Yahoo started with no visable source of income. They worked on some ideas and eventually went with banner ads. This method of building a busness is a very BAD idea.
My guess is Napster wants to get into the busness of premoting music. Hence the no bots rule. If you want your music hoasted on Napster for the long term where anyone can get to it.. PAY OUT!!!
Otherwise your music is only around while your on-line
Before MP3s many music artists produced original works vea Amiga MOD file format and the format survives today on Linux, Windows, Dos and Mac.
There are also music artists who record music on a tape recorder and give it away to friends.
Public domain music is not unlike public domain software. The commertal counterparts would like to pretend they don't exist.
Napster seems designed for trading MP3s containning free works such as recordings made in the bathroom or produced and posted on the internet (Usenet, web, FTP, Napster, RealMedia etc).
If Napster is advocating copyright infrengment (as quite a few clame) they are in the wrong.
However over my lifespan I have seen far to much demonising of opponents to believe this outside of seeing/hearing it for myself. (Never say they didn't say it becouse they might have I just havn't seen it for myself).
Examples of demonising.... RMS: Often quoted as advocating piracy has never done so. Free Software community: Often reguarded as communist in nature is more accurately "Altruist" thow quite frankly most free software people are harden capitalists with caveotemptor addatudes an in the truest capistalist style knows price != quality and free is good.
Microsoft: In it's own effort to educate the public about piracy has a tendency to say "Copying software is illegal". This is a matter of lazyness not of intent but it's easy how many people believe otherwise.
Anyone wealthy: There are those who have not gained wealth who tell themselfs the only path to wealth is by lying and cheating. In this logic then everyone who is wealthy is a lyer and a cheater with wealth as the only proof.
Napster is about sharing not about theft. In what I have seen from Napster they are pro-sharing but against piracy. However piracy is an issue of going after the pirates not trying to shutdown mediums that could be abused.
Napster is like a lockpick. A very basic tool that can be used for theft. To those who are it's victoms or jump to conclusion they could mistakenly believe the tools have one function. To anyone who has been locked out of a car or a home and had to call a locksmith you know such tools are a lifesaver...
It was the music industry who premoted Napster as a tool of theft.
If Napster premotes piracy they are in the wrong. But I havn't seen that... What I have seen was the music industry turnning Napster into a tool for piracy... Why would they do that? Simple... Sharing public domain music isn't illegal.............
True:) Above that... Linux is really a Unix clone. (People who call it a "work-alike" are just being cute... it's a clone thats all) Sun entered the market and really got it's fame with SunOs (a BSD based Unix clone).
Linux is usually called a *nix not a Unix becouse it is not liccensed from AT&T or SCO. (Or anyone else who held the trademark)
It should be noted that BSD and Solarus are Unix forks. The BSD dev group and Sun must maintain compatability by relying on documented standards just like Linux. [notied becouse some Unix people who dislike Linux will attack Linux becouse it is built on standards not on the accual code. The idea being that Solarus and BSD are the same code and by default compatable. This is false for the above reason. The below is just to extend the point nothing more.]
Solarus and BSD are forked from diffrent code. BSD is from the original AT&T code later known as SysV. Solarus is from a total rewrite in the 1990s known as SrV. SysV and SrV are not compatable.
So in reality Linux, BSD and Solarus are three totally unique (and multally compatable) operating systems. Linux being the only one of the three with no liccens to the name Unix.
Over time many Unix clones were incorrectly called Unix. However this fact was less than noticable as forks and clones had no standards to folow and ended up pritty much being mutually incompatable.
Linux was built on Posix the first effort to correct this issue.
On a side note... Linux disordented me becouse I learned Unix on an AT&T 3B2/300. But Linux didn't thow me much.
One gripe people have about Linux is that it is posable to write Linux only code that dose not work on BSD or Solarus. While true it is equally posable to write BSD or Solarus only code. It is an effort of the programmer to maintain portability. Failling that it dose not matter what operating system the code was made on.
The above is a troll however touches on one thing.. the correct use of the term Hacker... he is incorrect...
