There actually is a good niche for these movies, one that is getting bigger every time I look.
I'm referring of course to Movie Rental kiosks, those vending machines you see in the mall. Currently, they have a complicated system of tracking movies coming in and out, and this would simplify the process greatly to one of a pure vending machine.
Let's see. Here's another..let's say Best Buy or some other retail store wants to entice you to purchase movies from them, so they hand out free "preview" discs. Technically, it would be a rental, so I don't believe there's a large kickback to the MPAA for a "sale" of the movie. Everyone wins.
That being said, I wouldn't ever buy one of these things. It's silly.
I've seen the article you're quoting, and that was probably the case when it was written.
However, to quote another source, the processor in the F-22 is capable of 10.5 Billion Ops/sec with 300MB of RAM. Hardly "two cray supercomputers" today.
globalsecurity.org
No, NT is the most likely OS. Military hardware takes years of design and testing to be put into service. If you look at the computer specs for the newest USAF fighter prototypes, you'll see they have about the computing power of a 486. Once things are certified and stress tested, you don't go changing the design on something that works.
As a community, the OSS kernel writers need to be very wary of this. Let's try this scenario:
1). Sun releases its code as a "open" with a non-GPL compatible license, possibly a license that states clearly that you cannot use the code in any other product.
2). OSS kernel contributor writes something similar to a Solaris feature into his patch, having read or not read the Solaris code, just because it "makes sense".
3). Sun pulls a SCO and starts suing everyone they can find for the misuse of its IP.
This move could very well poison the free kernel projects out there.
Certainly not. In order for a television network to make money, it has to sell advertising or go completely pay (such as HBO and the like). To get a lot of money for your advertising spots, you need a viewing audience. In other words, that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This isn't a school yard. These corporations are in business to make money, and these kinds of tricks wouldn't do that for them.
It always amuses me to see "oh, by blind, senile grandmother coulda done this" comments. The point is, they didn't.
If all these things are as obvious as people like to claim, why don't they patent them? Is it that maybe they were only obvious after someone stated them?
Ahh, which brings us to the point of the patent system. Protecting something that is duplicatable for a period of time.
Sliced bread! pffft. My dog coulda come up with that one!
If it was so obvious, why didn't you or any other person patent it first? Let me take a guess and say that you're confusing a widely known idea with an idea that became obvious after someone stated it.
It seems to be all cable companies that are pulling these kinds of tricks on their customers. I've used a number of DSL carriers over the years and frequently max out my bandwidth of hours at a time and never get a complaint. You might say that cable companies provide more bandwidth to their customers, but more and more frequently they are going the route of bandwidth equal to or less than a standard 1.5/256 DSL, and still imposing these rules. Either their technology has that much more overhead (doubtful, the network is already in place for TV, just like the PSTN network is in place for voice), or they are just that much more greedy.
I've had a hard enough time trying to educate my family to check that a URL in an email is actually from the domain they say it is from (ebay, etc).
Now I have to deal with teaching them to recognize domains with accented characters to be fraudulent. Here's to another wave of harder to detect social engineering.
Ok, all the talk seems to be about the performance of Linux as a desktop OS in 2.6. My question is, what did they do to server performance? Is it slower or faster? Specifically, we run a lot of tux/apache combos and MySQL DB's. Am I going to be keeping these on 2.4?
Funny, if this was a Microsoft product blowing up on an Apple machine, this would be decried as an insiduous attempt by MS to force you to move to Windows. Since it's Apple, it's your fault that their software breaks it. Check.
Yes, these candidates made a conscious decision on what OS to run their web sites on. Yes, they know what they are running. Yes, they all know they even have websites.
Quick, base your votes on this!
As to the "reporter" who thought this was a worthwhile test of a candidate, go back to the New York Times.:)
64 MB minimum for text mode, 192 minimum for graphical? When did we get so bloated? It looks like we're catching up to MS with an OS that has always had efficiency of resources as a primary strength. What gives?
