No, but it *would* increase the unit-cost. Most mobile phones now (apart, obviously, from the high-end smartphones such as the Sony Ericsson P800/P900/P910 or the Nokia 9xxx series) are built & sold on the "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" philosophy. Increase unit cost by, say, $5 a piece and they'll lose market share to those that don't do so. I know this because, up until very recently, I worked for a company which provides operating systems for high-end phones, and had some contact with people who actually make decisions about what features go into what phones.
And, let's be honest, who buys a phone to take photographs - it has to make calls & receive calls - everything else is a bonus.
> I've yet to dispose of a cell phone
Me either - in the sense that you mean (i.e. throw it in the garbage). I still have all the cell phones I've ever owned. However, I meant disposable in the way you describe (i.e. give it away, cannibalise it, whatever). So actually you have "disposed" of the phones - YOU no longer using them as phones. I should probably have used less ambiguous language;)
> I hardly have $250-500 per year to spend on the latest phone
Fair comment, but in some locations, the network operators heavily subsidise the cost of the phones themselves, in order to get you to sign a one/two year contract. My current phone (Sony Ericsson K700i - Phone + Camera + MP3 + Radio etc.) for instance, was a freebie. The K700i is a lousy camera (it's VGA resolution, but has a crappy lens and the CCD scanout is woefully slow). The MP3 & radio audio quality doesn't come close to my iRiver H340 - but are handy occasionally. But at least it lets me make phone calls:)
And of course, there are some very large markets (notably those in the Far East) where having the latest phone is an absolute must - and people will be prepared to drop $500/year to have the latest gadget.
The problem with cameraphones is largely the lenses. They suck. For several reasons: 1) They have to be small (it's a phone, it has to be easily pocketable) 2) They have a very hard life compared with a "real" camera. 3) Most people now view mobile phones as disposable items, replacing them every year or so, so there's not a whole lot of point in spending a lot of money on a decent lens.
(Could this ever be the first RELEVANT first post on slashdot?)
Last time I checked, Argentina was in South America. Which means it's irrelevant to most of the population of the US (Bush included). Mind you, it's scary how many inhabitants of the US think that Mexico is in South American.
> people who reads slashdot cant understand the difference bettwen A CONTINENT and a COUNTRY!!!
The Slashdot FAQ states, in so many words that Slashdot is U.S.-centric.. Slashdot readers are generally, I think, smarter than a lot of residents of the US.
> Here in Argentina we have subway, internet, cars, directv
IMNSHO, Byte "died" a long time before 1998. Once upon a time it was *THE* technical magazine to read - for all the reasons you cite, and more. But over the latter part of the 90s it was aimed at guys in suits and not the tecchies that had made it what it once was.
(And whilst I really like Pournelle's SF writing, Chaos Manor always used to leave me wishing he'd co-write it with somebody...)
> The QL used an 68008 processor, which was largely a 68010 that could only shuffle 8 bits into out out of the processor at any one time
Just like the 8088 used in the original IBM PC, which (if I may quote) could only "only shuffle 8 bits into out out of the processor at any one time".
I suspect you'll find the reason that Sinclair chose the 68008 for the QL was largely the same reason Motorola offered it - cost. It's FAR cheaper to design and manufacture boards with 8-bit buses than with 16- or 32- bit ones.
> does a software developer have a legal duty to keep copies of all revisions and attempts he makes with his code, even those that don't work or turn out to be useless?
I sure hope not - apart from anything else, how would you define a "revision"? Every time you edit/compile/link/test cycle you have another revision to archive - even if it's just to fix a stupid typo? Or if you threw in another printf (or whatever) for debugging?
As far as I'm concerned, nobody has a legal duty to keep *any* copies of *any* source - although there are probably good business reasons for being able to find the source to your current release products;)
No, that's entirely my point - that I don't want him to be judged on Eyes Wide Sh*t - far from it. BUT I live in the real world, and sadly a lot of people WILL judge him on EWS - it's very, very wrong, but that's the way it is.
There's an old adage - "When you get something right, nobody remembers. When you get something wrong, nobody forgets.". In this case, somebody else got it wrong, but it's Kubrick's name that's on there.
I consider Kubrick to be one of the greatest film-makers who has ever lived - we're talking about the man that gave us what I consider to be the finest film ever made (2001 : A Space Odyssey). I've seen it a zillion times (I'm saw it in the cinema the week it was released), and there are moments where it still takes my breath away. Not to mention Dr Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, etc. etc.
