As long as they keep promising flying cars, I'll keep buying Wired's vision of the future.
Re:I don't think I like the tone of this post....
on
Lucas's New HQ
·
· Score: 1
Well, guess what? Lucas has actually said "It's not about the money" in an interview.
Why? Because he crassly commercializes his films, but resented the accusation that he's only in it for the money. The thing is... he cashes in every single chance he gets.
It's not just about making art or making entertaining movies for him, it's about doing that, and then cashing in on it to maximum effect. Which is not a problem at all, except it can and does detract from the merit of the films and ultimately undermines the very value of the property he relentlessly markets... so naturally, he goes and denies it, as if it's something to be ashamed of.
He's kindof a legend in Hollywood for basically inventing the modern model for film merchandising. Before Star Wars, there was some of that, but Lucas took it to a whole new level. Now, lunchboxes, action figures, fast food promotions, clothing, costumes, etc. are all more or less a standard part of any film production.
It's not enough to amaze you in the cinema, to really make an impression they have to blitz the entire culture and plaster every surface of it with the film's logo.
As John Candy said in Spaceballs: "We're not doin' it for the money! We're doing it for a shitload of money!"
This is a great idea in principle, but it would destabilize much of the economy (especially the latter two suggestions), thanks to the Microsoft monoculture. Of course a destabilization that results in MS going away is a good idea, but I don't think the EU wanted to do that.
To that, I say: "Oh well." The idea that our economy is so directly tied to the fate of MSFT is very disturbing, isn't it? Far better for us to force ourselves to wean from it early than to deal with a collapse when it comes on its own terms? Or worse, continue to live under an economy dominated and dicated by the whims of MSFT!
It's because XP-N was the wrong "punishment" to inflict on MSFT.
People like getting free stuff bundled with things that they buy. At worst, don't use WMP and download something else.
When you force the removal of the free media player as a court decision, it's the consumers who feel punished. Now they have to go out of their way to get a media player.
What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business.
Perhaps the Russians, having lost all of their native brides due to their effective mail order industry, have decided to investigate the rumors of leather goddesses.
If it's as customizable as Firefox is (Extensions) I'd consider it, but I doubt I'd move as I'm already comfortable with Firefox and it doesn't seem broken to me.
I don't think that the high end luxury car is a valid comparison. Opera is not priced like an out-of-reach luxury item. It does not have the status of the Rolls Royce or Ferrari brand. It's just a piece of commercial software. It's a good browser, but it's not worlds apart from the free/Free OSS browsers. I have tried Opera, though not recently, and did not care for the ad-supported free version and could not justify paying for it when Mozilla did everything I wanted for free. Rendering/loading speed isn't all that much of a selling point.
That may be, but I still don't know anyone personally who uses Opera, and maybe only a handful who've even heard of it. IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, sure. But not Safari (unless they're Mac people), Konqueror, Opera. I bet more people use Lynx than Opera. It might be a really nice browser, but it's irrelevant since there are presently many great FREE browsers.
Bias is not the same thing as obscenity. Crapflooding is almost non-existent on/. You don't see people posting advertisements, ASCII pr0n, or other off-topic stuff as long as you filter above a certain threshhold.
just imagine a/.er who is for MPAA/RIAA, loves MS and knows poop about open-source. See how 'useful'/. is for him.
It's difficult to imagine such a person, as that's a composite of a lot of difficult-to-hold-in-the-light-of-truth-and-facts positions, but there ARE some pro-MS posters here. There are people who argue against IP piracy. These do get modded up. There are plenty of newbs who don't know jack about OSS. They don't tend to get modded up, but then why would an ignorant poster get modded up?
Overall, the tone of the commentary here seems to be biased toward a certain type of outlook, but bias is not the same thing as obscenity. It's perfectly fine for a newspaper to publish biased editorial content in reaction to the news and current events that it covers. Ideally, there's equal opportunity allotted for readers to chime in with their own biased opinions. But if a majority hold a particular view, there's nothing wrong with them expressing that viewpoint. It's only a problem when dissent is quashed and debates are intellectually dishonest or nonexistent.
I see nothing stopping an against-the-grain/.er from posting here, and even from being moderated upwardly. They're not going to see much of what they agree with posted here, but if they argue intelligently and are articulate, they can get modded up. They'll probably get disagreed with a whole lot, but if the comment is genuinely good, they'll probably not suffer too much. A few flames, maybe, but if you stick to the facts and argue fairly, you tend to get treated pretty well here, in spite of all the supposed freaks and zealots.
It's funny, because/. itself went through much the same thing. But by careful filtering and moderation, it's been kept reasonably useful. You still have all kinds of morons posting here, but you don't ever have to see them if you don't want to. And we don't even have editors, really.
Durable, lightweight plastic casings thick enough that the magnetic dust won't be attracted to whatever metal is underneath? Seems like an easy enough solution.
This is yet another business model rendered obsolete by improving technology.