The actual story downplays the acquisition talk as refused, and actually describes MS's interest in getting a stronger foothold in search. The headline and the content of the post hints at offers being made and board meetings going on behind closed doors.
All in all, sensationalist crapola pointed away from the true intent of the article.
Sensational: adj. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
Hey, what do you know. It fits!
Censorship? Hilarious. Why not call me a Nazi next?
Here's an idea. How about an unbiased reporting of the facts?
Sorry, I still stand by my original statement. As I said, I don't agree with it, but censorship is still censorship, even if you happen to like that the information getting censored. If the ISPs offered each user a choice of whether or not they got VS's results, then it would be fine.
Take a look at AOL. They block emails coming from certain servers and drop them in the bit bucket, never even allowing them to hit the "spam" folder of their users. Also a wrong approach. Sure, maybe 99% of the mail is something the people don't want, but shouldn't they be able to decide that themselves?
And as I said, I don't like SF. I would block it. In fact, I have.
But the fact is, this "Let's let someone in charge protect us from this nasty stuff!" mentality is dangerous. "David" has his pecker hanging out! My God, that's obscene! The government should block it so people can't see it!
Anyway people, figure it out. The ultimate test of your convictions regarding censorship is allowing someone who you don't agree with to speak.
Slashdot Mirror
There actually is a good niche for these movies, one that is getting bigger every time I look.
I'm referring of course to Movie Rental kiosks, those vending machines you see in the mall. Currently, they have a complicated system of tracking movies coming in and out, and this would simplify the process greatly to one of a pure vending machine.
Let's see. Here's another..let's say Best Buy or some other retail store wants to entice you to purchase movies from them, so they hand out free "preview" discs. Technically, it would be a rental, so I don't believe there's a large kickback to the MPAA for a "sale" of the movie. Everyone wins.
That being said, I wouldn't ever buy one of these things. It's silly.
I've seen the article you're quoting, and that was probably the case when it was written. However, to quote another source, the processor in the F-22 is capable of 10.5 Billion Ops/sec with 300MB of RAM. Hardly "two cray supercomputers" today. globalsecurity.org
No, NT is the most likely OS. Military hardware takes years of design and testing to be put into service. If you look at the computer specs for the newest USAF fighter prototypes, you'll see they have about the computing power of a 486. Once things are certified and stress tested, you don't go changing the design on something that works.
You mean that annoying spyware ad serving company is going to be out of business soon?
As a community, the OSS kernel writers need to be very wary of this. Let's try this scenario:
1). Sun releases its code as a "open" with a non-GPL compatible license, possibly a license that states clearly that you cannot use the code in any other product.
2). OSS kernel contributor writes something similar to a Solaris feature into his patch, having read or not read the Solaris code, just because it "makes sense".
3). Sun pulls a SCO and starts suing everyone they can find for the misuse of its IP.
This move could very well poison the free kernel projects out there.
No, if they don't fix it in time, *I'LL* change their name for them. *EEEEVVVILLLL*
The Northwest Passage
:)
Cold Fusion
Perpetual Motion
and.....
*drumroll*
Dubya's Economic Policy
Just because you can't find something, doesn't mean you aren't looking hard enough, it just might not be there!
I don't know. I blacked out.
*rimshot*
Certainly not. In order for a television network to make money, it has to sell advertising or go completely pay (such as HBO and the like). To get a lot of money for your advertising spots, you need a viewing audience. In other words, that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This isn't a school yard. These corporations are in business to make money, and these kinds of tricks wouldn't do that for them.
Don't be silly. Obvious things are patented every day. If a rule isn't enforced, it doesn't exist.
It always amuses me to see "oh, by blind, senile grandmother coulda done this" comments. The point is, they didn't.
If all these things are as obvious as people like to claim, why don't they patent them? Is it that maybe they were only obvious after someone stated them?
Ahh, which brings us to the point of the patent system. Protecting something that is duplicatable for a period of time.
