No, hell that'd be awful. Franklin Institute is an OmniMAX theater, I'm pretty sure. Dome-shaped right?
If so I'm shocked the studio allowed the movie to be shown on there.
Domed screens are awful to watch any IMAX movie on -- they're only good for OmniMAX movies that were intended to be viewed with the screen wrapped around the viewer.
Its not like every other DMR movie... a bunch of the movie is shot, and presented in full frame 15-perf IMAX.
There's a whole aspect of the experience you'd miss not having that jolting sensation when the movie goes from widescreen to "zomg, I'm flying through gotham" fullscreen.
Its used extremely effectively IMO.
Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Exactly... and the same thing played out on the boats.
Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you...
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
No, its because I know if someone wants to tell me something privately, they better say it to my face. Do you think there's any privacy in anything you do over a cell phone? The only privacy you have is because no one gives a shit about you and what you're doing, not because of anything inherent in the technology.
So if you want to term "being able to effectively use" as being "lazy", that's your prerogative, I suppose, but you may want to loosen the tinfoil.
Why is it controversial? Because they were leaking it or because its there?
If I have to look at a web page to view an MMS, I'd expect the phone number to be there. It would be if it was on my phone!
Personally I'd rather them use a robots.txt appropriately and keep the URLs randomized with an appropriate GUID but stop doing any authentication. The iPhone's lack of MMS, for example, would be dramatically less of a big deal if they would text me a damn URL to go straight to it rather than texting me a login page with a "username" and "password" to login with that I can't cut and paste.
In that case I think I have twenty souls in my wallet right now, and according to the fed, they're down 10% in value this year.
Re:One thing Google could do about incoming spam..
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yeah thats why I mentioned the Cyrillic thing.
In reality doing it via language matching should be pretty trivial. I'd hazard a guess if you had a list of 30 languages and you pulled out the top 50 most common words in each language you'd probably have near 100% success in detecting the primary language in an e-mail. I'm sure an algorithm either purely based on that word set or based on a larger dictionary choosen based on that matching could be done to determine with a very high confidence what language an e-mail is in and if there's more than one or two languages in it.
They also know my white list of contacts. In my case I'd bet 90% of my e-mail comes from them so those can be immediately put in the inbox, reducing the number that need to be scanned at all.
One thing Google could do about incoming spam...
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Half of the spam I get on my gmail account that actually gets past the filter is in some language other than English... in fact its almost always in Cyrillic as well.
Give me a damn drop down that says "I speak English, anything not in English is not to me".
Won't solve their outgoing problem, but adding "this is my language" support would be a big help on the incoming, at least with my spam patterns.
Microsoft has draconian licensing around their web server edition. You're definitely violating the license to convert it to a workstation.
If you're going to violate the license and effectively steal anyway, why not just grab the whole thing off a torrent? You can't half-violate a license -- either you're legal or you're not. It seems pretty dumb to spend $350 and still be "not-legal".
Now I'm sure you paid for that 2008 server license, but in case you didn't, you could just steal the commercial versions of the anti-virus tools, also.
Re:6502 assembly - now there's a blast from the pa
on
1200-Baud Archeology
·
· Score: 1
Ha, I did the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one.
And strangely I'm sure I haven't touched 6502 in 25 years. Strange the little things you remember. I did a lot of programming on the Atari platform and I'm sure if I stopped and thought about it I could remember enough details of using the Pokey to generate sound or tricks in the CTIA/GTIA to still be able to write code to put a few different video modes on screen at once.
VNC perhaps, but there's a bunch of handy apps (AFPd, SSH server, SSH client, shell access) that are against the terms of the SDK license agreement. Its legal not technical limitations.
Thankfully 2.0 can still be un-crippled and the Installer.app managed versions of those apps will be usable.
The truth is people like you don't like when other people have more then them. you get jealous when people have flat screens or drive hummers, but you're lazy and don't want to run the rat race so you find reasons to justify your position.
Funny, however I'd hazard a guess I've spent more on cars and car parts in the last year than the average Slashdotter made. Certainly enough to buy several Hummers. However, I don't feel the need to jump up and down and be a cock about it. Here's a secret about money: its easy to make.
Like I said, you're against free enterprise because it makes people wealthier then you, not like the global village, where everyone has the same amount of suck.
