bunk. The lawyer who wrote our license was an idiot who forgot to write in anti-duplication provisions (he got fired), and we ended up getting boned.
Oh, and I read the Corel application and didn't see the word "license" anywhere...I just saw a "Beta Testing Agreement". While this may seem like semantics to some, there's a huge legal difference between the terms. They're not claiming ownership of the distro, they're just forbidding the redistribution of their own (not-yet-GPL'd) code. If you were to sign that agreement, strip out the Corel proprietary stuff, and post it on the Internet, they couldn't do anything to you (it'd just be Debian!). I just can't figure out what the flap is all about...
I wholeheartedly agree. Microsoft should have a freedom to innovate. But remember that freedom to innovate != freedom to dominate. I remember a time in the early and mid 80's when I actually respected Microsoft for innovating. Sure, their products may not have been completely original but they were trying to open computing to the masses...and that was still a new idea.
The problem is that MS has gone from innovator to dominator, and they are slowly strangling the computer industry. MS essentially sees all other software companies as competition, and rather than compete, MS would rather buy or crush them. If you look closely at Microsofts history, you'll find dozens of software companies that have been bought out, and hundreds of products or ideas that have either been "borrowed" or blatantly stolen. MS doesn't compete, it destroys.
The hipocrisy of Microsofts statement is that they want to keep their dominance of the computer industry, but the lack of competition stifles innovation. Microsoft knows this, and they want this. Innovation is Microsofts worst enemy. The Internet was a major innovation in computer communication. The OSS movement is a huge innovation in software distribution. Java was a big innovation in the war against platorm dependence. Fact is, every time another "innovation" occurs MS is forced to fight even harder to maintain it's position. MS isn't interested in innovation, this is just a desperate shot by a company that has finally realized that it's days are numbered.
Not really. My experience in tracing people on the 'Net has shown me that most ISP's will hand over a lot of info without a warrant or any identification. As an example... Several months ago I had some script kiddie trying to bring down our companies web server by using a DOS attack. While the kid didn't have a chance in h*ll of actually crashing the server, it was annoying. So, I traced his IP, identified myself to to his ISP over the phone, and explained the problem. I was promptly given the users name, address, and telephone number. You shoulda heard his mom go off on him when I called :)
That's not a solitary incident either. I've requested this type of info, for legitimate reasons, several times in the past and I've never had an ISP tell me no. The closest thing I've ever had to "verification" was an ISP that asked for my telephone number, and called me back. Identifying people is easy if you know how to ask properly..
perhaps if both men and women recognised the need to compromise when it comes to cleaning, cooking, looking after the kids, looking after the family in general, you would find that men and women would be able to acheive the same standards.
That's something women need to work out with their husbands, not their employers. I have nothing against women in programming if they are willing to make the same sacrifices as men. If a woman can get her husband to take more responsibility with the kids and allow her to work, great! If not, she shouldn't expect the job to change to fit her needs.
As it is, if you have a family why would you work 16 hours a day?! Or even 12 hours! Children are more important than a job!
I agree entirely, which is why I stopped programming when my children were born. Kids+serious programming just don't go together. It is possible to find 8 hour a day programming jobs that will allow you to balance work and family, but you'll be giving up the high pay that makes this job so desireable. Money or family, you can't have both in this job.
How do domestic responsibilities affect someone's ability to program?
When you're sitting in front of a computer coding, it doesn't. When it comes to the actual skills involved in programming, I've met women that could code circles around me. BUT, when it comes to your definition of acceptable working conditions, there's a huge difference. When you must take care of a family, if you actually want to be involved in it, you lose your ability to excel at your job. When I was programming, I gave everything I had to the job in return for a huge financial reward. I was willing to make that sacrifice because I considered the reward to be worthwhile. Domestic responsibilities get in the way of that. If you can't devote whatever time is needed to the job, you shouldn't be doing it.
16 hour days??? Are you insane????
You know, I actually had to think long and hard before answering that one, and my answer is a definite maybe. The real question is, was it worth it for me to work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, for $160k a year? For me, a college dropout who never took a CS class in his life and taught himself to code, the answer is yes. If that makes me nuts, so be it.
I see... so you expected to be adequately compensated because you willingly deprived your children of a father during the most needy part of their lives?
No. I didn't have any kids at the time. I now have two, and my family is more important to me, so I gave up programming. I now make $48k a year, a $112,000 pay cut, and work as a network administrator just so that I could spend time with my kids. I realized that I had a choice, a successful career as a programmer or a successful career as a father, and I chose the latter. I knew I couldn't continue programming so I gave it up and did something else.
