Agree 100%. Not only is it the best animated feature of the year (Toy Story 3 was good but not great), but probably one of the best animated features ever. It does a better job of character development than most movies and the main character is easy to relate to, especially for those of us that are categorized as nerds (social outcast, smart, good with gadgets, likes the hot chick, etc). My almost 3 year old son loves it and I don't mind watching it with him dozens of times.
As for the other movies, I have yet to see most of them, but will eventually. I did see The Social Network in the theaters and thought it was good considering the topic, but not on the same level as previous winners. It's worth watching, but I don't think it's worthy of winning.
Not entirely true about why we started, but it's a good reason for continuing. I started TheTVDB because there was a need for an open API for TV data and since there was a somewhat horrible site handling part of it and another separate site handling the images. My goal was to combine both and make it completely open. Still, like I said, IMDB's restrictions are still reason to continue what we've been doing./TheTVDB founder
This is exactly correct. My wife has an iPad since her computer died a week before they were released. Her old computer was by the couch and she mainly did email and Facebook while watching TV. For the price we were looking at a netbook or low end laptop, since there really wasn't a need for a full desktop system out there. The only game she plays is Bejeweled and we have my computer for more advanced tasks.
The iPad works perfectly for her. She's no longer stuck at the couch when she wants to be online and has more to do while exercising as well. She's got a decent sized screen to work with. Our toddler can actually play games on it (touchscreen instead of mouse works perfectly). Certain games and tasks are completely natural on it. I don't play RTS games, but I'd be willing to bet it's incredible for them.
I'm not an Apple zealot by any means. Hell, my AppleTV (purchased because my modded Xbox died) is running XBMC. The iPad is not for everyone and won't replace a primary computer, but it does definitely work great for some users.
They're correct about the whole guns don't kill people thing. This is Slashdot, so I'll make a technology analogy, even though people here tend to be far more political than technical. We like getting on Microsoft's case when they fix a bug, pointing out that there are far more existing bugs that they didn't fix. Hackers (or crackers, if you must) will exploit any available means to gain access to a system, so patching one hole in a system with many doesn't do a whole lot.
The same thing happens with gun law restrictions. Do you really think that if this guy wouldn't have been able to buy ammo on Ebay that he wouldn't have gone on a shooting rampage? He would have just found a different way of doing it, whether it be with a hunting shotgun, a sword, or a fertilizer bomb. Keep in mind that while I'm in favor of concealed carry, it doesn't mean I think that people should be able to access semiautomatic firearms without a significant (1 month?) waiting period.
I know that comparing the shooting to a system being hacked isn't all that accurate, but I'm trying to make a generalized point. There are many things out there that have both good and bad aspects, but that doesn't mean that we should focus only on the bad and ignore the good. Doing so is shortsighted and kneejerk, similar to all the save-the-children and ban toothpaste from airplanes crap. Be consistent in your criticism of this stuff.
Sure, camera phones can take decent pictures for a lot of people, but let me know once one can use specialized lenses. Of course, most people don't need zoom/macro/etc lenses, so they're fine with a digital camera. However, the benefit of such lenses and the falling prices of dSLR's makes it very unlikely that higher end digital cameras will ever go away. There's just a different market for both, just like PDAs vs laptops vs desktop systems.
Everyone I know who has seen a high def broadcast for the first time has been impressed, or at least been able to see the difference between HD and SD. You make it seem like people can't tell the difference or don't care... not true.
1: About 2/3 of my friends right now have at least 1 HDTV in their house. Mine is a 48" and 2 friends have 36"-42" TV's, but they view them from a little closer than I do. I'm middle class, so I'm sure my friends tend to have more HDTV's than lower class people, but I'd say we're all pretty average. Large TV's are far more popular than this "small minority" you refer to.
2: I can tell the difference between 480p and 1080i on my 48" TV from about 9 feet away. My wife can too, which is saying much more. We can also both tell the difference on my friend's 36" HDTV from about 6 feet away. It really doesn't take sitting 3-4 feet away to be able to tell the difference.
