It's real simple. A tiny vocal portion of/. readers hate the MPAA enough to abstain from all MPAA materials.
Another portion of/. readers hates them enough to pretend in/. comments that they abstain from their products, even though it's just an attempt to appear self-righteous.
And MOST of/. hates the MPAA but loves movies and will continue to purchase movies and movie tickets.
So please shut up about this imaginary dichotomy which exists only in your head!
BTW, most of those "cool" demos of BeOS running tens of player windows are done with a single avi (worthless to to test the real I/O), very low resolution, and without sound.
1. Bullshit. 2. The demos were most popular 3-4 years ago, and did not have the benefit of running on our much faster hardware now, btw.
... all those people working on OpenBeOS or AtheOS can comfortably do so within an environment that more closely resembles their ultimate goal.
Sounds cool to me. All those AtheOS and OpenBeOS developers can soon use FrankensteinBeOS as their development platform.
For most aspects of OBOS development, this is not true. FrankensteinBeOS is not binary compatible with BeOS/OpenBeOS, which is pretty useful when I go to compile my BeOS/OpenBeOS project! Just because it LOOKS like BeOS doesn't mean we can use it for development. Those of us working on OBOS usually work in BeOS R5 (until such time as we can work within OBOS of course:).
Maybe the low-level guys for OBOS would like to use this new variant, though.
Kurt Skauren(sp?), progenitor of AtheOS, cannot be too pleased about this.
Sorry, tough shit. Kurt decided to release AtheOS as GPL.
The AtheOS kernel has always been Kurt's baby; his goal of developing an OS targetted solely to desktop applications where the kernel remains under tight control is severely compromised with this split.
On the contrary, Kurt's goal of developing an OS where the kernel remains under tight control is severely compromised by THE LICENSE HE CHOSE.
People like me who really like BeOS admire the entire structure of the operating system, from top to bottom. I have zero interest in running FrankensteinBeOS, which is what this sounds like. Therefore I am content to work on the OpenBeOS project, which may be 'way behind', but should have a nicer outcome (for people who like BeOS). The project is coming together quite nicely for something so young.
(It's easier to see really far when you can stand on the shoulders of great engineers.)
Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 1
Uhhh, yeah? That's like saying, does anyone remember Titanic anymore, +4 years. Forrest Gump broke all kinds of records when it was released, so I'm pretty sure it's remembered. I watched it many times in the theatres, and own the DVD.
This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16.
This argument is so incredibly lame. So by your thought process, the 'good old boys' decided it was OK for him to go 0 for 10, 0 for 11, 0 for 12, 0 for 13, 0 for 14, and 0 for 15. But absolutely NOT 0 for 16!!
Yeah...
And this quote: "That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs."
This shows how much you know. Randy Newman has scored way more movies than he's written songs for. (I imagine you don't know the difference.) His best ever, IMO, was The Natural... a great soundtrack for a great movie.
Re:The oscars aren't about the best films...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2
It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.
1973: The Sting 1984: Amadeus 1994: Forrest Gump
2004: LOTR: ROTK?
Re:Why does /. have to concentrate on this film?
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 4, Funny
This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
I need to turn this into my signature, because you fucking no that any time someone writes this, they get +5.
Coincidence? I think not!!
Oh well, this will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
Re:LOTR won Best Film & Best Director...
on
LoTR Takes 4 Oscars
·
· Score: 2
My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives?
Why not ask the people that voted, instead of slashdot, for starters.
Post-Sept-11 nationalism?
Nationalism? Huh? I don't think anyone in the states really thinks of LOTR as a "british" or "new zealand" movie. I seriously doubt that played into it at all.
Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?
Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?
all the voters want to show how important and meaningful Hollywood is by choosing the film that's serious and has a meaningful message.
First of all, LOTR has many 'serious messages.' More so than A Beautiful Mind.
So, forgot about a fantasy film, a sci-fi film or a comedy ever getting best picture,it's always going to be a dreary mainstream serious film.
LOTR *is* a serious film, and no, the movie that wins doesn't have to be 'serious.' Forrest Gump was essentially a comedy, and won. The Sting was not a 'serious' movie, and won.
Plus, what person would be so insensitive to vote for the best picture for a film entitled The Two Towers in this post 9-11 age? I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.
