More importantly, will any of them offer static IPs and a decent upstream? My DSL is bound to drop out from under me sooner or later, and if I wanna keep hosting my site/ftp/etc I'm gonna need these things...
They are claiming that all of the promises made by Intel and UD are complete lies, and that they will hijack our processors, and then sell the research.
They are making this claim with zero evidence.
Its as if I said Amnesty international is actually taking my money I donate and using it to torture people! without having a shred of evidence.
If they wanted to make a point about it being corporate backed, and how corporations might benefit (via public relations), that'd be fine. If they had some evidence that the whol eproject was a sham, they should post it for sure.
But they didn't, and they don't, so what they did was really downright evil, and deserves whatever venom people direct at them.
Slashdot has made posting without any foundations that UD and Intel are lying, and so doing is actively opposing efforts to help cure cancer. Baseless, stupid, irresponsible, self-righteous, and typical of the petulant children who run this site.
They might try showing evidence before spewing this crap.
Christ, even the most crack-addled conspiracy theorists need a motivation, why the hell would intel engage in the potential PR nightmare of making specific promises and then overturning them? Oh, that's right, your conception of corporations here goes no further than Darth Vader? They're just evil! They don't have reasons!
The results will be published publically, your CPU cycles will only be used for what you sign up for.
Intel gets a REAL benefit from this sort of thing (generally good PR, demo of CPU power, tax write off), but I guess its more fun to come up with fantastic conspiracy theories. (How much you wanna bet someone follows up saying I work for one of these companies?)
I'm completely stunned that slashdot would be this irresponsible, they've effectively scared off a ton of processing power that, now, instead of helping people, will remain devoting to code breaking or searching for little green men.
"Shadow" is painfully pretentious and overwrought. Worse, its one of those meta-movies (like "State and Main") that's about the making of movies.
How Katz could assume it was about anything else is puzzling. (NYTimes: "the picture's dubious central metaphor, which is that moviemaking is, at bottom, a form of vampirism"). But maybe its one of those "If your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails" things. Maybe Katz' only form of analysis is geek pride.
Willem *is* actually quite good in his role. Even though his dialogue is crap, he manages to play it well.
Malkovich, on the other hand, is LOL bad. His lines are just as bad as Dafoe's, but his overblown, cartoonish delivery manages to make them even worse. Ten minutes into the movie, I'm watching Malkovich superimposed over the steam coming from the top of a train (I kid you not), and saying something to the effect of "We are artists engaged in the creation of memory...".
Even worse, after picking his cast and goofy premise, the writer/director somehow forgot to make an interesting story. The movie goes out of its way to advance its predictable storyline in the most dull way possible, and you always get the sense that the story is really irrelevant, its just a backdrop from yet-more melodramatic quotes about the "art of filmmaking".
If you want to see a movie about making movies, see The Player or Sunset Boulevard. If you want to see a movie about vampires, see the Nosferatu itself. If you want to see a movie about marginalized geeks, see Welcome to the Dollhouse.
But, unless your a pseudo-intellectual undergrad film student, I certainly wouldn't see Shadow of the Vampire.
This story doesn't even make any sense, its just techweb trolling for hits.
If an industry consortium wanted to take over linux, they can go right ahead and do it under the license. They can release their own LinuxByTheMan(tm) version, with their own kernal based on the linux kernal, forking it is perfectly legal.
Moreover, the premise is damaged. Just because a bunch of companies have invested in supporting MS products, does that mean the author believes windows should be controlled by an industry consortium.
Don't feed the techweb troll, this article is obvious bait.
I'm perfectly willing to believe people buy the music now, but for how long? ( and how long will techno-utopians like jon katz be so starry eyed about this? ).
When:
1. we've all got nice reliable 100Mbs connections
2. 100s of Gigs of HD space
3. Most importantly, when Joe Average Computer User is used to playing music from a computer/hard drive, do you think they will still buy CDs then?
Everyone with a half a mind knows the music industry is right to afraid. There is no way they can keep up their margins through the 7 layers of middle men they have right now. Yes, pay for download might work eventually, but saying "no no, this is great, people buy more music!" may be true right now, or maybe not, but think about it -- there is no way its going to stay true.
So the music industry will, understandably, flail about with lawsuits and half-assed copy protection before being forced to scale down significantly. If you work in music publishing or distribution, you should be well aware that your job title is not long for this world. (PR, labels, and musicians may or may not be okay, who knows).
I really don't understand how both sides of these debate are so blind, one side thinking lawsuits will fix things, the other thinking that this is only going to help the industry.
"Dude, this is getting pretty bad, you should make some sort of Hitler Steve Jobs, your slant is becomming very transparent." ---- http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jarg320.old/g/Godwin sLaw.html ------ Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. ---- (sure, sure, its a usenet reference, but it applies elsewhere).