When technology gets good enough and cheap enough that an amateur can do as well as a professional, guess what? You don't need professionals anymore. A bunch of them are going to have to find other work now. Not everyone is going to go out of business, and there will always be some work where a professionally trained expert is crucial, but not everyone who has professional training is going to be guaranteed a job until such time as they decide to retire. Tough shit to those who can't find work. Retrain yourself and figure something else out to do.
Wedding photography... WTF? It's my face, don't I own the copyright to my own image? This has always been bullshit. I should be able to commission the photography as a "work for hire" and retain all copyright to the images. The photographer can be paid for his time and sent on a walk as soon as I have the negatives. Any other business arrangement is bullshit.
It's true. Total Cost of 0wnz0rship is much less with MS Windows. Ask any black hat and they'll tell you, the tools and training necessary to take over a box running Windows is much less than a box running BSD or Linux.
Ten or so years ago, when PCs cost five or even 10 times what they do now, it was common for analysts to say that they would never become a staple in homes until they were priced the way consumer electronics were, usually defined as costing less than $300. In the days when PCs were $2,000 and even more, that target seemed to be something of a fantasy.
I dunno about this, it seems to me that PCs have been a household staple for a while now. Even when they still cost $1000, they were common enough that it would be a surprise for a household not to have a PC in it. If you also consider the number of homes which have an obsolete PC (older than 5 years old or so) which are pretty much given away at rummage sales and such, the PC is just about ubiquitous.
Hey, I just noticed something... The Wall Street Journal was (I thought) one of the few successful pay-for-access websites on the internet. What's with these free articles? Is this a new thing for them? If so, t's kindof cool.
Quark is as good as dead, and has been since InDesign 2.0 came out. Their customer service has always been terrible, they're more concerned about being hyper-vigilant about anyone violating their licensing than they are helping out paying customers. They were way too slow to release an OS X native version. The product itself has always been pretty solid and powerful, but they're still too tied to print output and haven't come along with the rest of the world on this whole internet medium thing.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as they keep promising flying cars, I'll keep buying Wired's vision of the future.
Well, guess what? Lucas has actually said "It's not about the money" in an interview.
Why? Because he crassly commercializes his films, but resented the accusation that he's only in it for the money. The thing is... he cashes in every single chance he gets.
It's not just about making art or making entertaining movies for him, it's about doing that, and then cashing in on it to maximum effect. Which is not a problem at all, except it can and does detract from the merit of the films and ultimately undermines the very value of the property he relentlessly markets... so naturally, he goes and denies it, as if it's something to be ashamed of.
He's kindof a legend in Hollywood for basically inventing the modern model for film merchandising. Before Star Wars, there was some of that, but Lucas took it to a whole new level. Now, lunchboxes, action figures, fast food promotions, clothing, costumes, etc. are all more or less a standard part of any film production.
It's not enough to amaze you in the cinema, to really make an impression they have to blitz the entire culture and plaster every surface of it with the film's logo.
As John Candy said in Spaceballs: "We're not doin' it for the money! We're doing it for a shitload of money!"
When it is officially released, they're going to call it Windows Me 2... which will of course be pronounced "Windows, Me too!"
This is a great idea in principle, but it would destabilize much of the economy (especially the latter two suggestions), thanks to the Microsoft monoculture. Of course a destabilization that results in MS going away is a good idea, but I don't think the EU wanted to do that.
To that, I say: "Oh well." The idea that our economy is so directly tied to the fate of MSFT is very disturbing, isn't it? Far better for us to force ourselves to wean from it early than to deal with a collapse when it comes on its own terms? Or worse, continue to live under an economy dominated and dicated by the whims of MSFT!
It's because XP-N was the wrong "punishment" to inflict on MSFT.
People like getting free stuff bundled with things that they buy. At worst, don't use WMP and download something else.
When you force the removal of the free media player as a court decision, it's the consumers who feel punished. Now they have to go out of their way to get a media player.
What would have been a better punishment for Microsoft would have been forcing them to open up their APIs and documentation, publish their source code, or split the company up into competing units, or revoke their license to do business.
Perhaps the Russians, having lost all of their native brides due to their effective mail order industry, have decided to investigate the rumors of leather goddesses.
If it's as customizable as Firefox is (Extensions) I'd consider it, but I doubt I'd move as I'm already comfortable with Firefox and it doesn't seem broken to me.
I don't think that the high end luxury car is a valid comparison. Opera is not priced like an out-of-reach luxury item. It does not have the status of the Rolls Royce or Ferrari brand. It's just a piece of commercial software. It's a good browser, but it's not worlds apart from the free/Free OSS browsers. I have tried Opera, though not recently, and did not care for the ad-supported free version and could not justify paying for it when Mozilla did everything I wanted for free. Rendering/loading speed isn't all that much of a selling point.
I want a second opinion... what's Netcraft have to say about this?