There is a reason why the law protects the 8 hour work day.
The fact that you said this shows me that you missed the point of my entire post. People work long hours because they choose to work those hours. They want high pay, and they are willing to make the required sacrifices to get it. Employers are rewarding this with some of the highest wages in the country. If programming becomes an 8 hour a day job, that high pay will become a thing of the past. Companies will be forced to hire more programmers to get the jobs done, and thus be less inclined to pay as much. Alternately, they could accept longer development times, but that will cost them in profits. When profits suffer, they will want to cut expenses. Jobs and wages are usually the first thing on the chopping block. Finally, if an 8 hour programming day becomes the norm, tens of thousands of ex-programmers like myself are going to be interested in getting back into it, flooding the job market and driving wages even further down. I loved programming but I wanted a shorter workday. If the workdays get shortened, people like me will return in droves.
As a side note, I just had a discussion with my mother-in-law, and was quite suprised to find that she agreed with me. She became quite a talented programmer during her career from 1974-1984, working for companies like IBM, Apple, and others. She left her career in 1984 to take care of her family. She told me that as the computer industry developed, the demands on programmers grew greater and greater. More and more, programming and family became mutually exclusionary. To excel in programming, you must be willing to give up a real family life. She wasn't willing to do that, and neither are most women.
The truly sad thing is that it is the money of the industry that is attracting these women. What many people (men and women alike) fail to look at is WHY our pay is so high. We are EXPECTED to work long hours and to put our jobs ahead of all else. For people willing to do that, the reward is high. People that aren't willing to do that wont last, and don't succeed. My greatest fear is that a large influx of women into the industry will cause employers to rethink the way programmers work, and cut our hours to placate all of the women. While this may sound like a good thing, it will cost us dearly. We WILL lose the high wages we're accustomed to. We're paid a lot simply because we're willing to put our jobs ahead of all else and work long hours. If we lose that, if programming becomes "just another job", then programmers wages will decline dramatically. Think about it.
Maybe females are less profitable computer programmers because they are not as likely to stay up all night?
There's more truth to this than you might think. I, personally, don't care for the vast majority of female computer programmers. I am not sexist (my wife is an advertising exec and makes twice as much as I do), but in my experience women programmers are not nearly as efficient as male programmers. Case in point:
Several years ago I was hired by a "new" software company that was just making the transition from a garage-based operation to a fully legitimate company. When they hired programmers, they did everything possible to get a fair mix in their employees. Male, female, white, black, asian, and hispanic...they were all represented in the programming staff. Well, it wasn't long before problems started developing with the women.
First it was the hours. The company paid us extremely well, but expected us to work our asses off for it. Sixteen hour days were the norm, and the women didn't care for it. They objected to the highest management, and we were ordered to cut our workdays to 12 hours max. The women still objected, and were given permission to leave after working 8 hours. Their objections were fair (they had to pick up their kids, they had to make dinner for their families, they wanted to spend time with their kids, etc.), but because of this they didn't get nearly as much work done as the men.
The next step was predictable. Time came for promotions and raises...and the men got FAR more than the women. To me, and the rest of the male programmers, this was fair. We did more work and we got a greater reward for it. To the women it was discrimination, and after hiring a lawyer to look into it the company relented and gave them equal raises. But that was the beginning of the end. By the end of the following year, all of the women had left the company and no new women were ever hired.
I can't blame women for being poorly suited to programming, but it doesn't change the fact that most of them are. They have other priorities that, to them, are more important than their work, and rightly so. But there are certain sacrifices that employers expect, that many women aren't prepared to make.
Note: To be entirely fair, I have met several unattached women with no family or responsibilities who were very well suited to programming. But they are very rare and, presumably, will end up married and no longer suited to the job.
I've never tossed any computer, and I've still got every machine I've ever owned (current count:24 machines). While I run my 386+ machines in various places around my house, I'm stumped as to what to do with my REAL old machines. I've got 2 Commodore PET's and a 128D, several old Tandy's (TRS-80's, CC's, & 1000's), XT's and AT's galore, and even an old Heath kit. All of thse machines still work, but what use are they? What can I do with them? I don't have the heart to toss them.
