Re:another stupid Pr0n joke. (First on this story)
on
World's First Photo
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I shouldn't have spent 12 minutes spell cheicking that line.
Well, maybe next time... ooops!
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
Did you read my initial post? I had a problem with the precogs not being able to sense crimes of passion until just a few hours before they happen for just this reason. What the precogs saw was exactly what happened. They just left some parts out, he didn't change his fate in the slightest. Even the words he spoke were the same. But since it was an accident and not a murder it shouldn't have even shown up on their radar.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
I beg to differ. If he'd been thinking about killing the guy AND the precogs need the thoughts to trigger their vision, then they should have nailed him long ago. The fact was that the guy in the vision wasn't his son's killer and he doesn't kill him at all but reads him his rights. The gun goes off when the guy tries to pull it out of the cop's hand. Hardly 'dead on' as you say.
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
Surely you wouldn't mind allowing your eyes to be scanned if it didn't change your ablity to move within the system.
I couldn't help but wonder why, when he first started to run, he kept obliging the scanners by looking up at them. Surely they couldn't have read them if they were half-lidded and cast down or averted in some other fashion (sunglasses even?).
Actually, I enjoyed the Pepsi and Gap advertisement logos, just the way they were. I thought it was a bit of commentary on consumerism and cultural permananence....
How many years has the Coca-Cola logo remained essentially the same?
Re:Spielberg annoys to the end
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 1
and worst of all, the constant need to explain every minor plot twist three times because Spielberg assumes (correctly?) that his audience is really quite stupid.
Well, he didn't help their cognitive skills any.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD
The whole precog thing was poorly explained. Either they have precognition - which would explain the details of their visions including the very words spoken - or they read minds (the reason they only have a few hours on a redball is that crimes of passion haven't been premeditated - well if you think about it for a couple of hours wouldn't that be premeditated?) and yet, the protagonist's slaying was not a redball (and had he pulled the trigger purposefully it certainly would have been) nor has it been premeditated.
The sneaker-net aspect mentioned earlier was pretty dumb. They can network brains into the computer so that "we see what they see", but not other computers?
The 'clue' about the past murder wasn't a clue at all. The waves heading TOWARD shore were caused by the two figures struggling in the water. Those were not wind generated, but concentric waves (to the right they were leaving shore). The other image that was rejected wasn't just a similar scene, but would have to have been digitally created as there was no disturbance in the water where the struggle was taking place, so the figures were added to a placid lake scene.
And what about that doctor. He's going to exact his revenge while the cop is under anesthesia and all he can come up with is a moldy sandwich and milk? And even that was less than 50/50 since Tommy boy has to knock over the good milk to get to the bad. Or perhaps it was the fact that he's now recognized as Mr. Nakmura (unless Nakamura signed up for every marketing blitz and spam list - now there's a possibility).
Old, dead eyes being used for biometrics? C'mon. And where's the sysadmin? Your highest profile operative is compromised and you leave his account enabled?
How do those eyes roll so fast with about three inches of optic nerve still attached, and how'd he get the other one back after it went down the grate?
However, I must say the most realistic movie vomit scene I've ever seen might mitigate these other gripes....
I remember reading in Byte many years ago about a gelatinous cube that could hold over a terabyte in a one inch cube (would that be a jigglebyte?). Still haven't seen one.
they dont have to convince the lawyers of the benifit. They are not breaking the law. they could have told the lawyers to stick it where the sun dont shine with a little notice saying they are distributing their own works, not lucas's
Yep. That's a sure way to avoid a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if a thing is legal or not, the lawsuit can break you regardless of merit. You really should pay better attention to reality. Remaining willfully ignorant doesn't make the problems go away.
So, they don't have any lawyers? They still could have tapped the community for someone to write a better response letter. They don't clearly articulate the benefits to LEC that their software provides and the part about reverse engineering almost makes it sound like, "we had that part done in countries where your laws don't apply." The 'responce' given isn't likely to convince a law firm that doesn't already understand the technology, and a law firm that understands the technology would not likely have sent the pleasant-though-it-may-be cease-and-desist request.
What's my password policy have to do with the average windows user?
That's easier. Let's repeat the mantra - licenses are not transferable.
Just because the license isn't transferable doesn't mean the software was deinstalled. There are still far too many instances where hardware is stolen with the crown jewels (customer info, etc.) still intact and you expect the OS to be taken off?
The rest of your assumptions are, well, assumptions!
Picturing abunch of hackers using ancient computers found in the trash with 15 year kernels really frightens me.
So what exactly is it that will prevent kernel development from continuing after these new chips are deployed, especially if the 'bunch' of hackers are still using 'ancient' hardware?
Also, what the heck is this 'palidrome' thingy you keep talking about? Oh, wait! I just read your whole post backward and it makes the same amount of sense.
