Well I don't know, but i can come up with a few reasons:
1. Weight of the cables, connecting every seat with regular ethernet cables is bound to add a lot of ekstra kilo's to the plane, thereby decreasing fuel-economy!
2. Convenience! No cables means less hassle when the passenger in the window-seat wants to go to the bathroom in the middle of your Pr0n surfing;-)
3. Safety reasons, almost the same as above... No need to worry about tripping over a bunch of cables when trying to find the nearest exit!
4. Coolness factor!!!
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons out there, these were just the ones that popped in on me!
Dunno if this is also available in Moz' but using the extension available here you can open the pr0n pics in seperate tabs, and then save all of them using ctrl-shift-s to save all tabs at once!
With the VME engine the case is different; the actual data is never transferred. Therefore, when intercepted by a hacker, the results will yield absolutely nothing.
Oooh now we do not send the message, so it cannot be deciphered by a hacker, but how 'bout the reciever then?
Some time ago, a commercial appeared on tv here in Denmark. It was a man trying to load a bowling ball into his car, while parked on a fairly steep road. Of course the ball falls out, and rolls down the street. A man on the road signals that he 'got it' and when it comes he kicks it with all he's got... Of course the camera turns away so you don't see it, but every time you imagine how much it hurts to kick a BBall... It's followed by the punchline "need glasses?" or something and is promoting a national chain of opticians. I laughed my ass of first time I saw it. Still stings every time though, you just know that he hasn't got a non-fractured bone left in the foot!
... I bought a new mobo, with a FDD controller, got home to realize that ASUS had rearranged the layout, and my FDD cable now wasn't long enough to reach from controller to drive. So after that I haven't used the FDD in that machine... I was pissed at first, but realised I didn't use it anyway, so now I have a FDD, but it just sits there, no controller, no power, but it's better thah a hole in the case, right?!!!
How about machines with 2, or more NIC's will they be counted as several machines if this technique is used? IANAIPE (IP Expert) so forgive me if this is a trivial question...
I guess this post must've been written in COBOL, and that would mean that I too can speak COBOL. It looks pretty much like plain english, isn't it hard to write en unambigous compiler for something like this?
Well all of us who love the story are already bound to see it, maybe others will see Gandalf in the trailer, and wonder what happens, thus making them interested in seeing TTT... It is not that big of a spoiler...
Your complaint about the cave troll is a case in point - you clearly didn't know that the characters on the cave troll's back were also CG...
Well not for all of the shots, close-up of Legolas, for example... The physics of these kind of shots doesn't match the physics of the pure CG shots. I'm sure they have a really good P-engine but it is definately not good enough yet.
So why has no one been complaining about the Nazgul's horses at the ford,
Granted, I can't from menory say which shots are CG, but if it's the part where they are taken over by the river you mean, then nobody complained about the river shaped as a horse either, and here in particular, I'm sure that the river got more attention than the horses...
or the tentacles of the Watcher,
you tell me... does it look realistic? Nobody knows! Is it CG well of course it is, and everybody knows! Could you tell that it was CG? Definately! This was better than the Cave-troll IMO, but not perfect.
or the fellowship itself running across the Bridge
Again here I cannot give specific shots that are CG, but what is the center of attention here? Is it the Fellowship? The camera is flying all over the place, and a thousand things are happening, so you are not focused on the characters only... Of course the most obvious and badly made examples are pointed out. I'm sure some/.'er has sat down and scrutinized the movie, writing down every little CG detail that was flawed.
And adding to your list how about the Balrog? I loved the way they made it, so I won't complain (much). As great as I thought it was, the physics are still not good enough. Yet nobody complains about this, why? Because people find it better than a lot of the other CG in the movie.
I think a good experiment would be to convince them a particular movie was made without CG, and afterwards make them point out what they believe to be CG anymays. That way the subjectivity you are talking about would be gone. I'm sure there would be stuff that wasn't identified, but a lot would also be revealed. Guess we won't find out today...
You've still got to admit that, some of these CG bits are horrible... I am yet to see a movie where actual characters get on the back of a CG object - as happened with the cave-troll - which is the slightest bit realistic. The lighting and shadows are fine, but the movement is absolutely terrible.
It is not very difficult to make realistically looking CG, as long as it isn't the center of attention. All of your examples are exactly that.
I think the poster tries to argue that a lot of the people with [me|xp|2k]+IE5 will not download movies, but instead keep going to BlockBuster as they used to. This means that of the 90+ percent of users who does have the setup, only a small fraction are adequately tech. savvy / interested.
so the_cars_run cleaner but the factories are still spewing out the crap
Well I guess that it would be a lot easier to maintain a clean combustion of the oil at a powerplant, as opposed to thousands of carengines, so there could be a benefit to this approach. Of course it depends on the efficiency of the extra step in the process... oil -> elec -> movement vs oil(gasoline) -> movement.
Slashdot Mirror
I just use the term "... by asking Google..." it's shorter, theres no legal implications and I'm always satisfied with the answer
Besides they're dupes only in the eyes of the beholder.
Release it for the youth, make it work, then sell it as a general tool as suggested!