:)
Maybe I should start a museum
Alright then, smile at an honest comparison. I've been working on computers for 17 years and I'm an MCSE. By your reasoning, I should be pro-NT, right? Wrong. Our LAN (at work) runs a mix of WinNT4 and Debian servers, and I can honestly say Debian is the preferable server platform. Our NT boxes lock up and require reboots at least once a week, and they always bomb at the worst possible time (like when I'm at lunch). Our Debian machines were all rebooted about two weeks ago because we were doing hardware checks on them...it was the first time in 6 months that any of them had been offline.
Up until a month ago our company webserver ran NT Server 4 with IIS 4, and it required daily reboots. A month ago we installed Debian+Apache, and it's been up, unaided, ever since.
I'll agree that some people here seriously exaggerate the instabilities of NT, but Linux actually is the more reliable OS for mission critical servers.
Extracted from "Fingerprints Of The Gods"; Crown Trade, 1995 -
"Consider the crowning jewel of Maya calendrics, the so-called 'Long Count'. This system of calculating dates also expressed beliefs about the past - notably, the widely held belief that time operated in Great Cycles which witnessed recurrent creations and destructions of the world. According to the Maya, the current Great Cycle began in darkness on 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, a date corresponding to 13 August 3114 BC in our own calendar. As we have seen, it was also believed that the cycle will come to an end, amid global destruction, on 4 Ahau 3 Kankin: 23 December 2012 AD in our calendar. The function of the Long Count was to record the elapse of time since the beginning of the current Great Cycle, literally to count off, one by one, the 5125 years allotted to our present creation.
So, at any rate, thought the Maya."
I should also point out that this so-called "Mayan Mythology" is actually not Mayan at all, it's Olmec. It is widely suspected that the Mayans were the descendants of the Olmecs, so it makes sense that many of their traditions would survive...it also makes this calendar thousands of years old. The Olmec prophecy stated that: "the Fifth Sun will end with the Earth 'toppling from its axis', and great earthquakes will level mountains and rend the continents apart."
I would like to posit (again, I'm not at all an expert) that individuals, not nations, pose the most significant threat to U.S. security.
But this is exactly why computer export controls should be maintained. Look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have a fanatic Middle Eastern terrorist organization hell bent on destroying the US (there's quite a few of them), and they want to build a nuclear bomb or missile to vaporize a large American city. The research and construction of said nuclear weapon will require a supercomputer. Now, if export controls were removed, the terrorist group, funded by some sympathetic oil baron, could easily buy a used supercomputer and have their numbers in a few days time. But with the export controls in place, they are forced into a more difficult situation. Programs like Beowulf may seem to make the solution simple, but do they really? First you'll need people familiar with maintaining a Beowulf cluster, and programmers capable of writing the needed software for Linux. This means more people will know about the plot (bad thing), and besides, how many Linux geek terrorists are out there? Also, what happens if you have a network or unit failure while the calculations are running (figure on a few days per calculation)? They'd have to start over.
Fact is, it's easy for a large country to develop or build up the computing power needed to create nuclear weapons (look at Pakistan and India). For terrorist groups, it's a lot more difficult. The US government knows that there are ways around the export controls, but the idea is to make it such a huge pain in the ass that they won't bother. So far, it's worked.
Oh, and while I do support export controls on supercomputers. I don't support them on encryption. Two different issues.
First off, we need to put something in proper perspective. Up until this century, genocide was a regular and accepted part of war. I don't care what part of the world your forefathers hail from, EVERY race embraced genocide. The only way to ensure victory was to kill your enemy...and his children. I'm not saying it's ok, but singling one group out for that type of warfare is unfair. History is a bloody, violent thing. What isn't acceptable is that type of behavior today. We know better now...
Oh, and my wife is Northern Sioux (Osage). My children are half Osage. I can assure you that the beliefs, legends, and society built up by her ancestors was never destroyed. Badly damaged, yes. But never destroyed.
This is a twisted, politically correct view on history. 95% of the slaves imported into North America were brought in while we were still a British colony. The importing of slaves was banned shortly after we threw the Brit's out. Now, it's true that slavery lived on for a long time, but it was tolerated simply to keep the nation from breaking up. My own ancestors, who hailed from Maine, fought with the Mass. regiments in the civil war. My own ancestors put their lives on the line to free those slaves. Condemning all of America for slavery simply shows your ignorance of American history.
Once more, you're displaying a serious lack of historical knowledge. Texas declared it's independence from Mexico, and fought hard for that independence. A short time later, the free and independent Republic of Texas petitioned the United States to accept it into the union. Mexico believed the US was behind the secession of Texas, and took a generally hostile stance to anything American. This led to the Mexican-American war. When we won that war, the Mexicans surrendered much of the now-Southwestern US to American control. They started it...but we won. You want me to be ashamed of that? I don't think so.