You are insane! The books were written and titled decades ago. I hope (no, I KNOW) Peter Jackson is not going to change the title. If anything, LOTR is a perfect movie for these post 9/11 times, the ultimate story of good vs. evil.
Look at the titles: "The Lord of the Rings," "Training Day" and "Ali."
Most likely, these are screeners, or some sort of other illegitimate copies from either a promo video or the distributed film. The quality is --not-- the same as a truly produced DVD, (though it is pretty damn good.)
I have some first-hand experience here.
I just got back from NYC a few weeks ago. While walking through Chinatown, I started looking at the DVD's on sale on the street. You know, the kind where the chinese girl covers the table over with a blanket until you walk up, in case a cop comes by...
So I see a "Lord of the Rings" DVD for $10. I figure what the hell, I'll get it. It was worth the price alone for the cover of the DVD, which claims that the DVD stars: "Liv Tyler, Een Micolen, and Kate Branchtt." It also says this on the cover:
"... REMARKABLE...STUPE NDOUS ENTERTAINMENT."
I pop the DVD into my laptop, and the [shitty] menu comes up with chinese characters. I click on the left side of the screen, and am treated to the TEASER TRAILER from LOTR! The other available item on the disc is a chinese-subtitled episode of Hercules starring Kevin Sorbo.
I think I can safely say the description on the back of this DVD sums up the contents nicely:
"Story fairy tale with WOMAN ON TOP, the quirky story of Isabella a top-notch chef and glowing beauty who suffers from motion sickness."
Users would have to be fools to "click" their password unless they are positively alone in the room. The current standard at least has masked text on screen, and the order of keys on the keyboard is VERY difficult to track even when the user is moderately good at typing.
On the flip side of things, it's very hard to use a sniffer on a visual password, especially if the password screen is smart enough to move the location of the images around on the screen.
With regular passwords, install a keyboard sniffer, and you're in.
I use PCAnywhere a lot for managing machines over a VPN, and I would kill myself if I had to use a system like this to do what this person is talking about. Unless you're running the PCAnywhere (or VNC) server on a really fast machine, and your network connection is at least 10base-T, you're going to hate working through this because of the lag-time in the UI.
What exactly constitutes "AOL email services," and where was the problem exactly?
Mail being lost, large attachments not allowed, being classified as a 'spammer' if you BCC to too many people... that sounds like a problem with AOL's mail servers. But the article seems focused on AOL's use of their new Netscape products (presumably NS 6.x), which doesn't really jive with the complaints in the article...
I was just going over this same exact thing with someone today, as we're trying to plan out a spam-blocking strategy for our network.
One problem with whitelists is that you have come up with a good way of adding legitimate "big" email senders that are not going to take the time to authorize themselves on your whitelist. If you're out-and-out blocking messages not approved by the whitelist, your users have to remember to add companies to their whitelists manually when they want to receive their information. Even then it's not perfect, since you never know what address or domain a company might send from. (A lot of them outsource their email.)
An ideal setup is something like SpamCop, where there's a queue of held mail, and your users can add people to whitelists and blacklists very easily (and even report spam if they're so inclined).
One reason we don't want to just use SpamCop's services is because we'd rather be in control of all aspects of our filtering, so we'll do it in-house as I suspect a lot of people will.
Did you at least find out how many people out of 4 million actually are stupid enough to order a product from the spam?
Those of you thinking about finding where this guy lives and kicking his ass, forget it. We need to track down the stupid asses who buy from spam, and take their computers away forever!
Slashdot Mirror
This complaint is so fucking tired.
/. readers hate the MPAA enough to abstain from all MPAA materials.
/. readers hates them enough to pretend in /. comments that they abstain from their products, even though it's just an attempt to appear self-righteous.
/. hates the MPAA but loves movies and will continue to purchase movies and movie tickets.
It's real simple. A tiny vocal portion of
Another portion of
And MOST of
So please shut up about this imaginary dichotomy which exists only in your head!
OBOS will support mmap() and have real fd() sockets, FWIW...
BTW, most of those "cool" demos of BeOS running tens of player windows are done with a single avi (worthless to to test the real I/O), very low resolution, and without sound.