3: Requires high resolution? Nothing. Looks better in high resolution? Sports (you can actually see the golf ball, baseball, and hockey puck, although I watch mostly NFL). Your comment about TV shows being crap doesn't hold weight here, since that's 100% your opinion and a large majority of people out there would disagree. There's actually a great deal of good shows on right now: House, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Deadliest Catch, Prison Break, etc. Dresden Files is also decent although it falls short of the books, which is to be expected. As for viewing text, think video game consoles.
I also think that HDTV isn't necessarily required, but it sure makes TV nice to look at. People that claim that there's no market for it, or that it doesn't look better than SD are just being ignorant. I don't mind people that choose not to own a huge high def TV themselves, but at least be realistic about the technology and numbers.
Sidenote: Not only is the picture clearer in HD, the colors are more vibrant and the contrast is higher (probably due to more color information). The result means that even if you can't see the additional pixel information, the image can still look better.
Software patents = bad. Other patents, though?
on
The End for Vonage?
·
· Score: 1
I think pretty much everyone on Slashdot agrees that software patents are a bad idea. However, isn't part of this about technology/concept patents that aren't software related? Another article mentions patents "that describe technology for completing phone calls between VoIP users and people using phones on the traditional public switched network, authenticating VoIP callers, validating VoIP callers' accounts, fraud protection, providing enhanced features, using Wi-Fi handsets with VoIP services and monitoring VoIP caller usage."
To me, a few of those things are definitely software, but others are almost definitely hardware or mixed hardware/software patents. Personally, I've got nothing wrong with non-software patents, since they allow people to make money off their inventions for a while without having to worry about knockoffs of their product. If I were an inventor and came up with some device (say it ties into another system using custom software to keep this parallel), I'd sure as hell want my patent to allow me to make some money before Big Company X was able to make a similar product for less than I can make it for.
Exclude those software patents from this lawsuit, and I really don't have an issue with it, except that my Vonage bill may go up at some point (still cheaper than TWC Digital Phone).
Nobody was 100% sure if it would save energy or not, so it was a good idea to try it and find out. At least we know now and nobody should push to adjust it again in the future. Sure, it may have caused some IT workers to spend some extra time on the job, but the hourly ones should appreciate that and perhaps the salaried ones got a little bonus or pat on the back. Other than that, it's really no harm done.
It's nice to see the government try something in an effort to help solve energy issues. Hopefully they'll continue that without all the bipartisan bickering (yeah right).
We have a WYSIWYG editor built into one of our website products. The main issue we've had with customers is that they can't figure out how to resize/crop their graphics before uploading them. After seeing Snipshot, I'll be building it into our editor so they simply need to right-click on the image to be able to edit it through the Snipshot interface. Their API seems to make this really easy to do. Problem solved.
In addition to this being useful for developers like myself, it's useful for people like my wife. I extract all of our photos from our digital camera onto our network and she needs a simple way to resize and edit them for the different websites she posts to. I'll be showing her how to use Snipshot since it's so much easier than teaching her Photoshop, Gimp, Irfanview, or even Picassa.
I've never found the IT salaries to be that accurate for my region. A few companies pay the amounts listed, but most of them are around $10k less than all of the salary sites. I don't think that the IT personnel are underpaid either... I think the sites are just inaccurate. It's kind of like those places that claim they can train you for an "exciting career in computers in just 6 months". Most of their ads claim that IT people with 2-3 years of experience are making $70k/year.
While it's important to have some facts when negotiating your salary, it's far more useful to bring in a list of all of the major projects you've worked on as well as some positive review/feedback letters from coworkers (not just IT staff... talk to some other staff that like you). Bringing in a printout from a website isn't going to mean beans to a manager... it's what you actually do for their company/department that matters.
Sure, it would be nice to not be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we're there and we're not pulling out anytime soon. Even if we were pulling out of Iraq immediately, there will be other wars in the world. This technology has nothing to do with politics, so knock it off.
I'm not that familiar with battlefield medicine, but this seems like a big step forward for it. Anything that helps soldiers (American or otherwise) do their jobs better, protects them, or helps them live better lives after conflict is a good thing.