Yup, blathering nutjob. You don't know me, you don't know what I make, what I own, how much money I donate every year, or my political or economic leanings. You don't know my educational background or what I do for a living. You don't know what my expertise is in.
You also have a grade school understanding of economics and what a free market means in the context of a global economy. Dubya, that isn't you, is it?
It also includes the doubling up of the free apps -- poking around, it looks like almost half of them are "free" demos, and there's a second premium app you have to buy.
I don't tend to stop to talk to blabbering nutjobs on street corners, so I'm not sure why I'm replying here, but I'd hate for even one person to read your post and think there's a mote of truth in it.
Why can't you let people do that? Because human beings will consume and hoard resources until they are unable to consume or hoard any more. And people living in the US have the ability to do so with resources that ARE NOT THEIRS.
People who are using more than their fair share of resources (and people in the US *all* do that, greens or blathering nutjobs) can turn that overabundance into buying power that continues to allow them to overconsume even more.
And most importantly, when you pay more for gas to drive a nice car, the money you are paying leaves out a key factor in the value of the oil you're burning -- the fact that it can NOT be replaced. You are paying for a percentage of current demand and paying for the labor to extract it, you are not paying for the percentage of the value of the energy in that oil represents spread out over the length of time humans will walk this planet. You're using income made from renewable sources (labor) and using it to permanently consume resources that are not renewable.
The free market doesn't work when the full costs of a resource are not paid. Arguably a free market *can't* work when talking about a permanently consumed resource because there are a hundred billion or a trillion people who haven't been born yet who can't bid on that resource.
Just because we, as a species, were stupid enough a hundred years ago to look at today and not think about tomorrow doesn't mean we're that stupid now or that its inherently the right thing to do.
And using the argument "we might as well keep doing it because if we don't, they will" is childish. "He did it, so I'm going to do it" stopped being acceptable for everything else at 5 years old.
Slashdot Mirror
No, hell that'd be awful. Franklin Institute is an OmniMAX theater, I'm pretty sure. Dome-shaped right?
If so I'm shocked the studio allowed the movie to be shown on there.
Domed screens are awful to watch any IMAX movie on -- they're only good for OmniMAX movies that were intended to be viewed with the screen wrapped around the viewer.
Did you see it in IMAX?
Its not like every other DMR movie... a bunch of the movie is shot, and presented in full frame 15-perf IMAX.
There's a whole aspect of the experience you'd miss not having that jolting sensation when the movie goes from widescreen to "zomg, I'm flying through gotham" fullscreen.
Its used extremely effectively IMO.
Exactly... and the same thing played out on the boats.
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
The pencil is mightier than the sword, as they say. Sort of.
If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you ...
That's because you value your laziness more than your privacy.
No, its because I know if someone wants to tell me something privately, they better say it to my face. Do you think there's any privacy in anything you do over a cell phone? The only privacy you have is because no one gives a shit about you and what you're doing, not because of anything inherent in the technology.
So if you want to term "being able to effectively use" as being "lazy", that's your prerogative, I suppose, but you may want to loosen the tinfoil.
Why is it controversial? Because they were leaking it or because its there?
If I have to look at a web page to view an MMS, I'd expect the phone number to be there. It would be if it was on my phone!
Personally I'd rather them use a robots.txt appropriately and keep the URLs randomized with an appropriate GUID but stop doing any authentication. The iPhone's lack of MMS, for example, would be dramatically less of a big deal if they would text me a damn URL to go straight to it rather than texting me a login page with a "username" and "password" to login with that I can't cut and paste.
In that case I think I have twenty souls in my wallet right now, and according to the fed, they're down 10% in value this year.
Yeah thats why I mentioned the Cyrillic thing.
In reality doing it via language matching should be pretty trivial. I'd hazard a guess if you had a list of 30 languages and you pulled out the top 50 most common words in each language you'd probably have near 100% success in detecting the primary language in an e-mail. I'm sure an algorithm either purely based on that word set or based on a larger dictionary choosen based on that matching could be done to determine with a very high confidence what language an e-mail is in and if there's more than one or two languages in it.
They also know my white list of contacts. In my case I'd bet 90% of my e-mail comes from them so those can be immediately put in the inbox, reducing the number that need to be scanned at all.
Half of the spam I get on my gmail account that actually gets past the filter is in some language other than English... in fact its almost always in Cyrillic as well.
Give me a damn drop down that says "I speak English, anything not in English is not to me".
