I have the original on DVD. Lucas released it in the mid-2000s, bundled with the (then) latest recut version. There was much howling on Slashdot at the time because the originals were shipped letterboxed rather than anamorphic (the recut version was anamorphic) - supposedly they were digitizations of the official NTSC laserdisc copies, with Lucas saying he felt trying to replicate the original using surviving film copies was a waste of money.
So, no, VHS isn't the only test and plausibly rather a lot of under 35s have seen the original version given the DVD bundles came out only ten or so years ago.
Probably not, but in fairness while I keep hearing about jacked up ticket prices, where I've been non-discount (eg normal evening adult tickets for 2D movies) have been around $10-12 now for the last two (at least!) decades. They certainly haven't increased in line with inflation.
Sure, our great grandfathers were able to watch a movie, get a bottle of cola, a big bag of popcorn, and a steak, and still get change from a penny, but those days ended sometime in the mid-eighties. The price of concessions has certainly risen, but that doesn't affect box office returns.
The Russians didn't, so far as we know, hack the Clinton-hosted State Department's emails. The leaks were of Podesta's webmail account, long after Clinton left the State Department, not of any private email system run by Clinton's IT department.
You can't, that's one of the major complaints, you can't just set it to a small number of hours you'd be very unlikely to be using the computer.
Also, why the hell does it need to reboot to install updates? Ubuntu et al don't unless you update the kernel, which 99% of the time you don't.
Real answer to GP: disable the Windows Update service. Re-enable it once a month and manually run updates, then disable it again. Just make sure you don't forget.
I wasn't taking pleasure in anything, just looking for karmic balancing. And Castro may or may not have been "beloved" but we'll never really know given his history of imprisoning and torturing those who spoke out against him. Dictators, in any case, tend to - bizarrely as it sounds - be "popular", it's how they stay in power without overly risking coups. That doesn't change the fact they're evil, rotten, people who punish those who speak in opposition to their policies.
As an ex-Brit I've noticed a tendency to assume that any dictator who stands up against the US is somehow deserving of a little whitewashing and relative support by those outside of the US. I don't take that position. A dictator is a dictator. Political imprisonment is political imprison. Torture is torture.
Is there a list of people who died this year who actually deserved to die and whose deaths actually left us better off? You know, fascist or communist dictators, serial killers, people who talk loudly on their cellphones in restaurants? That kind of thing?
Right now the only one I can think of is Castro.
(Well, if you'd ever sat in the same restaurant as him you'd know why.)
To be honest, none of this makes sense unless you view it as a part of the general hysteria about marriage being under attack. As in "Oh, two men can marry? What next? A man can marry his dog? A woman can marry her computer?"
Marriage isn't becoming less relevant, in fact it's a pretty strong institution right now, which is in part why the gay-marriage thing was a big deal - gay and lesbian people wanted the same rights and recognition heterosexuals get, on an issue extremely important to them.
Which is also why the "married to robots" thing makes no sense. Why would someone marry a robot? It doesn't strengthen the legal bonds between two entities because one entity already completely 100% owns the other, which is a bond ludicrously stronger than anything marriage would grant (albeit one way.) Would the robot's rights and responsibilities improve with marriage? Is the Robot in love with the human?
Like Christian fundies who miss the point when they look at gay people asking for the right to marry and assume the demand is for anything to marry anything else, there is no underlying understanding of what marriage is.
He violated the ToS several times. He finally posted faked tweets in an attempt to harass another person on Twitter, and Twitter dropped the banhammer.
This is all public domain. Why do you need it explained to you? Most conservatives don't do this, which is why most conservatives still have Twitter accounts, including Trump himself.
(That said, right now, I'd close Trump's accounts but on national security grounds, not because of the ToS or because of his politics.)
You don't "open" Tweets. This isn't email. There's no "subject". The body of the message, which would have been viewed at the same time the video started playing, contained those words.
Is it too much to ask people not to comment on communication systems they've evidently never seen before?
The devil is in the details. If Google had did to.NET what they did to Java, do you think they would have been covered? I think not. The promises are limited in scope.
It's an interesting question because there's a lot more at-play than simply "Technically not covered by the free license."
I suspect Microsoft would have been delighted - just as Sun was - had Google produced a.NET-lite, programmable in full C# but with only some parts of the CLR and a different byte language. Why? Because programmers don't program in bytecode, they program in high level languages, and the number of C# programmers would have expanded exponentially, just as it did with Java-the-language.