Hacker means [doing something for the enjoyment]... this is the usage that predates computers and has extended well byond the computer field for many years.
Using Hacker for computer expert dates to the 1960s using Hacker for techno vandal dates to the late 1970s.
The confusion started when a cracker was couught in the late 1970s and it made it to the news. The news media reported him being a computer hacker becouse he infact was just that. He and many like him at his time wanted to learn more about how computer security worked. At that time it was belived security by obscurity was GOOD so this information was hard to come by. Computer hackers being the beasts of cureosity they are elected to discover this secret by cracking the security. One was cought... Once the news reported him as being a computer hacker a public unfamilure with the term hacker believed it ment computer vandal. From then on when the news talked about computer vandals they inncorectly call them hackers.
A lot of people THINK the Borg refers to "Microsoft Drones". I've heard it thrown around that way.
When someone I know on IRC was moving from his job at Microsoft to a job elsewhere someone else on IRC commented about him having his "implant removed". True this ex-Ms-Employee is supportive of Microsoft however he allways has been and allways will be. (I've allways been anti-Microsoft or at least antiMicrosoft Windows.. sence Windows 2.x and apathetic about Win 1.x. Every new version of Windows I seem to get worse)
What Rob Limmo seems to be refering to is just the varry nature of getting information when the channel is narrow. I put on my website a whole reply to one line equating access to Microsoft to access to the White House saying basicly a Windows NT mag is every bit as unbies. I fired off a responce not saying he was more bies but that unbiesed reporters don't get access to the whitehouse and the same sutuation at Microsoft is exactly why an NT mag MUST be bies. I think I said something like "Well you CAN do it but then you'll be getting your information from Slashdot becouse you sure arn't getting it from Microsoft".
I think reviews of open source software lacks this "Well we need to give a good review or we are screwed" deal I mean who's gona stop you from getting the latest beta? Hmm?
But interviews with people (who are know and not CEOs of tiny companys running out of outhouses) are a problem. The more famous the harder it is to get an interview.
First no ID won't make a proffit. The cost of the replacment system will eat up any proffits ID makes. So really there is no money to be made. It's a cost reduction yeah but it isn't enough.
ID would probably make more on goodwill in a donation of this bad boy that they would in capital from a sale.
But... It wouldn't benifit the FSF much at all and it takes up a lot of space. It may not even be welcomed at the FSF. What they need is new hardware not fast hardware. ID can write Pentium 5 code using a fast super compuyer FSF must have a real P5 and specs or it won't make much of a diffrence.
At issue. the FSF needs to do stuff like optomise the GCC compiler to run under new processors. The code isn't slow itself and still compiles and runs reasonably under a 386. ID however is working on next generation graphics technology and needs computers as powerful as the ones we'll be using 2 to 3 years from now.
FSF needs to be able to compile and test P5 optomise code on a real P5.
ID just needs something as fast as so they can test the engen.
Once ID is readly to ship they'll rely on a compuler that has allready been optomised for the latest PCs. ID dosn't need to worry about that layer of technology.
In short the FSF would probably frown on a donation of such a box as it's unlikely anyone using such a box would need free software. But they'd be more than happy to accept a NeXT box as such a box would welcome new free software.
This auction gives ID a bit more publicity than a gift to the FSF would... That is unless we have a folow up story about how the FSF office has this big old obsolete box waisting space and they can't afford to get rid of it. And that is why ID should never donate such a system to the FSF... To much potental ill will
This woundn't be that valuable to the FSF. Not for long. I suspect the FSF might not want something so bulky becouse it would be so hard to get rid of once it's obsolete. However to a geek, a colector, a tech or a company this sucker is totally worth punking down hard cold cash... If ID wanted to donate that... it'd help out a lot....
Basicly the FSF won't get the workload out of it to make it worth the space it would end up taking up.
It takes considerably more processing power to compile the original graphics than it takes to render it once everything is compiled. Someone sat down and worked on all those details to make every player look human. Thats a lot of work. All your PC dose is overlay a skin on a frame. Someone had to make that skin and frame.
