It seems just about every week we're hearing more and more censoring and blocking and "You can't do that here" talk from Australia. I always thought this was a free-wheeling, "come and say g'day" kinda place. But it sounds like it's more puritanical than the US, something I didn't think was possible.
Isn't this all a community written thing? Can't someone just take all the source-code and say "It's released"? This is my version of the released Firefox.
Mozilla.org isn't holding any code back are they? I thought everything was out in the open...everything had to be released as it's being worked on and anyone can contribute and re-write anything they want with the source.
So how can they say "When WE make a new release, WE'LL say so"? I mean, who are they to say anything on what happens to this open code?
I'm not trying to be a troll here or start anything, but obviously I'm VERY uninformed about how this all works.
If they had any balls, they wouldn't pay it. They should make a statement saying the no longer recognize the authority of the FCC to be passing judgement on decency and they only recognize that the FCC is there to pass out bandwidth registrations.
Tell them they're not paying the fine. Also tell them they're not giving up their licence and they're going to keep broadcasting also...what are they going to do about it? Send in the FCC cops to arrest thousands of people and affiliates across the country? If ALL the networks had any balls, they would stand up to these idiots and say "you only have power because we say you have power". If they were all to ignore the FCC, what would happen?
Of course, this is only a pipe dream and CBS will cave totally and pay the fine. So that the totally unchecked power of the FCC will continue on.
Do they do that? I'm talking with everything turned on full on EQ2 at those resolutions. It brings my system down to it's knees with a 7800GT. Yeah, I may be one of the few people that actually play this, but it's gotten a LOT better since launch.
Guess there's no set test they could do though to make it all fair. No "demo" script they can run on different configs.
This had nothing to do with WINE. Nowhere did the GM's at Blizzard say anything about running WoW on WINE. This guy was admiting to them that he was using a keyboard that they've stated time and again goes against their policies and basically turns your machine into a WoW playing bot.
I think he was only throwing WINE in there so people would get up in arms about the whole thing....just as the guys here at Slashdot who posted this did...because it was packaged in the "Blizzard hates WINE" banner. What bullshit.
Oh, and his last remark on his page of "P.S.: I'm no kid. I'm 24. Kids dont work for ISPs, usually;)" means nothing. To me, 24 is still a kid.
Um...no. When talking to a reporter you're not protected in any way. It's not like talking to a lawyer or a doctor...or even a clergyman for that matter. Reporters are threatened all the time with contempt-of-court unless they give up their sources. When was the last time a lawyer was threatened with contempt unless he spilled everything his client told him about a crime? It's privileged. That's protected. Talking to some yahoo who thinks he's the next Woodward & Bernstein from the Washington Post isn't privledged.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong about all this. Take my advice when I say: "Don't take my advice".
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this...
on
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?
·
· Score: 1
ah, ok...that would make more sense then. So it was more of a big pot that people threw money into and the winner takes all? Ok, actually that's kinda cool.
Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this...
on
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?
As people have said many many times before, why buy a Porsche and put a Yugo engine in it? Yeah yeah....you use XP at work and blah blah blah and when you get home you might want to run blah blah blah so it would be nice if you could reboot into XP blah blah blah.
Even if by some fluke it actually gets passed as a law, it would be shot down SO fast by the courts that it would make their heads spin. We're talking about a HUGE fight with the multi-billion dollar news industry behind it.
What gets me mad is that congress wastes their time and my money on this flag-waving "look-how-patriotic-I-am" bullshit that wouldn't have a chance in HELL of passing through the courts. Like the idiotic flag burning ban they were talking about some years ago...that went no where of course. They just want to stand up there and say "Look at me! I'm an American! Vote for me next time!".
No, the customers of Starforce should sue them. We the consumers are not the customers. The customers I'm talking about are the game manufacturers like Ubisoft and others.
THEY are the ones that should sue them, as they bought their copy protection scheme to protect their product and it's obviously not even working.
All the Starforce customers should gather together and sue Starforce because they obviously are paying for something that's not working. How many "Silent Hunter III" pirated copies are out there now? How many other games that use Starforce are pirated anyway?