The reason it went wrong with Java was that Java was wrestled out of the hands of its creators and into the hands of a company that had no interest in its long term future, only in seeing what revenue it can extract immediately - even if doing so damages Java in the long run.
Microsoft desperately wants more people capable of programming in.NET. Its long term future depends upon it. I think they'd tolerate, or perhaps even negotiate a free license, with Google if Google wanted to create a.NET derived programming system for Android.
I think it's a little more complicated than that, but yes, fundamentally the reason Comey and Russia's interventions were so serious was because the gap between the two candidates was in single digits. And frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the gap between any normal qualified Democratic candidate - Biden, Warren, or even Kaine running alone, against Trump would have been anything other than double digits.
I find the blase attitude towards Russia's involvement, including the head burying in the sand thing (are Slashdotters so ignorant of history they'd really think the CIA would prop up the left wing traditionally anti-CIA party in the US?), frightening, as is the whole "Trump won so liberal tears hahahah" crap, as if this was an argument about a sports team winning over another with the possible help of a drug. Trump should terrify everyone, left or right. Russian involvement should also terrify everyone, left or right.
But Clinton was an extraordinarily bad candidate. The election shouldn't have been this close. We'd be looking forward to President Biden and laughing at his latest gaffes if the latter had run, thinking it was odd that Trump managed to get 40% of the vote.
Did the homeowner hand a complete stranger some spray paint and point at the wall and say "Here, write something over there? It needs to comply with my terms and conditions, but be aware I have millions of walls and it might take a while for me to catch up with you if you violate them, in which case I'll never give you any spray paint again assuming I recognize you the next time you ask."
I'm guessing the OP doesn't. I don't. 99% of Slashdotters don't. They're extremely expensive luxury items, and most IT people I know either own something fuel efficient and cheap to get to work that's probably 5-10 years old, or a pick-up or a minivan because of the those vehicle's utility (again, both 5-10 years old.) I've seen a Model X on the road (I commute from Martin to Palm Beach County going through the richest parts of both) and it didn't strike me as having the capability to be remotely as useful as either a minivan or pick-up.
We're a practical lot. We can admire Tesla vehicles for the technology, but for most of us they're expensive and offer little to sell us on the expense. We'd never recover the additional cost in terms through gas savings, and the gimmicks are impressive rather than compelling. Being able to change lane by tapping a button is not worth a $30-50,000 premium (or extra $5-700 per month in financing.)
They take a while to charge? {...} It takes ~15m if you're higher than 25% battery. It's 20m if it's dead flat
It takes about 2-3 minutes to fill a Honda Odyssey's 18 gallon gas tank from "Amber warning light on" status at an average gas station, which I believe is what the comparison was with. That's not enough time to run over to Starbucks and grab some coffee.
But if it took 15 minutes, yes, I'd want something else to do. We all would.
To be clear, I'm not arguing Tesla is outside of its rights doing this. But this is a symptom of an underlying problem, that the charging issue - while improved has not been solved. Tesla needs to look at a technical solution to this, even if it's just adding more charging spots.
- Customer has to accept to throttling
- Video provider needs to take specific steps to stream video and control bandwidth in a way that minimizes the risk of a tower being overloaded.
If both are true, the video is free for the end user. It's not technically "Network neutrality" but it's discriminating on the basis of technology, to protect a network, rather than pitting different companies against one another commercially. I have no problem with that.
Netflix, incidentally, fulfilled the provider side of the equation above, and so has been on Binge-On from the start.
I don't believe any legislation should outlaw systems to protect a network.
No, you don't. Binge On is a pretty reasonable compromise - T-Mobile knows that multiple people streaming video using normal "greedy" dynamic video streaming protocols is likely to clog a network if not throttled. Rather than force throttling, they came up with a pretty decent compromise - if you accept throttling, and if the video provider takes steps to reduce the maximum burst rate of the video when streaming to T-Mobile users, then you get video for "free".
You're not "sponsoring the free part" by refusing to use it. How would that work anyway? T-Mobile doesn't have overage charges. You just get cut to EDGE speeds if you use up your monthly data quota.
If the article says "The CIA is now stating that Russian hackers interfered with the US election, hacking both Democratic and Republican communication systems. Further, they believe the intent was to install Donald Trump as President, by smearing Democrats, and giving them access to private, confidential, information about the Republican party." then that's 100% factual. The CIA did say that.
If the article says "Opinions differ on whether the Russians hacked the Democratic Party, as the CIA claims, or that a private individual affiliated with the Democratic Party did", then that's also technically factual.
If the article says "I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton murdered a system administrator in order to prevent him from leaking information to Wikileaks", then that's stupid, but it's an opinion, not fake news.