Won't solve their outgoing problem, but adding "this is my language" support would be a big help on the incoming, at least with my spam patterns.
Microsoft has draconian licensing around their web server edition. You're definitely violating the license to convert it to a workstation.
If you're going to violate the license and effectively steal anyway, why not just grab the whole thing off a torrent? You can't half-violate a license -- either you're legal or you're not. It seems pretty dumb to spend $350 and still be "not-legal".
Now I'm sure you paid for that 2008 server license, but in case you didn't, you could just steal the commercial versions of the anti-virus tools, also.
You two stop being penii.
Ha, I did the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one.
And strangely I'm sure I haven't touched 6502 in 25 years. Strange the little things you remember. I did a lot of programming on the Atari platform and I'm sure if I stopped and thought about it I could remember enough details of using the Pokey to generate sound or tricks in the CTIA/GTIA to still be able to write code to put a few different video modes on screen at once.
Those were the days.
I have no idea, and frankly the movie was awful so I am certain I'll never watch it again to find out.
Really far more interesting at this point is how I got moderated Insightful instead of Funny or maybe a stretch to say Interesting.
Sometimes I just don't get this place ...
It sure almost worked for Richard Pryor -- he damn near killed Superman with a computer drawn on the back of napkins.
Eh, but four million US is what, like 300 GBP these days? You can buy an iPhone for that!
VNC perhaps, but there's a bunch of handy apps (AFPd, SSH server, SSH client, shell access) that are against the terms of the SDK license agreement. Its legal not technical limitations.
Thankfully 2.0 can still be un-crippled and the Installer.app managed versions of those apps will be usable.
Or better yet don't do either, just have the e-mail go to gmail. Google Apps for Domains is free, and less clunky than forwarding.
The truth is people like you don't like when other people have more then them. you get jealous when people have flat screens or drive hummers, but you're lazy and don't want to run the rat race so you find reasons to justify your position.
Funny, however I'd hazard a guess I've spent more on cars and car parts in the last year than the average Slashdotter made. Certainly enough to buy several Hummers. However, I don't feel the need to jump up and down and be a cock about it. Here's a secret about money: its easy to make.
Like I said, you're against free enterprise because it makes people wealthier then you, not like the global village, where everyone has the same amount of suck.
Yup, blathering nutjob. You don't know me, you don't know what I make, what I own, how much money I donate every year, or my political or economic leanings. You don't know my educational background or what I do for a living. You don't know what my expertise is in.
You also have a grade school understanding of economics and what a free market means in the context of a global economy. Dubya, that isn't you, is it?
It also includes the doubling up of the free apps -- poking around, it looks like almost half of them are "free" demos, and there's a second premium app you have to buy.
If the Democrats had any balls, they'd push Hillary through at the convention.
A yes vote on FISA is inexcusable.
Someone go invent an x-ray connection, or something.
I think the governments will see right through that plan.
I don't tend to stop to talk to blabbering nutjobs on street corners, so I'm not sure why I'm replying here, but I'd hate for even one person to read your post and think there's a mote of truth in it.
Why can't you let people do that? Because human beings will consume and hoard resources until they are unable to consume or hoard any more. And people living in the US have the ability to do so with resources that ARE NOT THEIRS.
People who are using more than their fair share of resources (and people in the US *all* do that, greens or blathering nutjobs) can turn that overabundance into buying power that continues to allow them to overconsume even more.
And most importantly, when you pay more for gas to drive a nice car, the money you are paying leaves out a key factor in the value of the oil you're burning -- the fact that it can NOT be replaced. You are paying for a percentage of current demand and paying for the labor to extract it, you are not paying for the percentage of the value of the energy in that oil represents spread out over the length of time humans will walk this planet. You're using income made from renewable sources (labor) and using it to permanently consume resources that are not renewable.
The free market doesn't work when the full costs of a resource are not paid. Arguably a free market *can't* work when talking about a permanently consumed resource because there are a hundred billion or a trillion people who haven't been born yet who can't bid on that resource.
Just because we, as a species, were stupid enough a hundred years ago to look at today and not think about tomorrow doesn't mean we're that stupid now or that its inherently the right thing to do.
And using the argument "we might as well keep doing it because if we don't, they will" is childish. "He did it, so I'm going to do it" stopped being acceptable for everything else at 5 years old.