Well, once the consumer has their money back they can spend it elsewhere. If a LOT of consumers did this it would hurt the company's current sales. Down the line when all those customers are buying a new car, they'd buy their car from Company B, hurting Company A's future sales. Plus the negative press it would create would lead to non-customers making a point of not buying Company A's product in the future as well. The point is that Company A would lose A LOT of money by not putting out a good product, which car companies and tech companies cannot afford to do these days due to the high level of competition. They're getting punished big time when stuff like this happens.
While I understand why these people are upset, why do people always feel the need to sue? It's in Nvidia's best interest to keep their customers happy, and as such will probably be releasing drivers that DO work very soon. If they don't, these customers will just go to one of their competitors the next time they're in the market for a high end video card.
Let your money do the talking and stop helping lawyers make money on stuff like this.
I've telecommuted for about 2 years now and love it. I guess this won't be as applicable to some people since my boss and most of my coworkers telecommute as well, but I think it still holds some truth...
Schedule face time with your boss. Many telecommuters often have to go in to meetings at work regularily, but that's not enough. Tell your boss you'd like to have lunch with him/her and during the lunch ask about the department and how things are headed. Show some interest in what's actually going on instead of just focusing on doing whatever tasks are given to you. Your boss probably has information about possible future projects and if you provide some suggestions about the ones that interest you, you'll have a better chance of working on projects you enjoy AND showing that you have initiative.
Also, spend some time emailing or talking with coworkers and telling them that if they ever need help with something they should give you a call. You may not have time to help them completely, but at least you might have some ideas that would get them going in the right direction. Word WILL get back to your boss about how helpful you are for your team.
As a Republican, I'm far more interested in keeping government as small as possible than requiring the FCC to try determining what is a balanced news report. People with a decent level of intelligence will realize that most media outlets aren't giving balanced news reports and should be smart enough to get their news from a variety of sources. That's for individuals to do themselves, though, not something that should be regulated by the government.
Here's a little exercise for you: some Republicans fret over the media's use of "insurgents" for the bombers in Iraq. They want the media to call them terrorists, which IMHO is slightly more accurate, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. So, should the FCC step in and require news outlets to call them terrorists? Should they require Fox to call them insurgents too? Who decides if something is balanced? Where do you draw the line.
Besides, with everyone complaining about the FCC being overly cautious after the Janet Jackson nipple incident, you'd think that everyone would realize that we don't want/need the FCC to try deciding things like this.
Not only is elearning 2.0 a really poor attempt at piggybacking the Web 2.0 buzzword trend, the submitter seems to have some sort of investment in it as well (look at the name). E-learning 2.0 seems to be teaching using so-called Web 2.0 sites and tools, which is a good concept, but not one that needs its own buzzword. Why not just call it online learning or online social education, as those are more descriptive? Let's lay off the stupid buzzwords (Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0, etc).
A company called Generac, which is 5 miles from where my parents live, just gave out fat bonuses based on how long the people have worked there. It seems like the checks average in the 10's of thousands. Imagine getting a $30,000 check when you're not expecting it.
I love Doom and Danger Mouse (1/2 of Gnarls Barkley and 1/2 of Dangerdoom), but neither belong on this list. Both are excellent musicians and producers that sample some somewhat nerdy tracks and also dress up in cool outfits (see any Gnarls Barkley performance for an example) whenever they get a chance, but that doesn't make it nerdcore. If Jay-Z wore a superman cape and sampled the Batman song, that wouldn't make him nerdcore either. I think the thing that qualifies people as nerdcore is the content of their songs, not how they dress or the music they sample. I think through Doom's entire discography, only a couple songs could qualify as nerdcore.
That said, anyone that likes rap music (even those who aren't sure if they do or not) should check out MF Doom, Danger Mouse, and Dangerdoom. Really good stuff.
I fail to see why a blind person shouldn't be able to hunt when they've got a non-blind person looking through the sights for them. Many of you that don't come from big hunting areas won't understand why a blind person would want to go hunting, but those of us in hunting states (WI here) know that hunting is more about family and friends than just shooting an animal. I don't hunt myself, but if I did, I wouldn't care if there were blind hunters out there observing proper safety techniques. No hunter should shoot without knowing what they're aiming at, and a blind hunter is no exception.