If the article says "ZeroCredBlog has learned today that Hillary Clinton tried to cover up her crimes by murdering a Wikileaks leaker, trying to make it look like an mugging", then... well, that's in dubious territory. Many people might believe it, but it's improbable ZeroCredBlog has learned anything whatsoever. Facebook would be justified in hiding it until more reliable sources confirm the content of the article.
Can we start praising Trump for hypocrisy and going back on his word rather than criticizing him? Because I sure as hell don't want to see the America Trump was describing before the election.
Their entire business model is based around an asset light setup
They already lease cars to their drivers.
AND it would ruin their (bogus) argument that they aren't a taxi service.
Yeah, but they are a taxi service. As you say, the argument is bogus. That's the point. That's like asking why a front company would buy huge quantities of heroin and cocaine and smuggle them given it'd totally destroy their claim to be a legitimate vendor of fine cotton shirts.
So those road signs and the marks on the road and the traffic lights... those have no legal standing? They weren't put up by the government? They're just decorations? Driver's licenses are optional and there's no law against driving without one as long as you have insurance? You can drive drunk?
So, you mean the Republican candidate finally started acting like this was a real competition, and made shit up like the liberals have for years?
Congrats. You found one very rare example of a senior Democrat making up shit. Meanwhile virtually the entire case against Hillary Clinton was made up, and a continuation of a campaign of lies that started in 1991 against her husband. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that the allegations that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, or screwed people over in a real estate deal (which they never made any money from) were actually honest mistakes by sincere Conservatives who totally believed them?
You know why Reid made up that allegation? Because he was trying to force Romney to do something Romney was supposed to do anyway (something that would have meant the truth came out anyway incidentally, so Reid may have intended to deceive, but only temporarily, unlike those propagating the Benghazi/Emailgate/Vince Foster/Clinton Rape/Whitewater/taking your guns/etc BS who wanted the lies to stick), and because ever since the Clintons started running for office the Republicans have become completely deranged, and it's hurt liberals that we were unable to fight fire with fire.
In that context, Reid's comments are small potatoes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have the original on DVD. Lucas released it in the mid-2000s, bundled with the (then) latest recut version. There was much howling on Slashdot at the time because the originals were shipped letterboxed rather than anamorphic (the recut version was anamorphic) - supposedly they were digitizations of the official NTSC laserdisc copies, with Lucas saying he felt trying to replicate the original using surviving film copies was a waste of money.
So, no, VHS isn't the only test and plausibly rather a lot of under 35s have seen the original version given the DVD bundles came out only ten or so years ago.
Probably not, but in fairness while I keep hearing about jacked up ticket prices, where I've been non-discount (eg normal evening adult tickets for 2D movies) have been around $10-12 now for the last two (at least!) decades. They certainly haven't increased in line with inflation.
Sure, our great grandfathers were able to watch a movie, get a bottle of cola, a big bag of popcorn, and a steak, and still get change from a penny, but those days ended sometime in the mid-eighties. The price of concessions has certainly risen, but that doesn't affect box office returns.
The Russians didn't, so far as we know, hack the Clinton-hosted State Department's emails. The leaks were of Podesta's webmail account, long after Clinton left the State Department, not of any private email system run by Clinton's IT department.
You can't, that's one of the major complaints, you can't just set it to a small number of hours you'd be very unlikely to be using the computer.
Also, why the hell does it need to reboot to install updates? Ubuntu et al don't unless you update the kernel, which 99% of the time you don't.
Real answer to GP: disable the Windows Update service. Re-enable it once a month and manually run updates, then disable it again. Just make sure you don't forget.
I wasn't taking pleasure in anything, just looking for karmic balancing. And Castro may or may not have been "beloved" but we'll never really know given his history of imprisoning and torturing those who spoke out against him. Dictators, in any case, tend to - bizarrely as it sounds - be "popular", it's how they stay in power without overly risking coups. That doesn't change the fact they're evil, rotten, people who punish those who speak in opposition to their policies.
As an ex-Brit I've noticed a tendency to assume that any dictator who stands up against the US is somehow deserving of a little whitewashing and relative support by those outside of the US. I don't take that position. A dictator is a dictator. Political imprisonment is political imprison. Torture is torture.
Is there a list of people who died this year who actually deserved to die and whose deaths actually left us better off? You know, fascist or communist dictators, serial killers, people who talk loudly on their cellphones in restaurants? That kind of thing?
Right now the only one I can think of is Castro.