Also when develuping the game your working a few years ahead. Say your working on a game today. Your target computer is a Pentium 5. Obveously such a machine dosn't exist. So you need something equally powerful.
The first versions of the game will not work well. A lot of hacks. A lot of unknowns. Later you go back over the code clean it up and make it work reliably. But when the code is running slow you need to run "at speed".
There are quite a few reasons to use a computer that is far byond the target machine.
In IDs case it was probably an upgrade consern. They didn't want to have to upgrade that machine to often. It was after all used for two versions of Quake and while it can be upgraded they probably need something a tad more powerful than a computer than a top end PC two years from now. This won't cut it.
When you were seeing Reboot for the first time I was saying goodbye to Reboot. I cought Season 1 and 2 but never saw Season 3. The show would then continue life on The Cartoon Network (I don't have Cable).
So I had a diffrent impression. I didn't expect the advanced CGI you see in movies like Final Fantasy becouse such graphics were not yet posable.
Your looking at say... the Internet was in 1992 when 28.8k baud was fast and looking at your own cable modem and saying "Got you suck".
What they pulled out of Reboot was cutting edge. What you have today is the great grandchildren of Reboot.
I understand what your saying... By the time it showed up on cable there were far better examples of CGI.
But then... don't look at Reboot and compare it with a movie that hasn't been released yet. You'd be commiting the sin of damming one of the early pre-talkie classics for not having specal effects.
I rember when someone e-mailed me the.wav of the Season 3 intro.... "This is megaframe..." - Megabyte
Thats gona be worth getting
BTW.... Movie spinoff of a game? How many game spinoffs have there been allready? How many sucked? Plotline first.... technical quality second.... Pokemon the movie had a chance only becouse the video game was spun off from the TV show as was the movie. (yeah I know America got the game first... thats a marketting thing... easyer to introduce a TV show when it allready has fans)
As I understand it this thing runs under Microsoft Windows (Win 2K).
Run through Slashdot you'll see half a dosen reasons why Windows isn't a good system for this sort of thing.
On the other hand a quote after Leet Radios Thirty Seconds With Eschelon "That eppisode suck.. perl script have no problem with that".
(LR used Unix systems... Solarus laptops, Linux door stops, etc)
It should be a minnor effort to set up the kind of filter the FBI wants using perl on (insert your favoret Unix fork or clone here).
Anyway... it's easy for a Windows box (famous for it's defects) to "accadentally" record information it shouldn't... (Notice the quotes)... It dosn't have to be a REAL defect... Just write a trigger into the code and pretend it's a defect...
Apple produced the Cube.... Mac Junkie posted a story saying they faked the story as a test.
Elsewhere I basicly said the same as above. Yeah... Apple produced the stupid thing... Hay I don't like being lied to anymore than you do... I saw the story on Mac Junkie and jumpped on it...
One group would know to say something like this and that this would tick me off. That same group I really pissed off over a year ago...
Get over it... that was a year ago... I know where I stand and why. I screwed up majorly. But hold a grudge for a year? Come on guy.. thats pathetic... Give it up and move on.... No... I won't be back... I know better. This "Don't run for office" bit is bullshit anyway....
I fucked up... one year ago.... ONCE!!! Good buy and don't darken my doorstep again... I'll never darken yours...
Mac Junkie did FAR more than clame it was a fake... Read the story... Naa you don't care about facts.. you care about pissing me off. Well guess what... you did... guess what else... I know who you are... so screw off
Can't really blame Microsoft this time.... Microsoft is just folowing Netscape... Admittedly IE is not a very good job of doing that but it's still Microsoft folowing Netscape...
Basicly when something dosn't work right on Windows Microsoft adds features, Ignores standards, and just makes it fit with a sledge hammer. They don't automaticly go out of the way to break stuff they just worry more about making the product work under Windows and if that means it won't work under anything else.. so what... they should be using Microsofts product anyway.
Example... Java dosn't work well at all. So it works poorly on Windows. So Microsoft changes it.