From what I understand, it's one of the easiest copy protection schemes to break. If I'm a company that paid good money to implement Starforce into my product to help curb piracy of my game, I'd be majorly pissed off because:
A. It doesn't stop piracy at all and is easy to break. B. I would be getting a ton of complaints from legit buyers of my game that Starforce has broken their CD or DVD drive capabilities in one way or another.
They should sue them for not delivering a product that works. It's money out the window.
If I write a great scientific article describing facts and manage to get it published on Nature, the publisher is going to copyright it. From that point on, whoever wants to use that work for commercial purposes will have to pay good money, or at least get permission.
I don't see how this can ever work. If you write a scientific article for Nature....let's say it's about dinosaurs being warm blooded and possibly moving in herds and birds being their descendants....then I go and write a fiction novel around those ideas, how can I be sued for that? Why would I need permission?
That's like saying the descendants of Galileo can sue the makers of 2001: A Space Odyssey because they wrote about the moons of Jupiter that Galileo discovered and wrote about. Ok, kind of lame example but it's the only one that I could come up with early in the morning.
My point is, fiction writers use scientific hypothesis all the time and never credit the source...because, well, it's fiction being written. They can even get the idea for a story second hand. Many screenplays and novels germinate from reading the newspaper that may have a story about an article in a scientific journal.
Now, if you wrote a scientific paper on something, then someone else comes along and writes another scientific paper basically saying the same things that you're saying, then I can see where these things can converge.
This leaps to mind when I found out that the Billionth song was a Coldplay song:
David: You know how I know that you're gay? Cal: How? Cuz you're gay? and you can tell who other gay people are. David: You know how I know you're gay? Cal: How? David: You like Coldplay.
The "Average Joe" comments are getting long in the tooth now.
For instance, I remember just a few months ago when the Sony Rootkit fiasco was just becoming known. Here at Slashdot and other sites people were doing the "Nothing will come of this. Sony will do what they want and others will follow them because Average Joe User doesn't care about this and blah blah blah". Well, we all know what happened with THAT don't we? Unholy hell broke loose and EVERYONE...including the "Average Joe's" were up-in-arms about this to the point that Sony had to recall all the infected CD's.
It's about time we stop trying to sell the consumer short. The buying public is becoming more savvy. If this DRM thing that is suppose to be coming out for Vista finally hits, I would expect there to be major backlash.
A couple of unarmed county yahoos in uniforms and baseball caps with "Homeland Security" written on them come into the library and start telling people what to do?
Um...these guys are a hair above a rent-a-cop. And I'm not in no way slamming rent-a-cops. So these Barney Fifes are going to clean up the county and show those pinheads at the police department they made a mistake by not letting them on the force! (That was just my impression of the story).
With 35mm film cameras, the bodies are all just film holders. A box that holds the film. A 3000 dollar Leica body is no better than a 250 Rebel at holding the film. The only factor that may come up is perhaps the accuracy of the shutter. In film cameras, the key factor of image quality always came down the the quality of the lens in front of the film. Many people were suckered into the bells and whistles of higher end camera bodies, then put cheap cheap lenses in front of them and wondered why their photos came out crappy. The highest end 35mm cameras did have much going for them though, as they were built like tanks to take abuse and were weather sealed. But all in all, the camera body was just there to hold the film.
Digital is another matter, you have to take into account the lens AND the quality of the sensor. I've done many many tests before jumping onto the digital bandwagon and I've concluded that DSLRs exceed 35mm slide film in terms of sharpness, grain (noise), and dynamic range. The dynamic range is getting close to negative film now, but not quite. But there is no comparison to slide film....digital blows it away. When doing HDR imaging though, the dynamic range exceeds even negative film. This is where you can take 3 or 5 photos, one with +1 compensation, one with no compensation, then one with -1 compensation (or extend that over 5 images with + and - 2) then use Photoshop to combine them all out in a 32bit HDRI image. No more having to use neutral density filters to get the sky exposure right when trying to get the ground detail. You can have a bright, detailed filled sky with the sun in the image and still retain all the detail in the shadow portions.
The result is un-fricken-believable.
And as far as output, I use a service that outputs to Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper through a photographic process...not inkjet or dye-sub. The color life of which has been tested (in a lab) to around 75 years. Not bad.
Ah, people that presume here on Slashdot....you're presuming that I myself haven't actually tested these things out. You're also presuming that I'm making these things up perhaps?