You cannot open the source up, nor can you allow people to "self-sign" -- doing so just means that Joe Cracker can say "yeah, I'm trusted - give me your info" and the system will. Because it's designed that way.
So what happens if your trusty(trusted?) laptop is stolen and used by an unethical individual (imagine that, an unethical thief!)? Or what if a corporation sells off all it's old palladium systems after an upgrade? Is the technology smart enough to know it's changed hands?
It is obvious, but if you actually reread my post you'll see that i highlighted that communist are by definition atheists. See? pro-communist, anti-religion is where they share some ground.
I did go back and reread the post, but since the original (what is that, the law of primacy, where you tend to remember the way you heard it first?) post mentioned Nazis and anti-religious groups it still seems like a slip. To paraphrase, 'It seems they're targeting these two groups' where one of the groups mentioned is completely different than the two mentioned at the top of the thread. Given that, you'll perhaps understand my misunderstanding your attempt to draw a link between communism and anti-religious sentiment. No offense taken as I'm neither a nazi or a communist.
Not in the United States, where truth is a valid defense.
I meant my comments as opposed to a legislative means to enforce morality against lying. I mean jeepers, what would happen to salesmen if you outlaw lying?
...well the difference between myself and nazis is I didn't kill 6 million jews.
But how do we know that you wouldn't have done so given power and a persuasive way with words to sway weak minded people to your way of thinking? Hitler hated Jews (among others) and that's where it starts isn't it? With the hate? So by quashing hateful speech you nip the problem in the bud. Doesn't matter if you're hating Jews or Nazis, right? At least that's my understanding of the thinking.
I've seen a UFO. Still don't have an answer as to what it might have been (that's the 'U' part I believe). Do I believe it was a spaceship from some distant planet? Nope.
Slashdot Mirror
I shouldn't have spent 12 minutes spell cheicking that line.
Well, maybe next time... ooops!
Did you read my initial post? I had a problem with the precogs not being able to sense crimes of passion until just a few hours before they happen for just this reason. What the precogs saw was exactly what happened. They just left some parts out, he didn't change his fate in the slightest. Even the words he spoke were the same. But since it was an accident and not a murder it shouldn't have even shown up on their radar.
I beg to differ. If he'd been thinking about killing the guy AND the precogs need the thoughts to trigger their vision, then they should have nailed him long ago. The fact was that the guy in the vision wasn't his son's killer and he doesn't kill him at all but reads him his rights. The gun goes off when the guy tries to pull it out of the cop's hand. Hardly 'dead on' as you say.
Surely you wouldn't mind allowing your eyes to be scanned if it didn't change your ablity to move within the system.
I couldn't help but wonder why, when he first started to run, he kept obliging the scanners by looking up at them. Surely they couldn't have read them if they were half-lidded and cast down or averted in some other fashion (sunglasses even?).
Actually, I enjoyed the Pepsi and Gap advertisement logos, just the way they were. I thought it was a bit of commentary on consumerism and cultural permananence....
How many years has the Coca-Cola logo remained essentially the same?
and worst of all, the constant need to explain every minor plot twist three times because Spielberg assumes (correctly?) that his audience is really quite stupid.
Well, he didn't help their cognitive skills any.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD
The whole precog thing was poorly explained. Either they have precognition - which would explain the details of their visions including the very words spoken - or they read minds (the reason they only have a few hours on a redball is that crimes of passion haven't been premeditated - well if you think about it for a couple of hours wouldn't that be premeditated?) and yet, the protagonist's slaying was not a redball (and had he pulled the trigger purposefully it certainly would have been) nor has it been premeditated.
The sneaker-net aspect mentioned earlier was pretty dumb. They can network brains into the computer so that "we see what they see", but not other computers?
The 'clue' about the past murder wasn't a clue at all. The waves heading TOWARD shore were caused by the two figures struggling in the water. Those were not wind generated, but concentric waves (to the right they were leaving shore). The other image that was rejected wasn't just a similar scene, but would have to have been digitally created as there was no disturbance in the water where the struggle was taking place, so the figures were added to a placid lake scene.
And what about that doctor. He's going to exact his revenge while the cop is under anesthesia and all he can come up with is a moldy sandwich and milk? And even that was less than 50/50 since Tommy boy has to knock over the good milk to get to the bad. Or perhaps it was the fact that he's now recognized as Mr. Nakmura (unless Nakamura signed up for every marketing blitz and spam list - now there's a possibility).
Old, dead eyes being used for biometrics? C'mon. And where's the sysadmin? Your highest profile operative is compromised and you leave his account enabled?
How do those eyes roll so fast with about three inches of optic nerve still attached, and how'd he get the other one back after it went down the grate?
However, I must say the most realistic movie vomit scene I've ever seen might mitigate these other gripes....