If Netscape dosn't bother to conform to current standards then Microsoft won't eather. If Microsoft thinks something is needed. It's in the standard but Netscape hasn't bothered. Then why bother with the standard. Just write something that works REALLY WELL with Microsoft Windows.
Microsoft STARTS with standards but they don't allways FINISH with standards. If it works decently but could be done better if it were a Window centric solution Microsoft won't bother. It's just to often than it dosn't work decently and Microsoft is left with breaking standards left and right to make Windows do what they want.
But IE works quite well and the standards (byond Java) are pritty good. Microsoft centric solutions won't make much diffrence. But if it's not in Netscape then as far as Microsoft is conserned it dosn't exist.
Want to compeate with Netscape and IE? Be there first... Want to win marketshare? Be there first...
"We conform to the FULL CURRENT STANDARD"
This is what you get for not develuping the standards browser yourself.... Originally the same people who ran the web wrote the stupid browser. Then they handed the job off to lynx and Mosaic... Now it's the job of Microsoft and AoL... For standards I'd say those are the the WORST companys to trust.
So if they want to get standards write a free browser. Basic in functionility. Dosn't need bookmarks or plugins just make it a basic browser. And say "Now keep up or DIE"... It'll give web develupers a REAL target to work with... and browser develupers something REAL to work with.
Here is my take on it... Some parents are illresonsable and demand childproofing of the globe for themselvs. Set it as a moral mandate. Otheres folow example not wanting to look immoral. Or worse.
I suspect some people go as far as threaton to call child protective services on parents who don't conform... (It's an empty threat.. however what frightend parent is going to call a bluff like that?)
Then you have thies little kids who live in ignorence running around accusting everyone. (My mother once cought a little kid trying to steal from her... the parents only payed attention to the kid when it the kid was cought.. this left an immpresion with my mother that this kid was a trainned theaf...)
>There are those of us who are religious for very good reasons
*Rant mode* Not Christian != Not religious.... Thats where A LOT of antiChristan sentiment comes from... the whole notion that ONLY Christans are religious. There are quite a few other religions out there AND quite a few "casual" Christians. *Rant mode off*
It's kinda unfair to lump all Christians into one block... Christianity has a deep philosophical base and a wide range of folowers... From them deeply spiritual to the casual...
The problem stems from the Jihad types often called fundies or xitans... Others often repeate what comes from that camp not thinking twice about how valid it might be.
Such as making Religous = Christan...
Agnostics and Pagans are pritty good about bashing Christans and most are pritty religous...
Lastly... Before the domain registry went commertal... DotCom was for Commertal and private use.... religion is a very personal thing don't you agree? Very.Com....
Is Sports default commertal? Is Religion default not commertal?
BTW when the domain reg was still a government agentcy and the TLD were policed (to some extent).com was also for personal domains...
This was someones personal domain... maybe not commertal but not a non-proffit organisation (DotOrg)
Anyway the top level isn't policed anymore... Anyway... the team needs to prove they own the rights to the domain and that right is greater than the current holder.
In my view they fail both tests...
This is a local team and should have a local domain not DotCom...
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo started with no visable source of income.
They worked on some ideas and eventually went with banner ads.
This method of building a busness is a very BAD idea.
My guess is Napster wants to get into the busness of premoting music. Hence the no bots rule.
If you want your music hoasted on Napster for the long term where anyone can get to it.. PAY OUT!!!
Otherwise your music is only around while your on-line
Sharing files is not copyright abuse...
Before MP3s many music artists produced original works vea Amiga MOD file format and the format survives today on Linux, Windows, Dos and Mac.
There are also music artists who record music on a tape recorder and give it away to friends.
Public domain music is not unlike public domain software. The commertal counterparts would like to pretend they don't exist.
Napster seems designed for trading MP3s containning free works such as recordings made in the bathroom or produced and posted on the internet (Usenet, web, FTP, Napster, RealMedia etc).
If Napster is advocating copyright infrengment (as quite a few clame) they are in the wrong.
However over my lifespan I have seen far to much demonising of opponents to believe this outside of seeing/hearing it for myself. (Never say they didn't say it becouse they might have I just havn't seen it for myself).