...today this could be considered a tech joke!
1. Weight of the cables, connecting every seat with regular ethernet cables is bound to add a lot of ekstra kilo's to the plane, thereby decreasing fuel-economy!
2. Convenience! No cables means less hassle when the passenger in the window-seat wants to go to the bathroom in the middle of your Pr0n surfing
3. Safety reasons, almost the same as above... No need to worry about tripping over a bunch of cables when trying to find the nearest exit!
4. Coolness factor!!!
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons out there, these were just the ones that popped in on me!
Very nice indeed...
I for one never just browse the /. post, and I have never heard of anyone doing so.
Oooh now we do not send the message, so it cannot be deciphered by a hacker, but how 'bout the reciever then?
I would say that the solar surface is hot enough as it is!
And now you are not proud any longer, just a failure?
Some time ago, a commercial appeared on tv here in Denmark. It was a man trying to load a bowling ball into his car, while parked on a fairly steep road. Of course the ball falls out, and rolls down the street. A man on the road signals that he 'got it' and when it comes he kicks it with all he's got... Of course the camera turns away so you don't see it, but every time you imagine how much it hurts to kick a BBall... It's followed by the punchline "need glasses?" or something and is promoting a national chain of opticians.
I laughed my ass of first time I saw it. Still stings every time though, you just know that he hasn't got a non-fractured bone left in the foot!
... I bought a new mobo, with a FDD controller, got home to realize that ASUS had rearranged the layout, and my FDD cable now wasn't long enough to reach from controller to drive. So after that I haven't used the FDD in that machine... I was pissed at first, but realised I didn't use it anyway, so now I have a FDD, but it just sits there, no controller, no power, but it's better thah a hole in the case, right?!!!
How about machines with 2, or more NIC's will they be counted as several machines if this technique is used?
IANAIPE (IP Expert) so forgive me if this is a trivial question...
The ring is destroyed, aw man now you ruined the last movie for me, completely...
Better yet, rephrase the contraction of the time to run a marathon, with the speed at which it is done. Now both are expanding rules...
I guess this post must've been written in COBOL, and that would mean that I too can speak COBOL. It looks pretty much like plain english, isn't it hard to write en unambigous compiler for something like this?
Of course I might be wrong, AND stupid...
OK! How about yourself?
Well I don't know about this... I have 2 kidneys, and I like it! I think this goes on all the time...
Seem like a lot more than $25,000,000, when seen in a front-page article?
What's the point?
Then 1m = 1m a perfectly non-arbitrary, although a slightly recursive (n), definition!
[...]would have put off the millenium bug for about 1000 years.
Ist that 1000 base 12 years, or 1000 base 10 years?
Well all of us who love the story are already bound to see it, maybe others will see Gandalf in the trailer, and wonder what happens, thus making them interested in seeing TTT... It is not that big of a spoiler...
Well not for all of the shots, close-up of Legolas, for example... The physics of these kind of shots doesn't match the physics of the pure CG shots. I'm sure they have a really good P-engine but it is definately not good enough yet.
So why has no one been complaining about the Nazgul's horses at the ford,
Granted, I can't from menory say which shots are CG, but if it's the part where they are taken over by the river you mean, then nobody complained about the river shaped as a horse either, and here in particular, I'm sure that the river got more attention than the horses...
or the tentacles of the Watcher,
you tell me... does it look realistic? Nobody knows! Is it CG well of course it is, and everybody knows! Could you tell that it was CG? Definately! This was better than the Cave-troll IMO, but not perfect.
or the fellowship itself running across the Bridge
Again here I cannot give specific shots that are CG, but what is the center of attention here? Is it the Fellowship? The camera is flying all over the place, and a thousand things are happening, so you are not focused on the characters only... Of course the most obvious and badly made examples are pointed out. I'm sure some /.'er has sat down and scrutinized the movie, writing down every little CG detail that was flawed.
And adding to your list how about the Balrog? I loved the way they made it, so I won't complain (much). As great as I thought it was, the physics are still not good enough. Yet nobody complains about this, why? Because people find it better than a lot of the other CG in the movie.
I think a good experiment would be to convince them a particular movie was made without CG, and afterwards make them point out what they believe to be CG anymays. That way the subjectivity you are talking about would be gone. I'm sure there would be stuff that wasn't identified, but a lot would also be revealed. Guess we won't find out today...
I am yet to see a movie where actual characters get on the back of a CG object - as happened with the cave-troll - which is the slightest bit realistic. The lighting and shadows are fine, but the movement is absolutely terrible.
It is not very difficult to make realistically looking CG, as long as it isn't the center of attention. All of your examples are exactly that.
I think the poster tries to argue that a lot of the people with [me|xp|2k]+IE5 will not download movies, but instead keep going to BlockBuster as they used to. This means that of the 90+ percent of users who does have the setup, only a small fraction are adequately tech. savvy / interested.
Well I guess that it would be a lot easier to maintain a clean combustion of the oil at a powerplant, as opposed to thousands of carengines, so there could be a benefit to this approach. Of course it depends on the efficiency of the extra step in the process... oil -> elec -> movement vs oil(gasoline) -> movement.