I figure this is a test. They want to see if people will copy it.
I would be willing to bet they've got something in there which they can look for to prove that any given copy of the film came from the download site. So then they can point to it and say "see - people do copy things and pass them round once they've downloaded them from the net". And it will make a great lobbying tool for them to use to get all the anti-piracy legislation through that they want.
Hmmm... sorry... maybe I'm just feeling a bit pessemistic today.
The point is that if a patch is open source, and if only 1% of the 10,000 people who install it bother to read through, then that's still 100 pairs of eyeballs that will spot any funny business. So, crucially, the other 99% (and yes, I admit to falling into the 9,900 here more often than not) also benefit from the code's openness.
Unfortunately, the more popular Linux gets, the smaller percentage will look the source - your 1% will become 0.1%, then 0.01%....
Okay, so that's still a lot of eyeballs, but as popularity goes up, the amount of code and the number of variations available will likely go up proportionately, meaning fewer eyeballs per bug.
Also, as it becomes more popular, the number of people who don't bother to install patches will increase from 1% to 10% to...
So the more popular the software, the more holes there are likely to be on people's machines.
I love to see open source advance, but we need to be as honest as possible in selecting statistics to present.
It's hard to be honest with statistics when everyone around you is being dishonest with them. As soon as you put a percent sign or something next to your figures, people seem to believe it without question.
Anytime there's a survey with a figure that even marginally supports Microsoft, it will be played up as much as possible by them, which makes it difficult to compete if you stick to honest stats.
Along the same lines, take a look at the megahertz ratings on PCs and see how the public treat them - the figures are almost completely meaningless, but people still use them as one of the major determining factors in which PC to buy. So what has AMD done? They've tried to rig their side of the equation.
All is fair in love and war... and the computer business definitely counts as a war these days.
Let me get this straight... this space elevator initiative is a purely commercial effort. They may be planning to spend billions, but the desired end result will be that they get a near-complete monopoly on space launches(*)....And you're suggesting donating time to help them? Hmmmmm....... I think anyone with a budget in eight figures can afford to pay their programmers.
(*) The word "launch" is probably wrong here, but I couldn't think of an alternative.
free? huh ? the UK doesnt have free channels. you have to pay the TV tax every year.
Technically that only covers the BBC channels; the remaining three terrestrial channels are free.
But you're right, I do have to pay the licence fee. I'm not complaining about that, though - it's less than I was paying for my ITV Digital subs, which makes it pretty good value considering that I only found two channels on ITV digital that were worth watching. (I could have paid three times as much for it and got the sport or movie channels, but again - is it worth it?).
Considering that the BBC currently makes up most of my TV viewing, I'm not too upset to pay for it.
And then there's the fact that a program on the beeb takes half as long to watch as on another channel because I don't have to sit through commercials, which means I have more time to do things like post inane comments on slashdot...
Actually, 'sabre-toothed tiger' is a bit of a misnomer.... not closely related to tigers at all.
Myself, I have to say I like the name smilodon better - it just brings a Cheshire Cat image to mind... I love it!
But I don't think there's anything wrong with 'Sabre Tooth Tigre'. It may be inaccurate, but the same thing hasn't stopped us from naming all sorts of other things in the same way - just how closely related to the originals are "sea cucumber", or "whale shark" or any number of other 'misnomers' in common use.
I'm lucky, because the company I was subscribing to for my pay TV went bust. (ITV Digital, for you UK people who'd know)
The reason I'm lucky is that not having it made me realise just what a waste of money it had been. There was only one channel that I watched regularly (or maybe two), and everything worth watching on it is shown six months later on a free channel anyway.
So now I'm back to just the free channels... and I couldn't be happier.
Having tried few text-to-speech packages over the years, I am not convinced that they would be much use to you - they mispronounce so many words that they are next to useless even for me, and would surely be counter-productive in your situation.
My advice is less high-tech. I would buy some audio novels - the tapes or CDs you can buy which are a reading of a book - and buy the book as well. Then you can follow the story as it's read to you. Just make sure that the recording is not an abridged version of the book.
Audio novels are an excellent way to enjoy a book, and I'm sure they would be very helpful to you too.
London really wasn't designed with traffic in mind.... in fact, I'm not sure that London was designed at all. Here's a story for you: In the 1660's, after the Great Fire of London, the authorities tried to use the ensuing chaos as a way to rebuild London with wider streets. But landowners refused to let them do it - no-one was prepared to give an inch of their property, (despite the fact that the fire was only possible because the buildings were too close together), and the result is that we're left with a road system that was inadequate five hundred years ago, let alone with today traffic. You really don't know what traffic chaos is until you've seen London on a bad day. (Boston is a country field by comparison)
I accept that some people need to use cars, and I also accept that the public transport system is awful in some places, but the bottom line is that something has to be done, because the whole system is grinding to a halt.