Examples of demonising....
RMS: Often quoted as advocating piracy has never done so.
Free Software community: Often reguarded as communist in nature is more accurately "Altruist" thow quite frankly most free software people are harden capitalists with caveotemptor addatudes an in the truest capistalist style knows price != quality and free is good.
Microsoft: In it's own effort to educate the public about piracy has a tendency to say "Copying software is illegal". This is a matter of lazyness not of intent but it's easy how many people believe otherwise.
Anyone wealthy: There are those who have not gained wealth who tell themselfs the only path to wealth is by lying and cheating.
In this logic then everyone who is wealthy is a lyer and a cheater with wealth as the only proof.
Napster is about sharing not about theft.
In what I have seen from Napster they are pro-sharing but against piracy. However piracy is an issue of going after the pirates not trying to shutdown mediums that could be abused.
Napster is like a lockpick. A very basic tool that can be used for theft. To those who are it's victoms or jump to conclusion they could mistakenly believe the tools have one function.
To anyone who has been locked out of a car or a home and had to call a locksmith you know such tools are a lifesaver...
It was the music industry who premoted Napster as a tool of theft.
If Napster premotes piracy they are in the wrong. But I havn't seen that...
What I have seen was the music industry turnning Napster into a tool for piracy...
Why would they do that?
Simple... Sharing public domain music isn't illegal.............
BSD is liccesned from AT&T and thus is a Unix.
:)
Small issue
I believe BSD was never cerifyed... It simply is by age alone
True :)
Above that... Linux is really a Unix clone. (People who call it a "work-alike" are just being cute... it's a clone thats all)
Sun entered the market and really got it's fame with SunOs (a BSD based Unix clone).
Linux is usually called a *nix not a Unix becouse it is not liccensed from AT&T or SCO. (Or anyone else who held the trademark)
It should be noted that BSD and Solarus are Unix forks. The BSD dev group and Sun must maintain compatability by relying on documented standards just like Linux.
[notied becouse some Unix people who dislike Linux will attack Linux becouse it is built on standards not on the accual code. The idea being that Solarus and BSD are the same code and by default compatable. This is false for the above reason. The below is just to extend the point nothing more.]
Solarus and BSD are forked from diffrent code. BSD is from the original AT&T code later known as SysV. Solarus is from a total rewrite in the 1990s known as SrV. SysV and SrV are not compatable.
So in reality Linux, BSD and Solarus are three totally unique (and multally compatable) operating systems. Linux being the only one of the three with no liccens to the name Unix.
Over time many Unix clones were incorrectly called Unix. However this fact was less than noticable as forks and clones had no standards to folow and ended up pritty much being mutually incompatable.
Linux was built on Posix the first effort to correct this issue.
On a side note... Linux disordented me becouse I learned Unix on an AT&T 3B2/300. But Linux didn't thow me much.
One gripe people have about Linux is that it is posable to write Linux only code that dose not work on BSD or Solarus.
While true it is equally posable to write BSD or Solarus only code.
It is an effort of the programmer to maintain portability. Failling that it dose not matter what operating system the code was made on.
The above is a troll however touches on one thing.. the correct use of the term Hacker... he is incorrect...
Hacker means [doing something for the enjoyment]... this is the usage that predates computers and has extended well byond the computer field for many years.
Using Hacker for computer expert dates to the 1960s using Hacker for techno vandal dates to the late 1970s.
The confusion started when a cracker was couught in the late 1970s and it made it to the news. The news media reported him being a computer hacker becouse he infact was just that. He and many like him at his time wanted to learn more about how computer security worked. At that time it was belived security by obscurity was GOOD so this information was hard to come by.
Computer hackers being the beasts of cureosity they are elected to discover this secret by cracking the security.
One was cought...
Once the news reported him as being a computer hacker a public unfamilure with the term hacker believed it ment computer vandal.
From then on when the news talked about computer vandals they inncorectly call them hackers.
Thuss the incorrect use today...