Ok, were sorta guilty of this one, but at least put it in the proper perspctive. We wanted to build the canal, but the Columbians wanted too much money for the right of way. So we found a sympathetic bunch of Panamanian seccessionists and...umm...armed them. We didn't take it, we just aided a revolution. And how are we "scheming" to keep it? AFAIK, we're getting ready to hand it over to the Panamanian government.
First off let me say that I agree with Yoshi's statement above. If you can only afford to gamble with $250, you should probably be looking into other investment options. I'd also like to remind you that you should never trade with money you can't afford to lose.
:)
Having said that, if you really want to invest in stocks, and are looking for a cheap way to do it, I'd suggest DLJ direct. There's no deposit for most people, no opening or monthly fees, and they've got fairly decent information on the site. They have won several awards, they have the free Marketspeed software (which is pretty decent), and I've been using them for a few months now without a problem. I was recommended to the site by a friend, and the quality is definitely high enough to recommend to anyone else.
The only problem is the commision. $20 per trade won't kill you, but it's definitely NOT the cheapest out there. The value of your purchase has to increase by $40 just to break even. For neophytes and day-traders, that can kill any hope of making a profit. I personally hold my stocks a while, and don't trade much, so it doesn't get in my way (I earned about $25k after taxes last year. Not a fortune, but a nice bonus on top of my regular salary).
I'm also making a killing on my MSFT holdings. Before I get flamed: I don't look at it as "supporting" MS, instead it's the ultimate Windows refund
Last time I checked, all the politicians were too concerned with kissing the butts of the special interest groups and big business
This is a dumb argument. Politicians listen to whoever makes the most noise. With voter turnouts in the sub-30% range, we voters certainly aren't making much. On the other hand, the SIG's have people beating down the doors of our representatives every day trying to influence congressional votes. Given this situation, it's only NATURAL that the special interests get more attention. If the US people would get off their arses and VOTE, if they would pay attention to politics and CONTACT their congresspeople with their opinions, the system can change. The problem today is that we have 100 Million people whining about the futility of voting, and complaining that their opinions don't count. The system is NOT broken, it's just badly neglected.
And FYI, I vote in every election (local, state, and federal). I have also written my congressional representatives many times, over many issues, and I have ALWAYS recieved a personal reply from them. As long as your letters are well written, contain supporting information, and AREN'T flames, they DO pay attention to them.
Did you guys secure rejection rights for the advertising banners? Several years ago I worked as a content writer for an OS/2 site. Although the site was privately owned and controlled, bandwidth was provided by an ISP under the (contractual) agreement that we would run their banners. As you might imagine, we were all quite upset when Micro$oft banners started showing up in the rotation. When the site owner contacted the ISP, he was informed that he had NO rights of rejection and that the only way for him to get rid of the banners was to find a new bandwidth provider. He ended up doing this, but only after the site was accused of "selling out" and a sizeable number of readers abandoned the site.
/. daily for over a year now, and it's nice to see you guys getting something back. While donating your money to help support the movement is great, I'd also suggest putting some of that money back for a vacation. A sandy island beach, bikini-clad girls, sipping margaritas... You guys deserve it :)
You may not care specifically about MS ads, but I can imagine other types of ads that might be out of place here (pr0n). Will you still have the right to order banners removed from the site? Or does Andover have final word on advertisers?
Other than that one small question, I'd like to say WAY TO GO GUYS!! I've enjoyed reading
Chill out man! I think you're missing the point of what he's saying. When you have a (technically) free operating system, more than a dozen free 2D UI's available, and a couple free 3D UI's under development, what are the odds that Joe Linux User is going to be interested in spending money on this one? Most Linux users, myself included, will pass this over and wait for one that is 1) Free and 2) Open Source (two happens to be a bit more important to me).
I have nothing against commercial software development either, but going commercial in this instance does mean that it's acceptance will be limited.
Anyone care to check a couple of claims? I remember seeing this a while back and discounted it as a hoax, but I just found some other info on their site that, if true, may add some credibility to their claim. Of course, these claims are so broad I'm a little incredulous.
1) Claims to have been around since the 60's
2) Claim to have developed the Router and SMP
3) Claims to have invented RAID.
4) Claims to have developed part of X.25
And quite a few more. You can view their claims here. I don't have time to check them myself, but I'd be interested to see what anyone else could dig up. If this resume is correct, I might not be so quick to discount them.