I used to shoot almost 100% Velvia (and actually, it's more 40 ISO than the listed 50) in both my Canons and my Hassys in landscapes and still lifes (sometimes product shots)...except of course when I was doing model shots because Velvia really makes skin tones appear too "ruddy". I've switched to almost 100% digital now, and since this is what I do for a living, I kind of know what my clients want and expect (notice I didn't say "I'm a pro photographer so I know what I'm talking about"...I would NEVER say that as not only is it pompous, it means nothing. So I hope I don't come across as that). I have much better control over my color and quality. As for bringing "out of sight" details in black and white areas of the image, the same thing can be done since I only shoot in RAW and post process everything through ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). With chromes, I was at the mercy of a good scanner, a scanner operator that knows what he's doing and then having to match the original chrome colors. Expensive in some cases and usually not what I needed anyway.
But that's for me. That's my experience. I'm not saying for YOU that digital may be better. I was going on my experiences with digital...and I'm one that went kicking and screaming into digital photography. But again, I've never ever have been on a shoot in the last 2 years to where I've said to myself or my assistant "I wish we had shot this on film". I've never had a client not approve my work because it was shot on digital as oppose to film.
Sorry, but that's the way it is in my experience. I would never ever try to compare a 4x5 Velvia chrome to a digital image, I'm only talking about 35mm film compared to digital (and I mean high end digital DSLRs) cameras. So to rephrase my line: The current crop of DSLR's surpass 35mm film in every way, for MY work.
Ah, the old "what about the dynamic range" argument. Show me. Show me an example of where the dynamic range of 35mm film is night and day compared to digital.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems just about every week we're hearing more and more censoring and blocking and "You can't do that here" talk from Australia. I always thought this was a free-wheeling, "come and say g'day" kinda place. But it sounds like it's more puritanical than the US, something I didn't think was possible.
What is up with this country?
I'm not a developer as you can all see...and thanks for enlightening me about all this. Very interesting.
Isn't this all a community written thing? Can't someone just take all the source-code and say "It's released"? This is my version of the released Firefox.
Mozilla.org isn't holding any code back are they? I thought everything was out in the open...everything had to be released as it's being worked on and anyone can contribute and re-write anything they want with the source.
So how can they say "When WE make a new release, WE'LL say so"? I mean, who are they to say anything on what happens to this open code?
I'm not trying to be a troll here or start anything, but obviously I'm VERY uninformed about how this all works.
If they had any balls, they wouldn't pay it. They should make a statement saying the no longer recognize the authority of the FCC to be passing judgement on decency and they only recognize that the FCC is there to pass out bandwidth registrations.
Tell them they're not paying the fine. Also tell them they're not giving up their licence and they're going to keep broadcasting also...what are they going to do about it? Send in the FCC cops to arrest thousands of people and affiliates across the country? If ALL the networks had any balls, they would stand up to these idiots and say "you only have power because we say you have power". If they were all to ignore the FCC, what would happen?
Of course, this is only a pipe dream and CBS will cave totally and pay the fine. So that the totally unchecked power of the FCC will continue on.
Do they do that? I'm talking with everything turned on full on EQ2 at those resolutions. It brings my system down to it's knees with a 7800GT. Yeah, I may be one of the few people that actually play this, but it's gotten a LOT better since launch.
Guess there's no set test they could do though to make it all fair. No "demo" script they can run on different configs.
This had nothing to do with WINE. Nowhere did the GM's at Blizzard say anything about running WoW on WINE. This guy was admiting to them that he was using a keyboard that they've stated time and again goes against their policies and basically turns your machine into a WoW playing bot.
;)" means nothing. To me, 24 is still a kid.
I think he was only throwing WINE in there so people would get up in arms about the whole thing....just as the guys here at Slashdot who posted this did...because it was packaged in the "Blizzard hates WINE" banner. What bullshit.
Oh, and his last remark on his page of "P.S.: I'm no kid. I'm 24. Kids dont work for ISPs, usually
Um...no. When talking to a reporter you're not protected in any way. It's not like talking to a lawyer or a doctor...or even a clergyman for that matter. Reporters are threatened all the time with contempt-of-court unless they give up their sources. When was the last time a lawyer was threatened with contempt unless he spilled everything his client told him about a crime? It's privileged. That's protected. Talking to some yahoo who thinks he's the next Woodward & Bernstein from the Washington Post isn't privledged.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong about all this. Take my advice when I say: "Don't take my advice".
ah, ok...that would make more sense then. So it was more of a big pot that people threw money into and the winner takes all? Ok, actually that's kinda cool.
Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?
As people have said many many times before, why buy a Porsche and put a Yugo engine in it? Yeah yeah....you use XP at work and blah blah blah and when you get home you might want to run blah blah blah so it would be nice if you could reboot into XP blah blah blah.
But fricken $12,000?
Even if by some fluke it actually gets passed as a law, it would be shot down SO fast by the courts that it would make their heads spin. We're talking about a HUGE fight with the multi-billion dollar news industry behind it.
What gets me mad is that congress wastes their time and my money on this flag-waving "look-how-patriotic-I-am" bullshit that wouldn't have a chance in HELL of passing through the courts. Like the idiotic flag burning ban they were talking about some years ago...that went no where of course. They just want to stand up there and say "Look at me! I'm an American! Vote for me next time!".
Pathetic.
No, the customers of Starforce should sue them. We the consumers are not the customers. The customers I'm talking about are the game manufacturers like Ubisoft and others.
THEY are the ones that should sue them, as they bought their copy protection scheme to protect their product and it's obviously not even working.
All the Starforce customers should gather together and sue Starforce because they obviously are paying for something that's not working. How many "Silent Hunter III" pirated copies are out there now? How many other games that use Starforce are pirated anyway?
From what I understand, it's one of the easiest copy protection schemes to break. If I'm a company that paid good money to implement Starforce into my product to help curb piracy of my game, I'd be majorly pissed off because:
A. It doesn't stop piracy at all and is easy to break.
B. I would be getting a ton of complaints from legit buyers of my game that Starforce has broken their CD or DVD drive capabilities in one way or another.
They should sue them for not delivering a product that works. It's money out the window.
A few years ago as story like this would have been prefaced not with "IT:" as it is now, but with "Your Rights Online:" and the censorship icon.
Just an observation...
I thought EQ on the Mac was dead. Didn't SOE say they weren't going to be making any more EQ stuff for the Mac?
I guess I could actually stir up enough energy to actually type this query into Google or something....
If I write a great scientific article describing facts and manage to get it published on Nature, the publisher is going to copyright it. From that point on, whoever wants to use that work for commercial purposes will have to pay good money, or at least get permission.
I don't see how this can ever work. If you write a scientific article for Nature....let's say it's about dinosaurs being warm blooded and possibly moving in herds and birds being their descendants....then I go and write a fiction novel around those ideas, how can I be sued for that? Why would I need permission?
That's like saying the descendants of Galileo can sue the makers of 2001: A Space Odyssey because they wrote about the moons of Jupiter that Galileo discovered and wrote about. Ok, kind of lame example but it's the only one that I could come up with early in the morning.
My point is, fiction writers use scientific hypothesis all the time and never credit the source...because, well, it's fiction being written. They can even get the idea for a story second hand. Many screenplays and novels germinate from reading the newspaper that may have a story about an article in a scientific journal.
Now, if you wrote a scientific paper on something, then someone else comes along and writes another scientific paper basically saying the same things that you're saying, then I can see where these things can converge.
The above poster was joking. Brian Froud is on board "The Power of the Dark Crystal" as it's conceptual designer.
The Power of the Dark Crystal at IMDB
Brian Froud at IMDB
This leaps to mind when I found out that the Billionth song was a Coldplay song:
David: You know how I know that you're gay?
Cal: How? Cuz you're gay? and you can tell who other gay people are.
David: You know how I know you're gay?
Cal: How?
David: You like Coldplay.
I went to a story about an OSX security hole and a Risk game broke out!
That's the furthest away from the topic in the shortest amount of time I've ever seen. Bravo!
The "Average Joe" comments are getting long in the tooth now.
For instance, I remember just a few months ago when the Sony Rootkit fiasco was just becoming known. Here at Slashdot and other sites people were doing the "Nothing will come of this. Sony will do what they want and others will follow them because Average Joe User doesn't care about this and blah blah blah". Well, we all know what happened with THAT don't we? Unholy hell broke loose and EVERYONE...including the "Average Joe's" were up-in-arms about this to the point that Sony had to recall all the infected CD's.