This is a troll but it makes to clear mistakes that should be corrected...
MS SQL is not the market leader.. a diffrent commertal product is.. Oracal.
ESR wrote FetchMail not SendMail...
SendMail was made for e-mail servers, fetchmail for workstations. SendMail on a workstation is a problem.
>The Unabomber, for instance, is a college grad.
A professor.. an ex professor...
Takes a lot of education to get that kind of job.
Your right on thow.... It's not the information thrown at us but how we process it.
Anyway we all know Bharnie is the anti-christ not Bill Gates.
Yeah... He is Silicoid now.
Run Taco... run while you can... hide in that geek base station... what? The Krulls allready blew it up?
First Kurt now RobLimo? Whos next?
A lot of people THINK the Borg refers to "Microsoft Drones". I've heard it thrown around that way.
When someone I know on IRC was moving from his job at Microsoft to a job elsewhere someone else on IRC commented about him having his "implant removed". True this ex-Ms-Employee is supportive of Microsoft however he allways has been and allways will be.
(I've allways been anti-Microsoft or at least antiMicrosoft Windows.. sence Windows 2.x and apathetic about Win 1.x. Every new version of Windows I seem to get worse)
What Rob Limmo seems to be refering to is just the varry nature of getting information when the channel is narrow.
I put on my website a whole reply to one line equating access to Microsoft to access to the White House saying basicly a Windows NT mag is every bit as unbies.
I fired off a responce not saying he was more bies but that unbiesed reporters don't get access to the whitehouse and the same sutuation at Microsoft is exactly why an NT mag MUST be bies.
I think I said something like "Well you CAN do it but then you'll be getting your information from Slashdot becouse you sure arn't getting it from Microsoft".
I think reviews of open source software lacks this "Well we need to give a good review or we are screwed" deal I mean who's gona stop you from getting the latest beta? Hmm?
But interviews with people (who are know and not CEOs of tiny companys running out of outhouses) are a problem. The more famous the harder it is to get an interview.
Eeeh... I see the point :)
First no ID won't make a proffit. The cost of the replacment system will eat up any proffits ID makes.
So really there is no money to be made. It's a cost reduction yeah but it isn't enough.
ID would probably make more on goodwill in a donation of this bad boy that they would in capital from a sale.
But... It wouldn't benifit the FSF much at all and it takes up a lot of space.
It may not even be welcomed at the FSF.
What they need is new hardware not fast hardware. ID can write Pentium 5 code using a fast super compuyer FSF must have a real P5 and specs or it won't make much of a diffrence.
At issue. the FSF needs to do stuff like optomise the GCC compiler to run under new processors. The code isn't slow itself and still compiles and runs reasonably under a 386.
ID however is working on next generation graphics technology and needs computers as powerful as the ones we'll be using 2 to 3 years from now.
FSF needs to be able to compile and test P5 optomise code on a real P5.
ID just needs something as fast as so they can test the engen.
Once ID is readly to ship they'll rely on a compuler that has allready been optomised for the latest PCs. ID dosn't need to worry about that layer of technology.
In short the FSF would probably frown on a donation of such a box as it's unlikely anyone using such a box would need free software. But they'd be more than happy to accept a NeXT box as such a box would welcome new free software.
This auction gives ID a bit more publicity than a gift to the FSF would...
That is unless we have a folow up story about how the FSF office has this big old obsolete box waisting space and they can't afford to get rid of it.
And that is why ID should never donate such a system to the FSF... To much potental ill will
This woundn't be that valuable to the FSF. Not for long.
I suspect the FSF might not want something so bulky becouse it would be so hard to get rid of once it's obsolete.
However to a geek, a colector, a tech or a company this sucker is totally worth punking down hard cold cash...
If ID wanted to donate that... it'd help out a lot....
Basicly the FSF won't get the workload out of it to make it worth the space it would end up taking up.
It takes considerably more processing power to compile the original graphics than it takes to render it once everything is compiled.
Someone sat down and worked on all those details to make every player look human. Thats a lot of work. All your PC dose is overlay a skin on a frame. Someone had to make that skin and frame.