I've seen iTunes change some major stuff in minor updates (ipod interface, for example). Microsoft may exaggerate their versioning, but Apple doesn't. I've also seen Zoom Player, Meedio, Xbox Media Center, and more add support for major video formats, interface changes, and a lot more, and they don't get a front page article. Obviously the editors can do whatever they want, but this is "slownewsday" news, plain and simple.
When WMP gets a hotfix or iTunes releases a minor version, they definitely do not make the news anywhere. That's the equivalent. I like VLC as much as the next guy, but I also like iTunes, and neither deserves a frontpage article for minor updates.
Odds are you're right, but since people on Slashdot claim to be more intelligent than the average person, we should stick to the facts we know and the proper terminology. I don't know how many times I've seen someone refer to illegal downloads as "stealing music" and they're jumped on by a group of users that correctly point out that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. To the general public, those are the same thing, just as uploading and downloading are the same thing to the general public. To us, they're different because we're smart enough to know the difference.
I'm just suggesting that we avoid becoming hypocrites ourselves so we can properly explain our point of view to people when these topics come up.
Correct, which is exactly what I said. He's a hypocrite and his kids are doing wrong, but it's not the same wrong that people are being sued for. Once someone gets sued for downloading music from Usenet, website, or via FTP, then we can talk about how his kids should have been sued. Until then it's simple hypocrisy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the legal cases about downloading music associated with the sharing/upload of music files? As far as I know, nobody has been sued for just downloading music... they've been sued for using programs that upload at least partial copies of the songs (bittorrent, napster, etc). That's how the music companies justify suing for obscene amounts of money... because the files are being sharing amongst a number of other people.
It's still hypocritical, but if I'm right about the circumstances above then calling for his kids to be sued for _downloading_ makes people look stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree 100%. Not only is it the best animated feature of the year (Toy Story 3 was good but not great), but probably one of the best animated features ever. It does a better job of character development than most movies and the main character is easy to relate to, especially for those of us that are categorized as nerds (social outcast, smart, good with gadgets, likes the hot chick, etc). My almost 3 year old son loves it and I don't mind watching it with him dozens of times.
As for the other movies, I have yet to see most of them, but will eventually. I did see The Social Network in the theaters and thought it was good considering the topic, but not on the same level as previous winners. It's worth watching, but I don't think it's worthy of winning.
Not entirely true about why we started, but it's a good reason for continuing. I started TheTVDB because there was a need for an open API for TV data and since there was a somewhat horrible site handling part of it and another separate site handling the images. My goal was to combine both and make it completely open. Still, like I said, IMDB's restrictions are still reason to continue what we've been doing. /TheTVDB founder
This is exactly correct. My wife has an iPad since her computer died a week before they were released. Her old computer was by the couch and she mainly did email and Facebook while watching TV. For the price we were looking at a netbook or low end laptop, since there really wasn't a need for a full desktop system out there. The only game she plays is Bejeweled and we have my computer for more advanced tasks.
The iPad works perfectly for her. She's no longer stuck at the couch when she wants to be online and has more to do while exercising as well. She's got a decent sized screen to work with. Our toddler can actually play games on it (touchscreen instead of mouse works perfectly). Certain games and tasks are completely natural on it. I don't play RTS games, but I'd be willing to bet it's incredible for them.
I'm not an Apple zealot by any means. Hell, my AppleTV (purchased because my modded Xbox died) is running XBMC. The iPad is not for everyone and won't replace a primary computer, but it does definitely work great for some users.
They're correct about the whole guns don't kill people thing. This is Slashdot, so I'll make a technology analogy, even though people here tend to be far more political than technical. We like getting on Microsoft's case when they fix a bug, pointing out that there are far more existing bugs that they didn't fix. Hackers (or crackers, if you must) will exploit any available means to gain access to a system, so patching one hole in a system with many doesn't do a whole lot.