No, the last thing I want is for him to be judged on EWS - I'd much rather it was forgotten completely and we remember his many triumphs.
Eyes Wide Shut. A truly terrible movie. It's sole redeeming feature was Nicole Kidman taking her clothes off. I expect far better things from anything carrying Kubrick's name, and it's sad to say that this is the last movie that he is credited as having directed.
By contrast, I rather enjoyed A.I. - more surprising since Spielberg never really "did it" for me as a director.
Sadly, that's been pretty much crapped on by the fact that the last movie to bear his name was truly abysmal (and yes, I'm well aware of the fact that wasn't his fault but sadly that will be forgotten)
Unless, of course, YOU are one of THEM. In which case, feel free to confuse yourself. That will give the rest of US time to finalise our plots to remove THEM from the positions of power which they hold.
1) Made Sci-fi movies Mainstream 2) Set ground work for technology to make better sci-fi movies 3) Created the most Kick ass Sci-fi movie of it's time. 4) Independant film maker
You forgot:
5) PROFIT!
(disclaimer: I've loved Lucas' work since THX1138, and think he deserves the award. But this is Slashdot, and the rules clearly state that All Lists Must End With Profit)
Slashdot Mirror
> Marge Helgenberger is WAY hot
:)
I couldn't agree more
> smarmy David Caruso
I couldn't agree more. In defence of the Miami version, though, Emily Proctor is pretty cute
> any server which does not is broken.
Well, if it's broken, maybe you will be better off not using it.
> Would it kill them to put a cover over the lens
;)
:)
No, but it *would* increase the unit-cost. Most mobile phones now (apart, obviously, from the high-end smartphones such as the Sony Ericsson P800/P900/P910 or the Nokia 9xxx series) are built & sold on the "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" philosophy. Increase unit cost by, say, $5 a piece and they'll lose market share to those that don't do so. I know this because, up until very recently, I worked for a company which provides operating systems for high-end phones, and had some contact with people who actually make decisions about what features go into what phones.
And, let's be honest, who buys a phone to take photographs - it has to make calls & receive calls - everything else is a bonus.
> I've yet to dispose of a cell phone
Me either - in the sense that you mean (i.e. throw it in the garbage). I still have all the cell phones I've ever owned. However, I meant disposable in the way you describe (i.e. give it away, cannibalise it, whatever). So actually you have "disposed" of the phones - YOU no longer using them as phones. I should probably have used less ambiguous language
> I hardly have $250-500 per year to spend on the latest phone
Fair comment, but in some locations, the network operators heavily subsidise the cost of the phones themselves, in order to get you to sign a one/two year contract. My current phone (Sony Ericsson K700i - Phone + Camera + MP3 + Radio etc.) for instance, was a freebie. The K700i is a lousy camera (it's VGA resolution, but has a crappy lens and the CCD scanout is woefully slow). The MP3 & radio audio quality doesn't come close to my iRiver H340 - but are handy occasionally. But at least it lets me make phone calls
And of course, there are some very large markets (notably those in the Far East) where having the latest phone is an absolute must - and people will be prepared to drop $500/year to have the latest gadget.
The problem with cameraphones is largely the lenses. They suck.
For several reasons:
1) They have to be small (it's a phone, it has to be easily pocketable)
2) They have a very hard life compared with a "real" camera.
3) Most people now view mobile phones as disposable items, replacing them every year or so, so there's not a whole lot of point in spending a lot of money on a decent lens.
(Could this ever be the first RELEVANT first post on slashdot?)
> Election returns.
:)
And, of course, Election reruns
> applied the technology for those black boxes they install in airplanes
;)
I don't see any mention in the article of painting everything bright orange (it's the bright orange paint that makes black boxes indestructible
> It could be used for things like storefront windows
;)
Except you can melt Plexiglass with easily portable equipment. It deforms at about 100C (212 F), and combusts at 460C (860F).
Most sharks don't carry blowtorches
> I assume Bush thinks those guys are expendable in search of an election win
No, I think Bush thinks those guys are expendable PERIOD.
> America, if you dont know, its a continent.
Actually, it's TWO continents. They're called:
> There is South America, NORTH AMERICA
Two continents, not one.
> Argentina its in America Continent
Last time I checked, Argentina was in South America. Which means it's irrelevant to most of the population of the US (Bush included). Mind you, it's scary how many inhabitants of the US think that Mexico is in South American.
> people who reads slashdot cant understand the difference bettwen A CONTINENT and a COUNTRY!!!