That may be, but I still don't know anyone personally who uses Opera, and maybe only a handful who've even heard of it. IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, sure. But not Safari (unless they're Mac people), Konqueror, Opera. I bet more people use Lynx than Opera. It might be a really nice browser, but it's irrelevant since there are presently many great FREE browsers.
Sorry Opera, you lose.
Bias is not the same thing as obscenity. Crapflooding is almost non-existent on /. You don't see people posting advertisements, ASCII pr0n, or other off-topic stuff as long as you filter above a certain threshhold.
/.er who is for MPAA/RIAA, loves MS and knows poop about open-source. See how 'useful' /. is for him.
/.er from posting here, and even from being moderated upwardly. They're not going to see much of what they agree with posted here, but if they argue intelligently and are articulate, they can get modded up. They'll probably get disagreed with a whole lot, but if the comment is genuinely good, they'll probably not suffer too much. A few flames, maybe, but if you stick to the facts and argue fairly, you tend to get treated pretty well here, in spite of all the supposed freaks and zealots.
just imagine a
It's difficult to imagine such a person, as that's a composite of a lot of difficult-to-hold-in-the-light-of-truth-and-facts positions, but there ARE some pro-MS posters here. There are people who argue against IP piracy. These do get modded up. There are plenty of newbs who don't know jack about OSS. They don't tend to get modded up, but then why would an ignorant poster get modded up?
Overall, the tone of the commentary here seems to be biased toward a certain type of outlook, but bias is not the same thing as obscenity. It's perfectly fine for a newspaper to publish biased editorial content in reaction to the news and current events that it covers. Ideally, there's equal opportunity allotted for readers to chime in with their own biased opinions. But if a majority hold a particular view, there's nothing wrong with them expressing that viewpoint. It's only a problem when dissent is quashed and debates are intellectually dishonest or nonexistent.
I see nothing stopping an against-the-grain
It's funny, because /. itself went through much the same thing. But by careful filtering and moderation, it's been kept reasonably useful. You still have all kinds of morons posting here, but you don't ever have to see them if you don't want to. And we don't even have editors, really.
The people who work for Geek Squad are whores. Though I'll grant you, they're not decent.
Durable, lightweight plastic casings thick enough that the magnetic dust won't be attracted to whatever metal is underneath? Seems like an easy enough solution.
Can you imagine if fascism had won? We might never have seen such stories.
This is yet another business model rendered obsolete by improving technology.
When technology gets good enough and cheap enough that an amateur can do as well as a professional, guess what? You don't need professionals anymore. A bunch of them are going to have to find other work now. Not everyone is going to go out of business, and there will always be some work where a professionally trained expert is crucial, but not everyone who has professional training is going to be guaranteed a job until such time as they decide to retire. Tough shit to those who can't find work. Retrain yourself and figure something else out to do.
Wedding photography... WTF? It's my face, don't I own the copyright to my own image? This has always been bullshit. I should be able to commission the photography as a "work for hire" and retain all copyright to the images. The photographer can be paid for his time and sent on a walk as soon as I have the negatives. Any other business arrangement is bullshit.
It's true. Total Cost of 0wnz0rship is much less with MS Windows. Ask any black hat and they'll tell you, the tools and training necessary to take over a box running Windows is much less than a box running BSD or Linux.
If only you didn't need an OS to run the web browser on."
If this caught on, they'd probably come up with a sytem that has an embedded browser built into CMOS.
As is is, however, I think that this has to run extremely slow due to the number of layers of abstraction and emulation involved.
"I HATE midichlorian stew!"
"Shut up and eat, kid. You want to grow up to be big and strong like your father, don't you?"
Dude, if they hadn't checked, how else would they have realized there was a vulnerability for PNG and then developed a fix for it?
Ten or so years ago, when PCs cost five or even 10 times what they do now, it was common for analysts to say that they would never become a staple in homes until they were priced the way consumer electronics were, usually defined as costing less than $300. In the days when PCs were $2,000 and even more, that target seemed to be something of a fantasy.
I dunno about this, it seems to me that PCs have been a household staple for a while now. Even when they still cost $1000, they were common enough that it would be a surprise for a household not to have a PC in it. If you also consider the number of homes which have an obsolete PC (older than 5 years old or so) which are pretty much given away at rummage sales and such, the PC is just about ubiquitous.
Hey, I just noticed something... The Wall Street Journal was (I thought) one of the few successful pay-for-access websites on the internet. What's with these free articles? Is this a new thing for them? If so, t's kindof cool.
Quark is as good as dead, and has been since InDesign 2.0 came out. Their customer service has always been terrible, they're more concerned about being hyper-vigilant about anyone violating their licensing than they are helping out paying customers. They were way too slow to release an OS X native version. The product itself has always been pretty solid and powerful, but they're still too tied to print output and haven't come along with the rest of the world on this whole internet medium thing.
I was totally blown away by how cool the thing looks!
That, and AMD don't do chipsets. Apple probably wants a whole package, motherboard AND processor.