Also when develuping the game your working a few years ahead.
Say your working on a game today. Your target computer is a Pentium 5. Obveously such a machine dosn't exist. So you need something equally powerful.
The first versions of the game will not work well. A lot of hacks. A lot of unknowns. Later you go back over the code clean it up and make it work reliably. But when the code is running slow you need to run "at speed".
There are quite a few reasons to use a computer that is far byond the target machine.
In IDs case it was probably an upgrade consern. They didn't want to have to upgrade that machine to often. It was after all used for two versions of Quake and while it can be upgraded they probably need something a tad more powerful than a computer than a top end PC two years from now. This won't cut it.
The first personal/home/kit computer ever (the unit that got stolen at the airport)
The prinout containing the first free software Bill Gates ever used. [ Known at the time as PD Basic ]
The 386 Linus used to compile the first version of Linux.
But getting sereous... Who cares what it was used for... It's still quite a powerful box...
Some upgrades and pollish and it'd kick butt.
I'd put in a bid if I thought I had a chance
I'd offer the first computer I used but... that was shipped back to Commodore back in 1979.
I don't want Slashdots first servers...
I want the last retired Slash server....
harddisk blanked of course....
What? You mean I can't make a Jar Jar with perl?
How am I ever going to make the worlds most annoying perl code if I can't make JarJar.pm?
>My first impression was: my god... more CGI.
.wav of the Season 3 intro....
When you were seeing Reboot for the first time I was saying goodbye to Reboot. I cought Season 1 and 2 but never saw Season 3.
The show would then continue life on The Cartoon Network (I don't have Cable).
So I had a diffrent impression. I didn't expect the advanced CGI you see in movies like Final Fantasy becouse such graphics were not yet posable.
Your looking at say... the Internet was in 1992 when 28.8k baud was fast and looking at your own cable modem and saying "Got you suck".
What they pulled out of Reboot was cutting edge. What you have today is the great grandchildren of Reboot.
I understand what your saying... By the time it showed up on cable there were far better examples of CGI.
But then... don't look at Reboot and compare it with a movie that hasn't been released yet.
You'd be commiting the sin of damming one of the early pre-talkie classics for not having specal effects.
I rember when someone e-mailed me the
"This is megaframe..." - Megabyte
Thats gona be worth getting
BTW.... Movie spinoff of a game? How many game spinoffs have there been allready? How many sucked?
Plotline first.... technical quality second....
Pokemon the movie had a chance only becouse the video game was spun off from the TV show as was the movie. (yeah I know America got the game first... thats a marketting thing... easyer to introduce a TV show when it allready has fans)
As I understand it this thing runs under Microsoft Windows (Win 2K).
Run through Slashdot you'll see half a dosen reasons why Windows isn't a good system for this sort of thing.
On the other hand a quote after Leet Radios Thirty Seconds With Eschelon "That eppisode suck.. perl script have no problem with that".
(LR used Unix systems... Solarus laptops, Linux door stops, etc)
It should be a minnor effort to set up the kind of filter the FBI wants using perl on (insert your favoret Unix fork or clone here).
Anyway... it's easy for a Windows box (famous for it's defects) to "accadentally" record information it shouldn't...
(Notice the quotes)...
It dosn't have to be a REAL defect... Just write a trigger into the code and pretend it's a defect...
Apple produced the Cube....
Mac Junkie posted a story saying they faked the story as a test.
Elsewhere I basicly said the same as above.
Yeah... Apple produced the stupid thing...
Hay I don't like being lied to anymore than you do... I saw the story on Mac Junkie and jumpped on it...
One group would know to say something like this and that this would tick me off.
That same group I really pissed off over a year ago...
Get over it... that was a year ago... I know where I stand and why. I screwed up majorly.
But hold a grudge for a year? Come on guy.. thats pathetic...
Give it up and move on....
No... I won't be back... I know better.
This "Don't run for office" bit is bullshit anyway....
I fucked up... one year ago.... ONCE!!!
Good buy and don't darken my doorstep again...
I'll never darken yours...