It's about time we stop trying to sell the consumer short. The buying public is becoming more savvy. If this DRM thing that is suppose to be coming out for Vista finally hits, I would expect there to be major backlash.
Only time will tell.
A couple of unarmed county yahoos in uniforms and baseball caps with "Homeland Security" written on them come into the library and start telling people what to do?
Um...these guys are a hair above a rent-a-cop. And I'm not in no way slamming rent-a-cops. So these Barney Fifes are going to clean up the county and show those pinheads at the police department they made a mistake by not letting them on the force! (That was just my impression of the story).
But hey, good times right?
With 35mm film cameras, the bodies are all just film holders. A box that holds the film. A 3000 dollar Leica body is no better than a 250 Rebel at holding the film. The only factor that may come up is perhaps the accuracy of the shutter. In film cameras, the key factor of image quality always came down the the quality of the lens in front of the film. Many people were suckered into the bells and whistles of higher end camera bodies, then put cheap cheap lenses in front of them and wondered why their photos came out crappy. The highest end 35mm cameras did have much going for them though, as they were built like tanks to take abuse and were weather sealed. But all in all, the camera body was just there to hold the film.
Digital is another matter, you have to take into account the lens AND the quality of the sensor. I've done many many tests before jumping onto the digital bandwagon and I've concluded that DSLRs exceed 35mm slide film in terms of sharpness, grain (noise), and dynamic range. The dynamic range is getting close to negative film now, but not quite. But there is no comparison to slide film....digital blows it away. When doing HDR imaging though, the dynamic range exceeds even negative film. This is where you can take 3 or 5 photos, one with +1 compensation, one with no compensation, then one with -1 compensation (or extend that over 5 images with + and - 2) then use Photoshop to combine them all out in a 32bit HDRI image. No more having to use neutral density filters to get the sky exposure right when trying to get the ground detail. You can have a bright, detailed filled sky with the sun in the image and still retain all the detail in the shadow portions.
The result is un-fricken-believable.
And as far as output, I use a service that outputs to Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper through a photographic process...not inkjet or dye-sub. The color life of which has been tested (in a lab) to around 75 years. Not bad.
I though Sting was busy saving rain forests and making adult-contemporary music....who knew he was also a pirate stomping crime-fighter!
This is by no means a scientific study, but interesting anyway.
Digital vs. analog shootout
Ah, people that presume here on Slashdot....you're presuming that I myself haven't actually tested these things out. You're also presuming that I'm making these things up perhaps?
I used to shoot almost 100% Velvia (and actually, it's more 40 ISO than the listed 50) in both my Canons and my Hassys in landscapes and still lifes (sometimes product shots)...except of course when I was doing model shots because Velvia really makes skin tones appear too "ruddy". I've switched to almost 100% digital now, and since this is what I do for a living, I kind of know what my clients want and expect (notice I didn't say "I'm a pro photographer so I know what I'm talking about"...I would NEVER say that as not only is it pompous, it means nothing. So I hope I don't come across as that). I have much better control over my color and quality. As for bringing "out of sight" details in black and white areas of the image, the same thing can be done since I only shoot in RAW and post process everything through ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). With chromes, I was at the mercy of a good scanner, a scanner operator that knows what he's doing and then having to match the original chrome colors. Expensive in some cases and usually not what I needed anyway.
But that's for me. That's my experience. I'm not saying for YOU that digital may be better. I was going on my experiences with digital...and I'm one that went kicking and screaming into digital photography. But again, I've never ever have been on a shoot in the last 2 years to where I've said to myself or my assistant "I wish we had shot this on film". I've never had a client not approve my work because it was shot on digital as oppose to film.
Sorry, but that's the way it is in my experience. I would never ever try to compare a 4x5 Velvia chrome to a digital image, I'm only talking about 35mm film compared to digital (and I mean high end digital DSLRs) cameras. So to rephrase my line: The current crop of DSLR's surpass 35mm film in every way, for MY work.
But hey, good times right? Keep shooting!
Ah, the old "what about the dynamic range" argument. Show me. Show me an example of where the dynamic range of 35mm film is night and day compared to digital.