(Well, if you'd ever sat in the same restaurant as him you'd know why.)
To be honest, none of this makes sense unless you view it as a part of the general hysteria about marriage being under attack. As in "Oh, two men can marry? What next? A man can marry his dog? A woman can marry her computer?"
Marriage isn't becoming less relevant, in fact it's a pretty strong institution right now, which is in part why the gay-marriage thing was a big deal - gay and lesbian people wanted the same rights and recognition heterosexuals get, on an issue extremely important to them.
Which is also why the "married to robots" thing makes no sense. Why would someone marry a robot? It doesn't strengthen the legal bonds between two entities because one entity already completely 100% owns the other, which is a bond ludicrously stronger than anything marriage would grant (albeit one way.) Would the robot's rights and responsibilities improve with marriage? Is the Robot in love with the human?
Like Christian fundies who miss the point when they look at gay people asking for the right to marry and assume the demand is for anything to marry anything else, there is no underlying understanding of what marriage is.
Have you considered getting cheaper devices? My Blu HD R1 ($60) and my Coolpad phone ($30) are both smooth as silk and neither of them ever crash.
It could just be that you're spending too much money, overloading the wallet chip and causing irregular bank account drains.
No, but they have a bright future ahead of them at Uber!
He violated the ToS several times. He finally posted faked tweets in an attempt to harass another person on Twitter, and Twitter dropped the banhammer.
This is all public domain. Why do you need it explained to you? Most conservatives don't do this, which is why most conservatives still have Twitter accounts, including Trump himself.
(That said, right now, I'd close Trump's accounts but on national security grounds, not because of the ToS or because of his politics.)
You don't "open" Tweets. This isn't email. There's no "subject". The body of the message, which would have been viewed at the same time the video started playing, contained those words.
Is it too much to ask people not to comment on communication systems they've evidently never seen before?
It's an interesting question because there's a lot more at-play than simply "Technically not covered by the free license."
I suspect Microsoft would have been delighted - just as Sun was - had Google produced a .NET-lite, programmable in full C# but with only some parts of the CLR and a different byte language. Why? Because programmers don't program in bytecode, they program in high level languages, and the number of C# programmers would have expanded exponentially, just as it did with Java-the-language.
The reason it went wrong with Java was that Java was wrestled out of the hands of its creators and into the hands of a company that had no interest in its long term future, only in seeing what revenue it can extract immediately - even if doing so damages Java in the long run.
Microsoft desperately wants more people capable of programming in .NET. Its long term future depends upon it. I think they'd tolerate, or perhaps even negotiate a free license, with Google if Google wanted to create a .NET derived programming system for Android.
I think it's a little more complicated than that, but yes, fundamentally the reason Comey and Russia's interventions were so serious was because the gap between the two candidates was in single digits. And frankly, it's hard for me to believe that the gap between any normal qualified Democratic candidate - Biden, Warren, or even Kaine running alone, against Trump would have been anything other than double digits.
I find the blase attitude towards Russia's involvement, including the head burying in the sand thing (are Slashdotters so ignorant of history they'd really think the CIA would prop up the left wing traditionally anti-CIA party in the US?), frightening, as is the whole "Trump won so liberal tears hahahah" crap, as if this was an argument about a sports team winning over another with the possible help of a drug. Trump should terrify everyone, left or right. Russian involvement should also terrify everyone, left or right.
But Clinton was an extraordinarily bad candidate. The election shouldn't have been this close. We'd be looking forward to President Biden and laughing at his latest gaffes if the latter had run, thinking it was odd that Trump managed to get 40% of the vote.
Did the homeowner hand a complete stranger some spray paint and point at the wall and say "Here, write something over there? It needs to comply with my terms and conditions, but be aware I have millions of walls and it might take a while for me to catch up with you if you violate them, in which case I'll never give you any spray paint again assuming I recognize you the next time you ask."
Because if not the analogy doesn't really work.
I'm guessing the OP doesn't. I don't. 99% of Slashdotters don't. They're extremely expensive luxury items, and most IT people I know either own something fuel efficient and cheap to get to work that's probably 5-10 years old, or a pick-up or a minivan because of the those vehicle's utility (again, both 5-10 years old.) I've seen a Model X on the road (I commute from Martin to Palm Beach County going through the richest parts of both) and it didn't strike me as having the capability to be remotely as useful as either a minivan or pick-up.
We're a practical lot. We can admire Tesla vehicles for the technology, but for most of us they're expensive and offer little to sell us on the expense. We'd never recover the additional cost in terms through gas savings, and the gimmicks are impressive rather than compelling. Being able to change lane by tapping a button is not worth a $30-50,000 premium (or extra $5-700 per month in financing.)