I don't have any problem with this charge, and frankly, if they don't use cameras, there really isn't any other viable way to do it - can you imagine everyone in London stopping at a toll booth??
There are some major problems with the scheme, but I don't think the method do doing it is one of them.
Regression testing has been going on at my office since I joined, and for many years previously. Under our Unix-based app, we use a terminal-emulator which supports scripting to send sequences of characters to the app to simulate normal use. Very easy, and very efficient.
We're currently in the process of trying out various Windows-based regression testing packages, to test our brand-new Windows-based app (which, sadly is due to replace the Unix app), but it's proving to be a much harder thing to do under Windows than under character-based terminals, because of the mouse-driven and event-driven nature of the environment.
We are starting to get to grips with the problem, but it has been a much bigger task than we expected. If a minor detail (eg size of an input field) changes in the Unix app, no changes are needed to the test-suite; under Windows, you have to keep a much tighter control on it.
The vacation/tourism industry probably has more "portal" sites than any other - there are masses of sites out there that do what you're asking (though with varying degrees of success). Some are local to specific cities, some are regional, national or even international. Some specialise in large hotel chains, others in bed and breakfasts, and so on.
Finding them of course is the job of Google and the rest, but there certainly isn't a shortage.
But in all honesty, I've found that if you're looking for accomodation, a human recommendation is better than any website - call your local tourist information center and ask what there is in your price range near you... it'll be far quicker than scouring the internet for hours to find it, and far friendlier too. (see - the internet may be useful, but it's not the best answer to everything).
All transactions (of any sort, and since time began) are based on trust - "I trust that what you're giving me is worth what I'm giving you in exchange"; "I trust that the money you're paying with isn't forged"; "I trust that you won't write down my card number and buy stuff with it yourself."
Unfortunately, over the internet it becomes much harder to know who to trust, and much easier for crooked individuals to make themselves appear trustworthy.
In addition, current credit cards have only one (very weak) barrier against unauthorised use - the signature - and this is bypassed in online trading. In short, once someone has your name and card number, they can buy anything online, especially if the things they're buying don't need to be delivered (some stores will check the delivery address, but not everyone does this).
The bottom line is that as long as you trust the person or company you're dealing with, no problem. But are you sure they really are trustworthy? As I said already, this applies in all arenas of trade, but the lack of personal contact makes it much harder to judge.
I haven't tried Lindows yet, and to be honest, I'm not likely to - it's not aimed at me (nor, I think, at the majority of Slashdot readers). The people it is aimed at are current Windows users who want an option they can switch to with as little hassle as possible, and the ability to continue to run their existing software. And from what I've heard, it does that admirably.
I have a friend who slots very nicely into that category, and he has just installed Lindows on his PC. He loves it. He loves that it took less effort to install even than Windows did. He loves that it still runs the apps he's used to. He loves that it isn't Windows.
And that's the point: This is not aimed at the Linux crowd; it's aimed at the reluctant Windows crowd, with the aim of turning them into the Linux crowd: once they've found their feet with Lindows, they can start trying out genuine Linux software, and hopefully from there they can get into Linux properly.
Don't begrudge it for what it is - some people (even some pretty smart people) need a little hand-holding when it comes to Linux, and Lindows is doing a good job.
Re:It's very simple, really.
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
[quote]There was no Spider-Man: Episode I.[/quote]
No... but there probably will be.:-/
Star Wars creamed the spin-offs from day one.
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This article makes it sound like the recent Star Wars episodes have sold-out. This isn't true: Lucas and Star Wars defined spin-off marketing from day one. Prior to Star Wars, spin-off marketing of movies was practically unheard of, and certainly never made more money than the film itself even when it did appear. But when Star Wars burst onto the scene, it brought an army of plastic minatures into the world that became a marketing phenomenon. Today, original Star Wars figures are often worth a small fortune to collectors. In their day they made a big fortune for George Lucas. So don't tell me he's selling out now. It may be even bigger and brasher this time round, but he was the one who invented the idea in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
When speaking to Europeans the phrase is you do the maths.
Or to quote a book I read once:
"A math ith a Roman Catholic thervith"
I figure this is a test. They want to see if people will copy it.
I would be willing to bet they've got something in there which they can look for to prove that any given copy of the film came from the download site. So then they can point to it and say "see - people do copy things and pass them round once they've downloaded them from the net". And it will make a great lobbying tool for them to use to get all the anti-piracy legislation through that they want.
Hmmm... sorry... maybe I'm just feeling a bit pessemistic today.