1. Bullshit.
2. The demos were most popular 3-4 years ago, and did not have the benefit of running on our much faster hardware now, btw.
... all those people working on OpenBeOS or AtheOS can comfortably do so within an environment that more closely resembles their ultimate goal.
:).
Sounds cool to me. All those AtheOS and OpenBeOS developers can soon use FrankensteinBeOS as their development platform.
For most aspects of OBOS development, this is not true. FrankensteinBeOS is not binary compatible with BeOS/OpenBeOS, which is pretty useful when I go to compile my BeOS/OpenBeOS project! Just because it LOOKS like BeOS doesn't mean we can use it for development. Those of us working on OBOS usually work in BeOS R5 (until such time as we can work within OBOS of course
Maybe the low-level guys for OBOS would like to use this new variant, though.
Kurt Skauren(sp?), progenitor of AtheOS, cannot be too pleased about this.
Sorry, tough shit. Kurt decided to release AtheOS as GPL.
The AtheOS kernel has always been Kurt's baby; his goal of developing an OS targetted solely to desktop applications where the kernel remains under tight control is severely compromised with this split.
On the contrary, Kurt's goal of developing an OS where the kernel remains under tight control is severely compromised by THE LICENSE HE CHOSE.
That depends on how you define 'way ahead.'
People like me who really like BeOS admire the entire structure of the operating system, from top to bottom. I have zero interest in running FrankensteinBeOS, which is what this sounds like. Therefore I am content to work on the OpenBeOS project, which may be 'way behind', but should have a nicer outcome (for people who like BeOS). The project is coming together quite nicely for something so young.
(It's easier to see really far when you can stand on the shoulders of great engineers.)
BP == Best Picture
In the context, I thought it was obvious, sorry.
Does anyone remember Forrest Gump anymore?
Uhhh, yeah? That's like saying, does anyone remember Titanic anymore, +4 years. Forrest Gump broke all kinds of records when it was released, so I'm pretty sure it's remembered. I watched it many times in the theatres, and own the DVD.
This year's prime example is Randy Neuman (sp?) winning for best song for that Monsters Inc tune. That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs. But the dear old Oscars club wasn't going to let him go 0 for 16.
This argument is so incredibly lame. So by your thought process, the 'good old boys' decided it was OK for him to go 0 for 10, 0 for 11, 0 for 12, 0 for 13, 0 for 14, and 0 for 15. But absolutely NOT 0 for 16!!
Yeah...
And this quote: "That song sounded EXACTLY like his past 10 million movie songs."
This shows how much you know. Randy Newman has scored way more movies than he's written songs for. (I imagine you don't know the difference.) His best ever, IMO, was The Natural... a great soundtrack for a great movie.
It's not in hollywood's best interest to admit that a 'silly' sci-fi, fantasy, or comedy movie was the best they had that year.
1973: The Sting
1984: Amadeus
1994: Forrest Gump
2004: LOTR: ROTK?
This will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
I need to turn this into my signature, because you fucking no that any time someone writes this, they get +5.
Coincidence? I think not!!
Oh well, this will probably get modded down as flamebait or troll, but whatever.
My non-geek colleges all think that 'A Beautiful Mind' was 'OK', but 'LOTR' was 'blinding' - so what gives?
Why not ask the people that voted, instead of slashdot, for starters.
Post-Sept-11 nationalism?
Nationalism? Huh? I don't think anyone in the states really thinks of LOTR as a "british" or "new zealand" movie. I seriously doubt that played into it at all.
Or genuine belief that LOTR wasn't one of the best films ever made?
Or perhaps they figure LOTR has two more chances, and they'd rather not hand it BP three years in a row?
all the voters want to show how important and meaningful Hollywood is by choosing the film that's serious and has a meaningful message.
First of all, LOTR has many 'serious messages.' More so than A Beautiful Mind.
So, forgot about a fantasy film, a sci-fi film or a comedy ever getting best picture,it's always going to be a dreary mainstream serious film.
LOTR *is* a serious film, and no, the movie that wins doesn't have to be 'serious.' Forrest Gump was essentially a comedy, and won. The Sting was not a 'serious' movie, and won.
Plus, what person would be so insensitive to vote for the best picture for a film entitled The Two Towers in this post 9-11 age? I hope Peter Jackson shows a little sensitivity and changes the name.