I think you've confused Yoda and Dogbert.
/. and were both confused.
That should read, "I think you've confused Yoda with Dogbert." Unless, of course, Yoda and Dogbert read
Picard: Fire photon torpedo's
Fire photon torpedo's what?
Yoda: Diverts torpedo's with a wave of his paw.
I think you've confused Yoda and Dogbert.
I remember reading in Byte many years ago about a gelatinous cube that could hold over a terabyte in a one inch cube (would that be a jigglebyte?). Still haven't seen one.
Also, don't believe posters who say they are lawyers.
/.
I am not a lowyer, but I play one on
they dont have to convince the lawyers of the benifit. They are not breaking the law. they could have told the lawyers to stick it where the sun dont shine with a little notice saying they are distributing their own works, not lucas's
Yep. That's a sure way to avoid a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if a thing is legal or not, the lawsuit can break you regardless of merit. You really should pay better attention to reality. Remaining willfully ignorant doesn't make the problems go away.
So, they don't have any lawyers? They still could have tapped the community for someone to write a better response letter. They don't clearly articulate the benefits to LEC that their software provides and the part about reverse engineering almost makes it sound like, "we had that part done in countries where your laws don't apply." The 'responce' given isn't likely to convince a law firm that doesn't already understand the technology, and a law firm that understands the technology would not likely have sent the pleasant-though-it-may-be cease-and-desist request.
You use secure passwords, right?
What's my password policy have to do with the average windows user?
That's easier. Let's repeat the mantra - licenses are not transferable.
Just because the license isn't transferable doesn't mean the software was deinstalled. There are still far too many instances where hardware is stolen with the crown jewels (customer info, etc.) still intact and you expect the OS to be taken off?
The rest of your assumptions are, well, assumptions!
We've got several years to fight this thing, are we men or are we netscape?
My sides are splitting! I hope your liability insurance covers this.
Picturing abunch of hackers using ancient computers found in the trash with 15 year kernels really frightens me.
So what exactly is it that will prevent kernel development from continuing after these new chips are deployed, especially if the 'bunch' of hackers are still using 'ancient' hardware?
Also, what the heck is this 'palidrome' thingy you keep talking about? Oh, wait! I just read your whole post backward and it makes the same amount of sense.
You cannot open the source up, nor can you allow people to "self-sign" -- doing so just means that Joe Cracker can say "yeah, I'm trusted - give me your info" and the system will. Because it's designed that way.
So what happens if your trusty(trusted?) laptop is stolen and used by an unethical individual (imagine that, an unethical thief!)? Or what if a corporation sells off all it's old palladium systems after an upgrade? Is the technology smart enough to know it's changed hands?
2: You need a common dictionary/gramma
My gramma was anything but common, although she did like to read through the dictionary.
All you applications will look and behive the same....
And she did wear her hair in that behive look for awhile.
It is obvious, but if you actually reread my post you'll see that i highlighted that communist are by definition atheists. See? pro-communist, anti-religion is where they share some ground.
I did go back and reread the post, but since the original (what is that, the law of primacy, where you tend to remember the way you heard it first?) post mentioned Nazis and anti-religious groups it still seems like a slip. To paraphrase, 'It seems they're targeting these two groups' where one of the groups mentioned is completely different than the two mentioned at the top of the thread. Given that, you'll perhaps understand my misunderstanding your attempt to draw a link between communism and anti-religious sentiment. No offense taken as I'm neither a nazi or a communist.
Not in the United States, where truth is a valid defense.
I meant my comments as opposed to a legislative means to enforce morality against lying. I mean jeepers, what would happen to salesmen if you outlaw lying?
...well the difference between myself and nazis is I didn't kill 6 million jews.
But how do we know that you wouldn't have done so given power and a persuasive way with words to sway weak minded people to your way of thinking? Hitler hated Jews (among others) and that's where it starts isn't it? With the hate? So by quashing hateful speech you nip the problem in the bud. Doesn't matter if you're hating Jews or Nazis, right? At least that's my understanding of the thinking.
Advocatus diaboli
...I don't think neo-nazis or anti-religious (any religion) people deserve any rights.
How does that differ from saying that you shouldn't have any rights based on your obvious hatred of nazis.
This restriction seems to be around pro-commie and anti-religion (same?) sites....
Nazi != commie.
The slander/libel laws derive from the morals against lying, not keeping everyone happy.
Actually, they're designed to keep people from damaging the reputation of others out of spite (simplified for slashdot).
I've seen a UFO. Still don't have an answer as to what it might have been (that's the 'U' part I believe). Do I believe it was a spaceship from some distant planet? Nope.
Digital photos can't be faked? WHAT!!!!!
Yes, it's programs like PhotoShop and the GIMP that are just figments of your imagination.