The same thing happens with gun law restrictions. Do you really think that if this guy wouldn't have been able to buy ammo on Ebay that he wouldn't have gone on a shooting rampage? He would have just found a different way of doing it, whether it be with a hunting shotgun, a sword, or a fertilizer bomb. Keep in mind that while I'm in favor of concealed carry, it doesn't mean I think that people should be able to access semiautomatic firearms without a significant (1 month?) waiting period.
I know that comparing the shooting to a system being hacked isn't all that accurate, but I'm trying to make a generalized point. There are many things out there that have both good and bad aspects, but that doesn't mean that we should focus only on the bad and ignore the good. Doing so is shortsighted and kneejerk, similar to all the save-the-children and ban toothpaste from airplanes crap. Be consistent in your criticism of this stuff.
Sure, camera phones can take decent pictures for a lot of people, but let me know once one can use specialized lenses. Of course, most people don't need zoom/macro/etc lenses, so they're fine with a digital camera. However, the benefit of such lenses and the falling prices of dSLR's makes it very unlikely that higher end digital cameras will ever go away. There's just a different market for both, just like PDAs vs laptops vs desktop systems.
Everyone I know who has seen a high def broadcast for the first time has been impressed, or at least been able to see the difference between HD and SD. You make it seem like people can't tell the difference or don't care... not true.
1: About 2/3 of my friends right now have at least 1 HDTV in their house. Mine is a 48" and 2 friends have 36"-42" TV's, but they view them from a little closer than I do. I'm middle class, so I'm sure my friends tend to have more HDTV's than lower class people, but I'd say we're all pretty average. Large TV's are far more popular than this "small minority" you refer to.
2: I can tell the difference between 480p and 1080i on my 48" TV from about 9 feet away. My wife can too, which is saying much more. We can also both tell the difference on my friend's 36" HDTV from about 6 feet away. It really doesn't take sitting 3-4 feet away to be able to tell the difference.
3: Requires high resolution? Nothing. Looks better in high resolution? Sports (you can actually see the golf ball, baseball, and hockey puck, although I watch mostly NFL). Your comment about TV shows being crap doesn't hold weight here, since that's 100% your opinion and a large majority of people out there would disagree. There's actually a great deal of good shows on right now: House, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Deadliest Catch, Prison Break, etc. Dresden Files is also decent although it falls short of the books, which is to be expected. As for viewing text, think video game consoles.
I also think that HDTV isn't necessarily required, but it sure makes TV nice to look at. People that claim that there's no market for it, or that it doesn't look better than SD are just being ignorant. I don't mind people that choose not to own a huge high def TV themselves, but at least be realistic about the technology and numbers.
Sidenote: Not only is the picture clearer in HD, the colors are more vibrant and the contrast is higher (probably due to more color information). The result means that even if you can't see the additional pixel information, the image can still look better.
I think pretty much everyone on Slashdot agrees that software patents are a bad idea. However, isn't part of this about technology/concept patents that aren't software related? Another article mentions patents "that describe technology for completing phone calls between VoIP users and people using phones on the traditional public switched network, authenticating VoIP callers, validating VoIP callers' accounts, fraud protection, providing enhanced features, using Wi-Fi handsets with VoIP services and monitoring VoIP caller usage."
To me, a few of those things are definitely software, but others are almost definitely hardware or mixed hardware/software patents. Personally, I've got nothing wrong with non-software patents, since they allow people to make money off their inventions for a while without having to worry about knockoffs of their product. If I were an inventor and came up with some device (say it ties into another system using custom software to keep this parallel), I'd sure as hell want my patent to allow me to make some money before Big Company X was able to make a similar product for less than I can make it for.
Exclude those software patents from this lawsuit, and I really don't have an issue with it, except that my Vonage bill may go up at some point (still cheaper than TWC Digital Phone).
Nobody was 100% sure if it would save energy or not, so it was a good idea to try it and find out. At least we know now and nobody should push to adjust it again in the future. Sure, it may have caused some IT workers to spend some extra time on the job, but the hourly ones should appreciate that and perhaps the salaried ones got a little bonus or pat on the back. Other than that, it's really no harm done.