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, will any of them offer static IPs and a decent upstream? My DSL is bound to drop out from under me sooner or later, and if I wanna keep hosting my site/ftp/etc I'm gonna need these things...
They are claiming that all of the promises made by Intel and UD are complete lies, and that they will hijack our processors, and then sell the research.
They are making this claim with zero evidence.
Its as if I said Amnesty international is actually taking my money I donate and using it to torture people! without having a shred of evidence.
If they wanted to make a point about it being corporate backed, and how corporations might benefit (via public relations), that'd be fine. If they had some evidence that the whol eproject was a sham, they should post it for sure.
But they didn't, and they don't, so what they did was really downright evil, and deserves whatever venom people direct at them.
This is, without a doubt, downright evil.
Slashdot has made posting without any foundations that UD and Intel are lying, and so doing is actively opposing efforts to help cure cancer. Baseless, stupid, irresponsible, self-righteous, and typical of the petulant children who run this site.
They might try showing evidence before spewing this crap.
Christ, even the most crack-addled conspiracy theorists need a motivation, why the hell would intel engage in the potential PR nightmare of making specific promises and then overturning them? Oh, that's right, your conception of corporations here goes no further than Darth Vader? They're just evil! They don't have reasons!
Read the damn FAQ: http://members.ud.com/vypc/cancer/faq_proj.htm
The results will be published publically, your CPU cycles will only be used for what you sign up for.
Intel gets a REAL benefit from this sort of thing (generally good PR, demo of CPU power, tax write off), but I guess its more fun to come up with fantastic conspiracy theories. (How much you wanna bet someone follows up saying I work for one of these companies?)
I'm completely stunned that slashdot would be this irresponsible, they've effectively scared off a ton of processing power that, now, instead of helping people, will remain devoting to code breaking or searching for little green men.
Sure looks like it.
"Shadow" is painfully pretentious and overwrought. Worse, its one of those meta-movies (like "State and Main") that's about the making of movies.
How Katz could assume it was about anything else is puzzling. (NYTimes: "the picture's dubious central metaphor, which is that moviemaking is, at bottom, a form of vampirism"). But maybe its one of those "If your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails" things. Maybe Katz' only form of analysis is geek pride.
Willem *is* actually quite good in his role. Even though his dialogue is crap, he manages to play it well.
Malkovich, on the other hand, is LOL bad. His lines are just as bad as Dafoe's, but his overblown, cartoonish delivery manages to make them even worse. Ten minutes into the movie, I'm watching Malkovich superimposed over the steam coming from the top of a train (I kid you not), and saying something to the effect of "We are artists engaged in the creation of memory...".
Even worse, after picking his cast and goofy premise, the writer/director somehow forgot to make an interesting story. The movie goes out of its way to advance its predictable storyline in the most dull way possible, and you always get the sense that the story is really irrelevant, its just a backdrop from yet-more melodramatic quotes about the "art of filmmaking".
If you want to see a movie about making movies, see The Player or Sunset Boulevard. If you want to see a movie about vampires, see the Nosferatu itself. If you want to see a movie about marginalized geeks, see Welcome to the Dollhouse.
But, unless your a pseudo-intellectual undergrad film student, I certainly wouldn't see Shadow of the Vampire.
This story doesn't even make any sense, its just techweb trolling for hits.
If an industry consortium wanted to take over linux, they can go right ahead and do it under the license. They can release their own LinuxByTheMan(tm) version, with their own kernal based on the linux kernal, forking it is perfectly legal.
Moreover, the premise is damaged. Just because a bunch of companies have invested in supporting MS products, does that mean the author believes windows should be controlled by an industry consortium.
Don't feed the techweb troll, this article is obvious bait.
I'm perfectly willing to believe people buy the music now, but for how long? ( and how long will techno-utopians like jon katz be so starry eyed about this? ).
When:
1. we've all got nice reliable 100Mbs connections
2. 100s of Gigs of HD space
3. Most importantly, when Joe Average Computer User is used to playing music from a computer/hard drive, do you think they will still buy CDs then?
Everyone with a half a mind knows the music industry is right to afraid. There is no way they can keep up their margins through the 7 layers of middle men they have right now. Yes, pay for download might work eventually, but saying "no no, this is great, people buy more music!" may be true right now, or maybe not, but think about it -- there is no way its going to stay true.
So the music industry will, understandably, flail about with lawsuits and half-assed copy protection before being forced to scale down significantly. If you work in music publishing or distribution, you should be well aware that your job title is not long for this world. (PR, labels, and musicians may or may not be okay, who knows).
I really don't understand how both sides of these debate are so blind, one side thinking lawsuits will fix things, the other thinking that this is only going to help the industry.
"Dude, this is getting pretty bad, you should make some sort of Hitler Steve Jobs, your slant is becomming very transparent."n sLaw.html
----
http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jarg320.old/g/Godwi
------
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition
in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
----
(sure, sure, its a usenet reference, but it applies elsewhere).