Mac Junkie did FAR more than clame it was a fake... Read the story...
Naa you don't care about facts.. you care about pissing me off.
Well guess what... you did...
guess what else... I know who you are... so screw off
Yeah I know...
Read the story I linked and you'll understand my confusion...
I ran for office...
One thing you NEVER do is respond with out checking the facts first...
And you did...
Can't really blame Microsoft this time....
Microsoft is just folowing Netscape...
Admittedly IE is not a very good job of doing that but it's still Microsoft folowing Netscape...
Basicly when something dosn't work right on Windows Microsoft adds features, Ignores standards, and just makes it fit with a sledge hammer.
They don't automaticly go out of the way to break stuff they just worry more about making the product work under Windows and if that means it won't work under anything else.. so what... they should be using Microsofts product anyway.
Example... Java dosn't work well at all. So it works poorly on Windows. So Microsoft changes it.
If Netscape dosn't bother to conform to current standards then Microsoft won't eather.
If Microsoft thinks something is needed. It's in the standard but Netscape hasn't bothered. Then why bother with the standard. Just write something that works REALLY WELL with Microsoft Windows.
Microsoft STARTS with standards but they don't allways FINISH with standards.
If it works decently but could be done better if it were a Window centric solution Microsoft won't bother. It's just to often than it dosn't work decently and Microsoft is left with breaking standards left and right to make Windows do what they want.
But IE works quite well and the standards (byond Java) are pritty good. Microsoft centric solutions won't make much diffrence.
But if it's not in Netscape then as far as Microsoft is conserned it dosn't exist.
Want to compeate with Netscape and IE?
Be there first...
Want to win marketshare?
Be there first...
"We conform to the FULL CURRENT STANDARD"
This is what you get for not develuping the standards browser yourself....
Originally the same people who ran the web wrote the stupid browser.
Then they handed the job off to lynx and Mosaic... Now it's the job of Microsoft and AoL... For standards I'd say those are the the WORST companys to trust.
So if they want to get standards write a free browser. Basic in functionility. Dosn't need bookmarks or plugins just make it a basic browser. And say "Now keep up or DIE"...
It'll give web develupers a REAL target to work with... and browser develupers something REAL to work with.
Here is my take on it...
Some parents are illresonsable and demand childproofing of the globe for themselvs. Set it as a moral mandate.
Otheres folow example not wanting to look immoral. Or worse.
I suspect some people go as far as threaton to call child protective services on parents who don't conform...
(It's an empty threat.. however what frightend parent is going to call a bluff like that?)
Then you have thies little kids who live in ignorence running around accusting everyone.
(My mother once cought a little kid trying to steal from her... the parents only payed attention to the kid when it the kid was cought.. this left an immpresion with my mother that this kid was a trainned theaf...)
>There are those of us who are religious for very good reasons
.Com....
*Rant mode*
Not Christian != Not religious....
Thats where A LOT of antiChristan sentiment comes from... the whole notion that ONLY Christans are religious.
There are quite a few other religions out there AND quite a few "casual" Christians.
*Rant mode off*
It's kinda unfair to lump all Christians into one block...
Christianity has a deep philosophical base and a wide range of folowers...
From them deeply spiritual to the casual...
The problem stems from the Jihad types often called fundies or xitans...
Others often repeate what comes from that camp not thinking twice about how valid it might be.
Such as making Religous = Christan...
Agnostics and Pagans are pritty good about bashing Christans and most are pritty religous...
Lastly... Before the domain registry went commertal... DotCom was for Commertal and private use.... religion is a very personal thing don't you agree? Very
Is Sports default commertal?
.com was also for personal domains...
Is Religion default not commertal?
BTW when the domain reg was still a government agentcy and the TLD were policed (to some extent)
This was someones personal domain... maybe not commertal but not a non-proffit organisation (DotOrg)
Anyway the top level isn't policed anymore...
Anyway... the team needs to prove they own the rights to the domain and that right is greater than the current holder.
In my view they fail both tests...
This is a local team and should have a local domain not DotCom...