Well, they're both irritating jerks with an excess of self-righteousness. But RMS, for all his faults, actually did contribute something to the art. Not what he intended to, but so what?
HE, by contrast, has had no real impact on anything, beyond pissing a lot of people off. I've occasionally enjoyed his writing, but nothing he's written has really pushed his art forward. He was just lucky in his timing: the 60s had a weakness for loud-mouthed iconoclasts. If he'd been born 5 years earlier or later, he'd be just another hack writer. He'd probably be grinding out episodes of One Tree Hill!
Wikipedia says he got a "cash settlement". More than he deserved, since his only contribution to that movie was to write some stories that James Cameron says "inspired him".
Didn't know about that incident before you brought it to my attention. Another reason to dislike a man I already despise. Compare with this incident over another Star Trek ep, "The Trouble With Tribbles": when Paramount asked Robert Heinlein to waive any claim over creatures that strongly resembled flatcats, Heinlein responded, "I have no patent on small furry aliens!"
Not going to defend Ellison (whom I despise) but the contract is neither here nor there. Hollywood studios are really good at fiddling the books so that they don't have to pay people. The contract can say that they have to pay $5 for every dollar of profit, and the writer can still get hosed.
There are movies out there that have been blockbuster successes and are still officially in the red.
This is nothing special for Ellison. He does this in every conversation. HE ordering breakfast: "No I will not have coffee. Enough with people offering me coffee. It is time those of us who like orange with breakfast to take a stand..."
If you've ever wondered where the over-the-top language on Babylon 5 comes from, well, JMS learned his art at HE's feet.
Two questions: why is this coming up now? Yeah, the Star Trek franchise always ripped off its writers. That's why the writing started out good in the first episode of the first series and went steadily downhill from there. But why this particular episode and why now? It's not like it's anything special. Yeah, it's a decent story, but I always have to fast-forward over the parts where Joan Collins preaches about space travel to the tramps in her soup kitchen.
And also: Harlan, who are you to complain? You've been stalling the writers who contributed to Last Dangerous Visions for thirty years. At least your Star Trek episode actually got seen!
Questions about things that might be relevant to the situation but were not within sight of the camera. I've run lights before (safely) in order to allow emergency vehicles to pass, for instance. Or the occasional situation where the light obviously isn't working properly, and after sitting for five minutes in the middle of the night with no cross traffic, you decide to drive through.
And why do you need to "cross examine" the camera to verify these things?
There are long stretches of motorway here where it's perfectly safe to drive at well over the legal limit of 70mph in good weather.
Like I said, people are really good at rationalizing bad driving. Ever consider what happens if you hit a big rock at 90 MPH?
A police officer will generally not bother with you, because they can see that you are not driving unsafely.
No, the police officer won't bother you because he has bigger fish to fry. Traffic enforcement is really unpopular in most places, and is seriously underfunded. My state hasn't increased the staffing for the Highway Patrol in 40 years — during which time the number of freeway drivers has roughly doubled. Local traffic enforcement in the city where I live is actually being cut back. Naturally what cops there are concentrate on drivers who engage in the riskiest behavior. Doesn't mean that all behavior that doesn't cross their threshold is "safe".
My thought exactly. There actually are bluetooth cameras, but they're high-end and cost more than I'm willing to spend. And there's no bluetooth equivalent of the EyeFi.
I heard about that. Not a bad solution for the wedding scenario. Won't work for me, though, setting up a router (even a portable one) is almost as much hassle as just transferring the pics by sneakernet.
I've found some routing software that might run on my tablet. That would enable a direct camera-to-tablet connection. Add in this python software.... Have to give it try when I have the time.
"Robots enforcing the law"? It's not bloody cylons and terminators gunning down malfactors. (Thought that would be pretty cool, actually.) It's a bloody camera tied to a trip wire!
Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.
That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.
Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
Meanwhile, it's not safe to cross the street where I live. (And no, it's not suitable for a speed bump.) People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
Oh please. It's a perfectly good idea, even though EyeFi has kind of bungled the implementation. The fact that hackers are hacking it should tell you something.
The use case they talk about in the advertising is a pretty common one. A bunch of people get together for a big social event, like a wedding, and take lots of pictures. Everybody promises to share their pictures, but what with absent-mindedness and the hassle of uploading big jpegs, it never happens. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could see the pictures right after they're taken, and grab the ones they like? Makes the event more fun, too.
My use case is more serious. I write technical documentation for computer hardware, and I sometimes have to take photos of said hardware for the illustrators to work from. I suck as a photographer, so it'd be really nice if pictures just got automatically transferred to my tablet so I check each one right after it's taken. If you have to plug in the camera or transfer the SD card, it's too inconvenient to check until you've accumulated a bunch of photos.