The point is that if a patch is open source, and if only 1% of the 10,000 people who install it bother to read through, then that's still 100 pairs of eyeballs that will spot any funny business. So, crucially, the other 99% (and yes, I admit to falling into the 9,900 here more often than not) also benefit from the code's openness.
Unfortunately, the more popular Linux gets, the smaller percentage will look the source - your 1% will become 0.1%, then 0.01%....
Okay, so that's still a lot of eyeballs, but as popularity goes up, the amount of code and the number of variations available will likely go up proportionately, meaning fewer eyeballs per bug.
Also, as it becomes more popular, the number of people who don't bother to install patches will increase from 1% to 10% to...
So the more popular the software, the more holes there are likely to be on people's machines.
What we're missing here is atmosphere
<cutting_response>What we're missing here is the point.</cutting_response>
I love to see open source advance, but we need to be as honest as possible in selecting statistics to present.
It's hard to be honest with statistics when everyone around you is being dishonest with them. As soon as you put a percent sign or something next to your figures, people seem to believe it without question.
Anytime there's a survey with a figure that even marginally supports Microsoft, it will be played up as much as possible by them, which makes it difficult to compete if you stick to honest stats.
Along the same lines, take a look at the megahertz ratings on PCs and see how the public treat them - the figures are almost completely meaningless, but people still use them as one of the major determining factors in which PC to buy. So what has AMD done? They've tried to rig their side of the equation.
All is fair in love and war... and the computer business definitely counts as a war these days.
Let me get this straight... this space elevator initiative is a purely commercial effort. They may be planning to spend billions, but the desired end result will be that they get a near-complete monopoly on space launches(*). ...And you're suggesting donating time to help them?
Hmmmmm....... I think anyone with a budget in eight figures can afford to pay their programmers.
(*) The word "launch" is probably wrong here, but I couldn't think of an alternative.
free? huh ? the UK doesnt have free channels. you have to pay the TV tax every year.
Technically that only covers the BBC channels; the remaining three terrestrial channels are free.
But you're right, I do have to pay the licence fee. I'm not complaining about that, though - it's less than I was paying for my ITV Digital subs, which makes it pretty good value considering that I only found two channels on ITV digital that were worth watching. (I could have paid three times as much for it and got the sport or movie channels, but again - is it worth it?).
Considering that the BBC currently makes up most of my TV viewing, I'm not too upset to pay for it.
And then there's the fact that a program on the beeb takes half as long to watch as on another channel because I don't have to sit through commercials, which means I have more time to do things like post inane comments on slashdot...
Turbolinux Sells Linux Business
So does that mean they only sell turbos now?
Why not bring back a species that was extinct due to the actions of mankind
We are. Follow this link to see info on the Quagga Project, in Cape Town.
Quaggas were a sub-species of zebra which lived only in the tip of the cape region and were wiped out by hunting.
The Quagga project is an attempt to bring them back by selectively breeding from normal zebras that have quagga-like traits.
Actually, 'sabre-toothed tiger' is a bit of a misnomer.... not closely related to tigers at all.
Myself, I have to say I like the name smilodon better - it just brings a Cheshire Cat image to mind... I love it!
But I don't think there's anything wrong with 'Sabre Tooth Tigre'. It may be inaccurate, but the same thing hasn't stopped us from naming all sorts of other things in the same way - just how closely related to the originals are "sea cucumber", or "whale shark" or any number of other 'misnomers' in common use.
I'm lucky, because the company I was subscribing to for my pay TV went bust. (ITV Digital, for you UK people who'd know)
The reason I'm lucky is that not having it made me realise just what a waste of money it had been. There was only one channel that I watched regularly (or maybe two), and everything worth watching on it is shown six months later on a free channel anyway.
So now I'm back to just the free channels... and I couldn't be happier.
Having tried few text-to-speech packages over the years, I am not convinced that they would be much use to you - they mispronounce so many words that they are next to useless even for me, and would surely be counter-productive in your situation.
My advice is less high-tech. I would buy some audio novels - the tapes or CDs you can buy which are a reading of a book - and buy the book as well. Then you can follow the story as it's read to you. Just make sure that the recording is not an abridged version of the book.
Audio novels are an excellent way to enjoy a book, and I'm sure they would be very helpful to you too.
It always amused me that one of the most common GM crops (at least here in the UK) is rapeseed. Seems to be a certain amount of irony in that name.
How about a screen/camera combination.... uh-oh.... didn't George Orwell predict those?
London really wasn't designed with traffic in mind.... in fact, I'm not sure that London was designed at all. Here's a story for you: In the 1660's, after the Great Fire of London, the authorities tried to use the ensuing chaos as a way to rebuild London with wider streets. But landowners refused to let them do it - no-one was prepared to give an inch of their property, (despite the fact that the fire was only possible because the buildings were too close together), and the result is that we're left with a road system that was inadequate five hundred years ago, let alone with today traffic. You really don't know what traffic chaos is until you've seen London on a bad day. (Boston is a country field by comparison)
I accept that some people need to use cars, and I also accept that the public transport system is awful in some places, but the bottom line is that something has to be done, because the whole system is grinding to a halt.