It's nice to see the government try something in an effort to help solve energy issues. Hopefully they'll continue that without all the bipartisan bickering (yeah right).
We have a WYSIWYG editor built into one of our website products. The main issue we've had with customers is that they can't figure out how to resize/crop their graphics before uploading them. After seeing Snipshot, I'll be building it into our editor so they simply need to right-click on the image to be able to edit it through the Snipshot interface. Their API seems to make this really easy to do. Problem solved.
In addition to this being useful for developers like myself, it's useful for people like my wife. I extract all of our photos from our digital camera onto our network and she needs a simple way to resize and edit them for the different websites she posts to. I'll be showing her how to use Snipshot since it's so much easier than teaching her Photoshop, Gimp, Irfanview, or even Picassa.
I've never found the IT salaries to be that accurate for my region. A few companies pay the amounts listed, but most of them are around $10k less than all of the salary sites. I don't think that the IT personnel are underpaid either... I think the sites are just inaccurate. It's kind of like those places that claim they can train you for an "exciting career in computers in just 6 months". Most of their ads claim that IT people with 2-3 years of experience are making $70k/year.
While it's important to have some facts when negotiating your salary, it's far more useful to bring in a list of all of the major projects you've worked on as well as some positive review/feedback letters from coworkers (not just IT staff... talk to some other staff that like you). Bringing in a printout from a website isn't going to mean beans to a manager... it's what you actually do for their company/department that matters.
Sure, it would be nice to not be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we're there and we're not pulling out anytime soon. Even if we were pulling out of Iraq immediately, there will be other wars in the world. This technology has nothing to do with politics, so knock it off.
I'm not that familiar with battlefield medicine, but this seems like a big step forward for it. Anything that helps soldiers (American or otherwise) do their jobs better, protects them, or helps them live better lives after conflict is a good thing.
Well, once the consumer has their money back they can spend it elsewhere. If a LOT of consumers did this it would hurt the company's current sales. Down the line when all those customers are buying a new car, they'd buy their car from Company B, hurting Company A's future sales. Plus the negative press it would create would lead to non-customers making a point of not buying Company A's product in the future as well. The point is that Company A would lose A LOT of money by not putting out a good product, which car companies and tech companies cannot afford to do these days due to the high level of competition. They're getting punished big time when stuff like this happens.
While I understand why these people are upset, why do people always feel the need to sue? It's in Nvidia's best interest to keep their customers happy, and as such will probably be releasing drivers that DO work very soon. If they don't, these customers will just go to one of their competitors the next time they're in the market for a high end video card.
Let your money do the talking and stop helping lawyers make money on stuff like this.
I've telecommuted for about 2 years now and love it. I guess this won't be as applicable to some people since my boss and most of my coworkers telecommute as well, but I think it still holds some truth...
Schedule face time with your boss. Many telecommuters often have to go in to meetings at work regularily, but that's not enough. Tell your boss you'd like to have lunch with him/her and during the lunch ask about the department and how things are headed. Show some interest in what's actually going on instead of just focusing on doing whatever tasks are given to you. Your boss probably has information about possible future projects and if you provide some suggestions about the ones that interest you, you'll have a better chance of working on projects you enjoy AND showing that you have initiative.
Also, spend some time emailing or talking with coworkers and telling them that if they ever need help with something they should give you a call. You may not have time to help them completely, but at least you might have some ideas that would get them going in the right direction. Word WILL get back to your boss about how helpful you are for your team.
Scientist:
an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences. [1]
Medical Doctor:
"Medicine is a branch of health science..." [2]
Hence, Crichton is a scientist.
1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine
As a Republican, I'm far more interested in keeping government as small as possible than requiring the FCC to try determining what is a balanced news report. People with a decent level of intelligence will realize that most media outlets aren't giving balanced news reports and should be smart enough to get their news from a variety of sources. That's for individuals to do themselves, though, not something that should be regulated by the government.