The Slashdot FAQ states, in so many words that Slashdot is U.S.-centric.. Slashdot readers are generally, I think, smarter than a lot of residents of the US.
> Here in Argentina we have subway, internet, cars, directv
But you don't have the Falklands, do you?
> everybody seem to try to have it substitute his OS
;)
I like FireFox, but it ain't never gonna replace XEmacs as my OS of choice
> XUL+JavaScript doesn't support that very well.
Are you sure? I saw this posted a while ago, and it seems to work pretty well to me. (I have no connection with the developers of this application)
In theory, yes, it's technically possible.
IMNSHO, Byte "died" a long time before 1998. Once upon a time it was *THE* technical magazine to read - for all the reasons you cite, and more. But over the latter part of the 90s it was aimed at guys in suits and not the tecchies that had made it what it once was.
(And whilst I really like Pournelle's SF writing, Chaos Manor always used to leave me wishing he'd co-write it with somebody...)
> The QL used an 68008 processor, which was largely a 68010 that could only shuffle 8 bits into out out of the processor at any one time
Just like the 8088 used in the original IBM PC, which (if I may quote) could only "only shuffle 8 bits into out out of the processor at any one time".
I suspect you'll find the reason that Sinclair chose the 68008 for the QL was largely the same reason Motorola offered it - cost. It's FAR cheaper to design and manufacture boards with 8-bit buses than with 16- or 32- bit ones.
> does a software developer have a legal duty to keep copies of all revisions and attempts he makes with his code, even those that don't work or turn out to be useless?
;)
I sure hope not - apart from anything else, how would you define a "revision"? Every time you edit/compile/link/test cycle you have another revision to archive - even if it's just to fix a stupid typo? Or if you threw in another printf (or whatever) for debugging?
As far as I'm concerned, nobody has a legal duty to keep *any* copies of *any* source - although there are probably good business reasons for being able to find the source to your current release products
If you have nothing to fear, then you have nothing to hide...
No, that's entirely my point - that I don't want him to be judged on Eyes Wide Sh*t - far from it. BUT I live in the real world, and sadly a lot of people WILL judge him on EWS - it's very, very wrong, but that's the way it is.
There's an old adage - "When you get something right, nobody remembers. When you get something wrong, nobody forgets.". In this case, somebody else got it wrong, but it's Kubrick's name that's on there.
I consider Kubrick to be one of the greatest film-makers who has ever lived - we're talking about the man that gave us what I consider to be the finest film ever made (2001 : A Space Odyssey). I've seen it a zillion times (I'm saw it in the cinema the week it was released), and there are moments where it still takes my breath away. Not to mention Dr Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Clockwork Orange, The Shining, etc. etc.
No, the last thing I want is for him to be judged on EWS - I'd much rather it was forgotten completely and we remember his many triumphs.
Eyes Wide Shut. A truly terrible movie. It's sole redeeming feature was Nicole Kidman taking her clothes off. I expect far better things from anything carrying Kubrick's name, and it's sad to say that this is the last movie that he is credited as having directed.
By contrast, I rather enjoyed A.I. - more surprising since Spielberg never really "did it" for me as a director.
No, it's me. YOU are YOU. I don't know if YOU are one of THEM, but YOU is definatly YOU.
Or not. Depending on YOUR point of view. Or something...
> Stanley Kubrick should be on that list
Sadly, that's been pretty much crapped on by the fact that the last movie to bear his name was truly abysmal (and yes, I'm well aware of the fact that wasn't his fault but sadly that will be forgotten)
> he fucked with the trilogy
In his defence, he did actually make the trilogy in the first place.
> Don't ever confuse THEM with YOU
Unless, of course, YOU are one of THEM. In which case, feel free to confuse yourself. That will give the rest of US time to finalise our plots to remove THEM from the positions of power which they hold.
1) Made Sci-fi movies Mainstream
2) Set ground work for technology to make better sci-fi movies
3) Created the most Kick ass Sci-fi movie of it's time.
4) Independant film maker
You forgot:
5) PROFIT!
(disclaimer: I've loved Lucas' work since THX1138, and think he deserves the award. But this is Slashdot, and the rules clearly state that All Lists Must End With Profit)
Sadly, this only holds true if they're succesful Kamikazes...
Does that mean Half Life is no longer the "best game ever made" then?
And presumably they'll make the same comment on HL3...
talking of which, is HL2 a whole life, and will HL3 be a "life and a half"? Or is that just how long it'll take for them to be released....