Sliced bread! pffft. My dog coulda come up with that one!
Ahem, "convicted monopoly"?
Being a monopoly is not a crime. Abusing a monopoly is. Please remember this. Thanks.
If it was so obvious, why didn't you or any other person patent it first? Let me take a guess and say that you're confusing a widely known idea with an idea that became obvious after someone stated it.
3,000 other programs. Why, exactly, is this front page news? A non-unix based software program with a small point release is hardly earth shattering.
It seems to be all cable companies that are pulling these kinds of tricks on their customers. I've used a number of DSL carriers over the years and frequently max out my bandwidth of hours at a time and never get a complaint. You might say that cable companies provide more bandwidth to their customers, but more and more frequently they are going the route of bandwidth equal to or less than a standard 1.5/256 DSL, and still imposing these rules. Either their technology has that much more overhead (doubtful, the network is already in place for TV, just like the PSTN network is in place for voice), or they are just that much more greedy.
I've had a hard enough time trying to educate my family to check that a URL in an email is actually from the domain they say it is from (ebay, etc).
Now I have to deal with teaching them to recognize domains with accented characters to be fraudulent. Here's to another wave of harder to detect social engineering.
Ok, all the talk seems to be about the performance of Linux as a desktop OS in 2.6. My question is, what did they do to server performance? Is it slower or faster? Specifically, we run a lot of tux/apache combos and MySQL DB's. Am I going to be keeping these on 2.4?
Spam filtering? Why would China want to kill its number 1 export?
Funny, if this was a Microsoft product blowing up on an Apple machine, this would be decried as an insiduous attempt by MS to force you to move to Windows. Since it's Apple, it's your fault that their software breaks it. Check.
Yes, these candidates made a conscious decision on what OS to run their web sites on. Yes, they know what they are running. Yes, they all know they even have websites.
:)
Quick, base your votes on this!
As to the "reporter" who thought this was a worthwhile test of a candidate, go back to the New York Times.
64 MB minimum for text mode, 192 minimum for graphical? When did we get so bloated? It looks like we're catching up to MS with an OS that has always had efficiency of resources as a primary strength. What gives?
Yeah, really. At least none of the Linux vendors are trying that *cough*RedHat*cough*
As stated "Nice sensationalist headline".
The actual story downplays the acquisition talk as refused, and actually describes MS's interest in getting a stronger foothold in search. The headline and the content of the post hints at offers being made and board meetings going on behind closed doors.
All in all, sensationalist crapola pointed away from the true intent of the article.
Sensational: adj. Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
Hey, what do you know. It fits!
Censorship? Hilarious. Why not call me a Nazi next?
Here's an idea. How about an unbiased reporting of the facts?
Nice sensationalist headline there. MS said they were interested, Google politely said no. I see no "consideration" there.
Of course, the whole point of the subject was to draw comments like this, so nice troll submitter, and nice troll to the admin who approved it.
Also seen in the headlines:
US Government considers merger with MS, Apple considers merger with MS, and GWB considers quitting presidency and working at Mickey D's.
Fun, isn't it?
Sorry, I still stand by my original statement. As I said, I don't agree with it, but censorship is still censorship, even if you happen to like that the information getting censored. If the ISPs offered each user a choice of whether or not they got VS's results, then it would be fine.
Take a look at AOL. They block emails coming from certain servers and drop them in the bit bucket, never even allowing them to hit the "spam" folder of their users. Also a wrong approach. Sure, maybe 99% of the mail is something the people don't want, but shouldn't they be able to decide that themselves?
And as I said, I don't like SF. I would block it. In fact, I have.
But the fact is, this "Let's let someone in charge protect us from this nasty stuff!" mentality is dangerous. "David" has his pecker hanging out! My God, that's obscene! The government should block it so people can't see it!
Anyway people, figure it out. The ultimate test of your convictions regarding censorship is allowing someone who you don't agree with to speak.
That being said, Fuck Verisign.
Good day.