It takes about 2-3 minutes to fill a Honda Odyssey's 18 gallon gas tank from "Amber warning light on" status at an average gas station, which I believe is what the comparison was with. That's not enough time to run over to Starbucks and grab some coffee.
But if it took 15 minutes, yes, I'd want something else to do. We all would.
To be clear, I'm not arguing Tesla is outside of its rights doing this. But this is a symptom of an underlying problem, that the charging issue - while improved has not been solved. Tesla needs to look at a technical solution to this, even if it's just adding more charging spots.
Binge-On is pretty neutral. The deal is:
- Customer has to accept to throttling
- Video provider needs to take specific steps to stream video and control bandwidth in a way that minimizes the risk of a tower being overloaded.
If both are true, the video is free for the end user. It's not technically "Network neutrality" but it's discriminating on the basis of technology, to protect a network, rather than pitting different companies against one another commercially. I have no problem with that.
Netflix, incidentally, fulfilled the provider side of the equation above, and so has been on Binge-On from the start.
I don't believe any legislation should outlaw systems to protect a network.
No, you don't. Binge On is a pretty reasonable compromise - T-Mobile knows that multiple people streaming video using normal "greedy" dynamic video streaming protocols is likely to clog a network if not throttled. Rather than force throttling, they came up with a pretty decent compromise - if you accept throttling, and if the video provider takes steps to reduce the maximum burst rate of the video when streaming to T-Mobile users, then you get video for "free".
You're not "sponsoring the free part" by refusing to use it. How would that work anyway? T-Mobile doesn't have overage charges. You just get cut to EDGE speeds if you use up your monthly data quota.
I'm not seeing the problem.
If the article says "The CIA is now stating that Russian hackers interfered with the US election, hacking both Democratic and Republican communication systems. Further, they believe the intent was to install Donald Trump as President, by smearing Democrats, and giving them access to private, confidential, information about the Republican party." then that's 100% factual. The CIA did say that.
If the article says "Opinions differ on whether the Russians hacked the Democratic Party, as the CIA claims, or that a private individual affiliated with the Democratic Party did", then that's also technically factual.
If the article says "I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton murdered a system administrator in order to prevent him from leaking information to Wikileaks", then that's stupid, but it's an opinion, not fake news.
If the article says "ZeroCredBlog has learned today that Hillary Clinton tried to cover up her crimes by murdering a Wikileaks leaker, trying to make it look like an mugging", then... well, that's in dubious territory. Many people might believe it, but it's improbable ZeroCredBlog has learned anything whatsoever. Facebook would be justified in hiding it until more reliable sources confirm the content of the article.
Can we start praising Trump for hypocrisy and going back on his word rather than criticizing him? Because I sure as hell don't want to see the America Trump was describing before the election.
They already lease cars to their drivers.
Yeah, but they are a taxi service. As you say, the argument is bogus. That's the point. That's like asking why a front company would buy huge quantities of heroin and cocaine and smuggle them given it'd totally destroy their claim to be a legitimate vendor of fine cotton shirts.
So those road signs and the marks on the road and the traffic lights... those have no legal standing? They weren't put up by the government? They're just decorations? Driver's licenses are optional and there's no law against driving without one as long as you have insurance? You can drive drunk?
Congrats. You found one very rare example of a senior Democrat making up shit. Meanwhile virtually the entire case against Hillary Clinton was made up, and a continuation of a campaign of lies that started in 1991 against her husband. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that the allegations that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, or screwed people over in a real estate deal (which they never made any money from) were actually honest mistakes by sincere Conservatives who totally believed them?
You know why Reid made up that allegation? Because he was trying to force Romney to do something Romney was supposed to do anyway (something that would have meant the truth came out anyway incidentally, so Reid may have intended to deceive, but only temporarily, unlike those propagating the Benghazi/Emailgate/Vince Foster/Clinton Rape/Whitewater/taking your guns/etc BS who wanted the lies to stick), and because ever since the Clintons started running for office the Republicans have become completely deranged, and it's hurt liberals that we were unable to fight fire with fire.
In that context, Reid's comments are small potatoes.
Actually Slashdot was there, it's just the editors forgot about it, which is why they're turning up again today as if it never happened.
Is Amazon a tech company then? Or Uber?
They were there, albeit the latter because Trump needs to buy the name for the second word of his new slogan.
Failing to create an emoji version of one political campaign's slogan is hardly "censoring things".