I live in the town Lucas grew up in, and because of this I've been buried under what is literally an avalanche of hype. Not only do I have to deal with the nationwide media frenzy you're all talking about, but there's also the inevitable onslaught of "hometown boy does it again" stories. Despite this, I think Katz's allegation of Lucas being a sellout is boneheaded and unresearched.
Last Friday our local paper scored an interview with Lucas and he addressed this very issue. Story: "Phantom" cost Lucas $115 million during its 4 1/2 years in production. Toy sales alone could cover that, and Lucas in unapologetic about turning his imaginary characters into plastic playthings. Lucas: "I'm an independent filmmaker. I've had to make sure I've exploited everything I possibly can. It's like an Indian killing a buffalo. You have to use everything. You can't leave the carcass out in the prairie to rot". He continued with "I'm a very small company relative to the studios, who have millions and billions of dollars. They make millions and billions on movies every year, so they can afford to just do whatever they want. I can't. Selling Star Wars toys has really helped finance the movies for me". --Excerpted from the Modesto Bee, Friday, May 14, 1999
Now, that quote may specifically deal with toys, but it's easy to see how he can expand that line of thinking to the rest of the marketing campaigns. Lucas may be a millionaire (or even a billionaire) but that doesn't mean he can carry the cost of the movies out of pocket. How much of his personal value is tied up in his companies? What's the land under Skywalker ranch worth? Remember, it's possible to be a billionaire and not have a dime to your name. Should he sell off ILM or the software division of LucasArts just to finance the films? No. The best way for him to make money is hype. Take Pepsi's money for marketing, take the toymakers money for spinoffs, lease out character rights for endorsements. He still has to make two more Star Wars movies, and he has to make sure he has the funds to complete them.
There's another statement in here that got my attention and showed me what kind of guy we're all talking about. Story: Lucas insisted that he has no interest in breaking box office records or winning film awards with "Phantom". He predicted that it would end up among the top-10 all time box office hits (due to the hype), but no higher than fourth...he's ok with that. Lucas: "This is not a contest. It's a movie. I made it because I enjoy making movies. I hope it does well but I dont have any interest or desire to be No. 1 or to win an Academy Award or anything like that. That's not what it's really about. It's about making a movie". He also said that "This is a Saturday afternoon serial for children. Somehow over the years people have kind of drifted away from that and tried to make it something other than what it is".
I think we all need to take a long hard look at that last line. No matter how you feel on the hype topic, don't forget that this is a kids movie. TPM wasn't written so that I would enjoy it, he wrote it for my 5 year old daughter. He wrote it "to stimulate young peoples imaginations and allow them to go on to other creative pursuits". He doesn't care what we think of his marketing campaigns, his endless line of toys, or even the movie itself. What he cares about is it's effect on kids...and rightly so.
First off, IANAL, but my mom is and I used to love reading her legal journals and case law books (and yet I passed up a carrer in law to program computers...yay)
To answer your question: Technically yes the bill would be paid off, but I wouldn't count on it standing up in court. When a note such as that it placed in a check, is IS legally binding because the party you give the check to has the option to refuse your check and payment. If there is an alternative option, and they cash it anyway, they legally accepted it.
So should we all try this? No. While your legally in the right, most US courts would find for the mortgage company. Unless you got really lucky most judges would see this for what it is, an attempt to dodge a legitimate bill, and require you to pay it. It's kind of a trivial argument anyway. Write that note on your next mortgage check and I'll bet they just return the check to you uncashed. Heck, they'll most likely nail you with late fees at that point too, since you didn't properly submit your payment.
I don't know if the guys from Id read Slashdot, but if you do, do me a favor. Next time you decide to delay a product like this, please give us more notice. I, and about 90% of the rest of the gaming community, expected it to be released last night. Because of this I sat up all night waiting for the release so that I could mirror it on my triple T1 FTP server. I gave up after the sun came up (first sunrise I've seen in years).
Frontier mentality mostly. It'd be kind of like the American Old West all over again...just with better technology. IMO, you would have a better quality of life on Mars than on Earth, simply because you wouldn't have to deal with idiots all the time. Martian survival would require intelligence, real skills, and a strong work ethic...all things that are becoming scarce in this part of the solar system. "Middle management" type positions wouldn't exist in any type of power hierarchy because they would be too much drag on the system.
I would move in a heartbeat. Wife, kids, and all. It's really the ultimate geek dream. The settlement of the Old West was done by imposing men with big guns and bigger mouths. The settling of Mars will be done by smart men (and women) with lots of technology and the brains to use it.