The flaw (as of when I tried it over a year ago; perhaps it's improved since) in that use case is that the stupid EyeFi can't interface with networks that require any kind of authentication. That leaves out secured networks, and also the typical hotspot, where, even if it's free, they generally make you go to the providers' web site at least once before they let you on the web. (The WiFi network where I work is unsecured, but you have to login with via the provider's web site before you can use it.) So basically, the thing is only useful if you provide your own access point. What's needed is a way to network it directly to your computer.
Hmm, run a router on my tablet? Have to think about it.
Let's all take SyFy to mean "Sciencey Fantasy" which is what most of the crap that gets labeled scifi really is anyway.
Of a certain franchise, are you thinking?
But even "sciency fantasy" doesn't describe some of the stuff they carry. When I still watched (some years now) they had some guy who claimed to channel dead people. He seems to be gone now, but when I look at scifi.com I see wrestling, Joan of Arcadia reruns, and of course lots and lots of "reality" shows. So of course they had to change the name. I'm just surprised they kept the phonetics. Changing it to "weird stuff network" would have been more honest.
Not necessarily. Just because Intel can charge what the market will bear doesn't mean they will. Less competition means they can charge more, but presumably they're smart enough not to charge so much they destroy the market.
Anyway, won't happen. If AMD loses its right to make x86 chips, then Intel loses its right to make x64 chips. That's a lose-lose situation. Intel is just using the AMD reorg to gain a little leverage. They'll renegotiate the agreement to give slightly more favorable terms to Intel and that will be the end of it.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM: 36% server market share
Sun: 8% server market share
It's not about gross size, it's about competition.
"Sticking his neck out for the little people"? Since when? This is possibly the most self-centered person in Hollywood. And that's saying a lot!
Or is this yet another joke about his height?
"Harlan"? LOL. Dude, just because he sucked up to you at a con doesn't mean you're friends.
Actually, I've tried to write fiction. It stunk. That's the difference between Ellison and me -- I know my shit smells.
Well, they're both irritating jerks with an excess of self-righteousness. But RMS, for all his faults, actually did contribute something to the art. Not what he intended to, but so what?
HE, by contrast, has had no real impact on anything, beyond pissing a lot of people off. I've occasionally enjoyed his writing, but nothing he's written has really pushed his art forward. He was just lucky in his timing: the 60s had a weakness for loud-mouthed iconoclasts. If he'd been born 5 years earlier or later, he'd be just another hack writer. He'd probably be grinding out episodes of One Tree Hill!
Yeah, I seem to recall Stephen King saying that he always insisted on that for his movies. But not every author can enforce that.
I'll take your word for it. But there's so much crappy, over-the-top dialog in that ep, he must have written some of it!
Wikipedia says he got a "cash settlement". More than he deserved, since his only contribution to that movie was to write some stories that James Cameron says "inspired him".
Didn't know about that incident before you brought it to my attention. Another reason to dislike a man I already despise. Compare with this incident over another Star Trek ep, "The Trouble With Tribbles": when Paramount asked Robert Heinlein to waive any claim over creatures that strongly resembled flatcats, Heinlein responded, "I have no patent on small furry aliens!"
Yeah, Hollywood has a bad record for ripping off the creative people. But the Star Trek franchise was worse than that even.
Not going to defend Ellison (whom I despise) but the contract is neither here nor there. Hollywood studios are really good at fiddling the books so that they don't have to pay people. The contract can say that they have to pay $5 for every dollar of profit, and the writer can still get hosed.
There are movies out there that have been blockbuster successes and are still officially in the red.
Whoever flagged this one "Troll" not only has no sense of humor, he doesn't know Ellison's work!
This is nothing special for Ellison. He does this in every conversation. HE ordering breakfast: "No I will not have coffee. Enough with people offering me coffee. It is time those of us who like orange with breakfast to take a stand ..."
If you've ever wondered where the over-the-top language on Babylon 5 comes from, well, JMS learned his art at HE's feet.
Two questions: why is this coming up now? Yeah, the Star Trek franchise always ripped off its writers. That's why the writing started out good in the first episode of the first series and went steadily downhill from there. But why this particular episode and why now? It's not like it's anything special. Yeah, it's a decent story, but I always have to fast-forward over the parts where Joan Collins preaches about space travel to the tramps in her soup kitchen.
And also: Harlan, who are you to complain? You've been stalling the writers who contributed to Last Dangerous Visions for thirty years. At least your Star Trek episode actually got seen!
Because the camera is providing the testimony for which you're being accused.