You are insane! The books were written and titled decades ago. I hope (no, I KNOW) Peter Jackson is not going to change the title. If anything, LOTR is a perfect movie for these post 9/11 times, the ultimate story of good vs. evil.
Look at the titles: "The Lord of the Rings," "Training Day" and "Ali."
Most likely, these are screeners, or some sort of other illegitimate copies from either a promo video or the distributed film. The quality is --not-- the same as a truly produced DVD, (though it is pretty damn good.)
I have some first-hand experience here.
I just got back from NYC a few weeks ago. While walking through Chinatown, I started looking at the DVD's on sale on the street. You know, the kind where the chinese girl covers the table over with a blanket until you walk up, in case a cop comes by...
So I see a "Lord of the Rings" DVD for $10. I figure what the hell, I'll get it. It was worth the price alone for the cover of the DVD, which claims that the DVD stars: "Liv Tyler, Een Micolen, and Kate Branchtt." It also says this on the cover:
"... REMARKABLE...STUPE
NDOUS
ENTERTAINMENT."
I pop the DVD into my laptop, and the [shitty] menu comes up with chinese characters. I click on the left side of the screen, and am treated to the TEASER TRAILER from LOTR! The other available item on the disc is a chinese-subtitled episode of Hercules starring Kevin Sorbo.
I think I can safely say the description on the back of this DVD sums up the contents nicely:
"Story fairy tale with WOMAN ON TOP, the quirky story of Isabella a top-notch chef and glowing beauty who suffers from motion sickness."
Truly a classic DVD worth owning, illegal or not!
And at least I can type my twenty something passwords reallllly fast
I bet you can't type faster than my keyboard logger can sniff.
Users would have to be fools to "click" their password unless they are positively alone in the room. The current standard at least has masked text on screen, and the order of keys on the keyboard is VERY difficult to track even when the user is moderately good at typing.
On the flip side of things, it's very hard to use a sniffer on a visual password, especially if the password screen is smart enough to move the location of the images around on the screen.
With regular passwords, install a keyboard sniffer, and you're in.
Pictoral Passwords (using abstract art)
(It isn't karma whoring when you're already at 50.)
Tragic!
Much more tragic is not being able to read and comprehend the part of the article that stated these people WERE NOT USING THE NORMAL AOL EMAIL CLIENT.
VNC does pretty much what you're looking to do.
I use PCAnywhere a lot for managing machines over a VPN, and I would kill myself if I had to use a system like this to do what this person is talking about. Unless you're running the PCAnywhere (or VNC) server on a really fast machine, and your network connection is at least 10base-T, you're going to hate working through this because of the lag-time in the UI.
What exactly constitutes "AOL email services," and where was the problem exactly?
Mail being lost, large attachments not allowed, being classified as a 'spammer' if you BCC to too many people... that sounds like a problem with AOL's mail servers. But the article seems focused on AOL's use of their new Netscape products (presumably NS 6.x), which doesn't really jive with the complaints in the article...
I looked who was talking, and it was THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Check the byline of the authors.
Do not make a damn fool out of yourself and put on a tie.
Don't you worry!
I would never wear a tie.
SpinalTap could have really used this technology when Niles was wielding his wireless guitar...
"These go to eleven."
I was just going over this same exact thing with someone today, as we're trying to plan out a spam-blocking strategy for our network.
One problem with whitelists is that you have come up with a good way of adding legitimate "big" email senders that are not going to take the time to authorize themselves on your whitelist. If you're out-and-out blocking messages not approved by the whitelist, your users have to remember to add companies to their whitelists manually when they want to receive their information. Even then it's not perfect, since you never know what address or domain a company might send from. (A lot of them outsource their email.)
An ideal setup is something like SpamCop, where there's a queue of held mail, and your users can add people to whitelists and blacklists very easily (and even report spam if they're so inclined).
One reason we don't want to just use SpamCop's services is because we'd rather be in control of all aspects of our filtering, so we'll do it in-house as I suspect a lot of people will.
Did you at least find out how many people out of 4 million actually are stupid enough to order a product from the spam?
Those of you thinking about finding where this guy lives and kicking his ass, forget it. We need to track down the stupid asses who buy from spam, and take their computers away forever!