Here's a little exercise for you: some Republicans fret over the media's use of "insurgents" for the bombers in Iraq. They want the media to call them terrorists, which IMHO is slightly more accurate, but nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. So, should the FCC step in and require news outlets to call them terrorists? Should they require Fox to call them insurgents too? Who decides if something is balanced? Where do you draw the line.
Besides, with everyone complaining about the FCC being overly cautious after the Janet Jackson nipple incident, you'd think that everyone would realize that we don't want/need the FCC to try deciding things like this.
Not only is elearning 2.0 a really poor attempt at piggybacking the Web 2.0 buzzword trend, the submitter seems to have some sort of investment in it as well (look at the name). E-learning 2.0 seems to be teaching using so-called Web 2.0 sites and tools, which is a good concept, but not one that needs its own buzzword. Why not just call it online learning or online social education, as those are more descriptive? Let's lay off the stupid buzzwords (Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0, etc).
A company called Generac, which is 5 miles from where my parents live, just gave out fat bonuses based on how long the people have worked there. It seems like the checks average in the 10's of thousands. Imagine getting a $30,000 check when you're not expecting it.
7
Here's the full story:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=54487
I love Doom and Danger Mouse (1/2 of Gnarls Barkley and 1/2 of Dangerdoom), but neither belong on this list. Both are excellent musicians and producers that sample some somewhat nerdy tracks and also dress up in cool outfits (see any Gnarls Barkley performance for an example) whenever they get a chance, but that doesn't make it nerdcore. If Jay-Z wore a superman cape and sampled the Batman song, that wouldn't make him nerdcore either. I think the thing that qualifies people as nerdcore is the content of their songs, not how they dress or the music they sample. I think through Doom's entire discography, only a couple songs could qualify as nerdcore.
That said, anyone that likes rap music (even those who aren't sure if they do or not) should check out MF Doom, Danger Mouse, and Dangerdoom. Really good stuff.
I fail to see why a blind person shouldn't be able to hunt when they've got a non-blind person looking through the sights for them. Many of you that don't come from big hunting areas won't understand why a blind person would want to go hunting, but those of us in hunting states (WI here) know that hunting is more about family and friends than just shooting an animal. I don't hunt myself, but if I did, I wouldn't care if there were blind hunters out there observing proper safety techniques. No hunter should shoot without knowing what they're aiming at, and a blind hunter is no exception.
I've seen iTunes change some major stuff in minor updates (ipod interface, for example). Microsoft may exaggerate their versioning, but Apple doesn't. I've also seen Zoom Player, Meedio, Xbox Media Center, and more add support for major video formats, interface changes, and a lot more, and they don't get a front page article. Obviously the editors can do whatever they want, but this is "slownewsday" news, plain and simple.
When WMP gets a hotfix or iTunes releases a minor version, they definitely do not make the news anywhere. That's the equivalent. I like VLC as much as the next guy, but I also like iTunes, and neither deserves a frontpage article for minor updates.
Odds are you're right, but since people on Slashdot claim to be more intelligent than the average person, we should stick to the facts we know and the proper terminology. I don't know how many times I've seen someone refer to illegal downloads as "stealing music" and they're jumped on by a group of users that correctly point out that it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. To the general public, those are the same thing, just as uploading and downloading are the same thing to the general public. To us, they're different because we're smart enough to know the difference.
I'm just suggesting that we avoid becoming hypocrites ourselves so we can properly explain our point of view to people when these topics come up.
Correct, which is exactly what I said. He's a hypocrite and his kids are doing wrong, but it's not the same wrong that people are being sued for. Once someone gets sued for downloading music from Usenet, website, or via FTP, then we can talk about how his kids should have been sued. Until then it's simple hypocrisy.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the legal cases about downloading music associated with the sharing/upload of music files? As far as I know, nobody has been sued for just downloading music... they've been sued for using programs that upload at least partial copies of the songs (bittorrent, napster, etc). That's how the music companies justify suing for obscene amounts of money... because the files are being sharing amongst a number of other people.
It's still hypocritical, but if I'm right about the circumstances above then calling for his kids to be sued for _downloading_ makes people look stupid.