I don't have any problem with this charge, and frankly, if they don't use cameras, there really isn't any other viable way to do it - can you imagine everyone in London stopping at a toll booth??
There are some major problems with the scheme, but I don't think the method do doing it is one of them.
Regression testing has been going on at my office since I joined, and for many years previously.
Under our Unix-based app, we use a terminal-emulator which supports scripting to send sequences of characters to the app to simulate normal use. Very easy, and very efficient.
We're currently in the process of trying out various Windows-based regression testing packages, to test our brand-new Windows-based app (which, sadly is due to replace the Unix app), but it's proving to be a much harder thing to do under Windows than under character-based terminals, because of the mouse-driven and event-driven nature of the environment.
We are starting to get to grips with the problem, but it has been a much bigger task than we expected. If a minor detail (eg size of an input field) changes in the Unix app, no changes are needed to the test-suite; under Windows, you have to keep a much tighter control on it.
The vacation/tourism industry probably has more "portal" sites than any other - there are masses of sites out there that do what you're asking (though with varying degrees of success). Some are local to specific cities, some are regional, national or even international. Some specialise in large hotel chains, others in bed and breakfasts, and so on.
Finding them of course is the job of Google and the rest, but there certainly isn't a shortage.
But in all honesty, I've found that if you're looking for accomodation, a human recommendation is better than any website - call your local tourist information center and ask what there is in your price range near you... it'll be far quicker than scouring the internet for hours to find it, and far friendlier too. (see - the internet may be useful, but it's not the best answer to everything).
Thanks for the stinging reply. :-/
The problem with online trading is simple:
All transactions (of any sort, and since time began) are based on trust - "I trust that what you're giving me is worth what I'm giving you in exchange"; "I trust that the money you're paying with isn't forged"; "I trust that you won't write down my card number and buy stuff with it yourself."
Unfortunately, over the internet it becomes much harder to know who to trust, and much easier for crooked individuals to make themselves appear trustworthy.
In addition, current credit cards have only one (very weak) barrier against unauthorised use - the signature - and this is bypassed in online trading. In short, once someone has your name and card number, they can buy anything online, especially if the things they're buying don't need to be delivered (some stores will check the delivery address, but not everyone does this).
The bottom line is that as long as you trust the person or company you're dealing with, no problem. But are you sure they really are trustworthy? As I said already, this applies in all arenas of trade, but the lack of personal contact makes it much harder to judge.
Isn't Gary Gilmore a serial killer?
And there was me thinking he was the guy who wrote Dungeons & Dragons....
Number one rule if you want to avoid fraud: Don't buy online. Simple as that.
I haven't tried Lindows yet, and to be honest, I'm not likely to - it's not aimed at me (nor, I think, at the majority of Slashdot readers). The people it is aimed at are current Windows users who want an option they can switch to with as little hassle as possible, and the ability to continue to run their existing software. And from what I've heard, it does that admirably.
I have a friend who slots very nicely into that category, and he has just installed Lindows on his PC. He loves it. He loves that it took less effort to install even than Windows did. He loves that it still runs the apps he's used to. He loves that it isn't Windows.
And that's the point: This is not aimed at the Linux crowd; it's aimed at the reluctant Windows crowd, with the aim of turning them into the Linux crowd: once they've found their feet with Lindows, they can start trying out genuine Linux software, and hopefully from there they can get into Linux properly.
Don't begrudge it for what it is - some people (even some pretty smart people) need a little hand-holding when it comes to Linux, and Lindows is doing a good job.
[quote]There was no Spider-Man: Episode I.[/quote]
:-/
No... but there probably will be.
This article makes it sound like the recent Star Wars episodes have sold-out. This isn't true: Lucas and Star Wars defined spin-off marketing from day one. Prior to Star Wars, spin-off marketing of movies was practically unheard of, and certainly never made more money than the film itself even when it did appear. But when Star Wars burst onto the scene, it brought an army of plastic minatures into the world that became a marketing phenomenon.
Today, original Star Wars figures are often worth a small fortune to collectors. In their day they made a big fortune for George Lucas. So don't tell me he's selling out now. It may be even bigger and brasher this time round, but he was the one who invented the idea in the first place.
The next thing Microsoft will tell me is that the sky is blue.
Naaah.... that's just a reflection from you Windows Desktop background.
[quote]there where stories about the FBI file on einstein on here a week or so back[/quote]
I think I would also have been inclined to keep an eye on the guy who invented the atom bomb...