No it's not. It's providing evidence. Do you claim the right to cross-examine a fingerprint?
Questions about things that might be relevant to the situation but were not within sight of the camera. I've run lights before (safely) in order to allow emergency vehicles to pass, for instance. Or the occasional situation where the light obviously isn't working properly, and after sitting for five minutes in the middle of the night with no cross traffic, you decide to drive through.
And why do you need to "cross examine" the camera to verify these things?
There are long stretches of motorway here where it's perfectly safe to drive at well over the legal limit of 70mph in good weather.
Like I said, people are really good at rationalizing bad driving. Ever consider what happens if you hit a big rock at 90 MPH?
A police officer will generally not bother with you, because they can see that you are not driving unsafely.
No, the police officer won't bother you because he has bigger fish to fry. Traffic enforcement is really unpopular in most places, and is seriously underfunded. My state hasn't increased the staffing for the Highway Patrol in 40 years — during which time the number of freeway drivers has roughly doubled. Local traffic enforcement in the city where I live is actually being cut back. Naturally what cops there are concentrate on drivers who engage in the riskiest behavior. Doesn't mean that all behavior that doesn't cross their threshold is "safe".
My thought exactly. There actually are bluetooth cameras, but they're high-end and cost more than I'm willing to spend. And there's no bluetooth equivalent of the EyeFi.
I heard about that. Not a bad solution for the wedding scenario. Won't work for me, though, setting up a router (even a portable one) is almost as much hassle as just transferring the pics by sneakernet.
I've found some routing software that might run on my tablet. That would enable a direct camera-to-tablet connection. Add in this python software.... Have to give it try when I have the time.
If you could cross-examine a camera, what would you ask it?
"Robots enforcing the law"? It's not bloody cylons and terminators gunning down malfactors. (Thought that would be pretty cool, actually.) It's a bloody camera tied to a trip wire!
Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.
That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.
Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
Meanwhile, it's not safe to cross the street where I live. (And no, it's not suitable for a speed bump.) People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
Oh please. It's a perfectly good idea, even though EyeFi has kind of bungled the implementation. The fact that hackers are hacking it should tell you something.
The use case they talk about in the advertising is a pretty common one. A bunch of people get together for a big social event, like a wedding, and take lots of pictures. Everybody promises to share their pictures, but what with absent-mindedness and the hassle of uploading big jpegs, it never happens. Wouldn't it be nice if everybody could see the pictures right after they're taken, and grab the ones they like? Makes the event more fun, too.
My use case is more serious. I write technical documentation for computer hardware, and I sometimes have to take photos of said hardware for the illustrators to work from. I suck as a photographer, so it'd be really nice if pictures just got automatically transferred to my tablet so I check each one right after it's taken. If you have to plug in the camera or transfer the SD card, it's too inconvenient to check until you've accumulated a bunch of photos.
The flaw (as of when I tried it over a year ago; perhaps it's improved since) in that use case is that the stupid EyeFi can't interface with networks that require any kind of authentication. That leaves out secured networks, and also the typical hotspot, where, even if it's free, they generally make you go to the providers' web site at least once before they let you on the web. (The WiFi network where I work is unsecured, but you have to login with via the provider's web site before you can use it.) So basically, the thing is only useful if you provide your own access point. What's needed is a way to network it directly to your computer.
Hmm, run a router on my tablet? Have to think about it.
Let's all take SyFy to mean "Sciencey Fantasy" which is what most of the crap that gets labeled scifi really is anyway.
Of a certain franchise, are you thinking?
But even "sciency fantasy" doesn't describe some of the stuff they carry. When I still watched (some years now) they had some guy who claimed to channel dead people. He seems to be gone now, but when I look at scifi.com I see wrestling, Joan of Arcadia reruns, and of course lots and lots of "reality" shows. So of course they had to change the name. I'm just surprised they kept the phonetics. Changing it to "weird stuff network" would have been more honest.
That's pretty bad. If you subscribe to cable, you're already down 40 points!
Not necessarily. Just because Intel can charge what the market will bear doesn't mean they will. Less competition means they can charge more, but presumably they're smart enough not to charge so much they destroy the market.
Anyway, won't happen. If AMD loses its right to make x86 chips, then Intel loses its right to make x64 chips. That's a lose-lose situation. Intel is just using the AMD reorg to gain a little leverage. They'll renegotiate the agreement to give slightly more favorable terms to Intel and that will be the end of it.
YMBNAH. And I don't mean on Slashdot, I mean on the planet!
Is this in one of the movies? If so I missed it. T3 at a guess; the plot was so dumb I probably wasn't paying attention.