Just so we're clear, we're talking about a chap who believes that he has cast a spell which compels an Invisible Sky Giant to use him as a mouthpiece. Now, do you want to talk about cognitive dissonance?
[citation needed] And no, Gizmondo is not a credible source, even if they were a primary one.
From my passing acquiantance with law enforcement, I'd venture to suggest that people who "find" things also tend to get their lies in early and often. Not all dishonesty implies theft, but all theft implies dishonety. An assumption of innocence is for courts; us regular folk can apply the "What's more likely" test.
[Gizmondo] "didn't know this was stolen when we bought it."
Riiiight. The difference between "found" and "stolen" is entirely in the mind of the... "finder". Heck, you can "find" a bike in the street... if you jump on it quick enough. Hang around gas stations, and you may "find" a car with the keys still in the ignition.
Go into Gizmondo's office late at night - "find" an open window - and wow, look at all the gear just ripe for "finding". After all if it's not grasped tightly in someone's hand at that very moment, it doesn't belong to anyone, right?
They paid $5000 for something that they knew - by their own admission - did not belong to the seller. If that's not dealing in stolen goods, then I don't know what is. You don't even have to know the law to be sure - a child could tell you that it's unethical and wrong.
At this point, an offer to pay "reasonable" expenses is about as generous as Ford apologizing for selling a car airbag that deploys as soon as you sit in the seat. Plus, it's covered in broken glass and rusty nails. Also, lemon juice.
It's nice that they're taking responsibility and all, but a bodyguard who beats up his own client isn't really the sort of person that you give second chances to.
Article Fail: doesn't explain why I should give a damn about dams halfway around the world. Not even a car analogy; surely they could have worked in something about driving across salt flats?
Big private offices: see Peopleware, which is still the only text that actually uses studies and stats rather than Feng Shui wizard-gabble.
Of course, nobody (short of Google) can afford that any more, so we make up bullshit reasons to justify cramming devs into cramped noisy battery farms, while neatly ignoring that the job of a developer is to develop, not to network.
Exactly. Shatner is a superb actor. He chose to play Kirk as big and wild and over the top in the Historical Documents because that's what was needed to contrast with Nimoy's compelling portrayal of Spock, and Kelley's passionate restraint; it made for compelling drama and kept the show on the air. Having created the mythos, in the films he could dial it back and riff on the legend that he created.
Oh dear, this again? You lost this argument 40 years ago, when Star Trek created the fanboi. You can put it down to Roddenberry's drive and genius, Nimoy's utterly compelling Spock - the first truly human alien - or Kelly or Doohan's flawless portrayals of their parts, superb method actors all of them.
But here's the thing. None of it would have worked with Jeffrey Hunter in the Big Chair. The supporting cast provided a solid and convincing human backdrop, the first believable future world, but what really sold Star Trek to us as show was Shatner's unfliching and towering passion.
Shatner was a stage actor, and he played every scene as though he were projecting to the back of the theater. Call it hammy, cheesy, any food-based moniker you like, but the one thing you cannot ever accuse him of is being bland, or ignorable. He stole every scene, he owned every scene.
And it was deliberate; Shatner is method too. He chose to play the part that way because when he sat in the Big Chair, he was James T. Kirk, and James T. Kirk had to be larger than life, and possessed of superhuman self confidence. A man chosen from billions to command the flagship of a Star Fleet tasked with: how could he be anything other than the way Shatner played him?
Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
There are not just words. These are the Kirk's entire raison d'être. To boldly go. Kirk could never be just a man; he had to be a superhumanly cocky, skirting the border between genius and occupational insanity, always above and apart from the rest of the crew. Yes, Shatner's wild portrayal of Kirk jarred with the solid or nuanced performances of the rest of the cast, but Shatner owned the show, in the way that Kirk owned the ship.
Consider the ridiculous things that Shatner had to do in the Historical Documents; running from one side of a sound set to the other in response to a camera being tilted, fighting a guy in a big rubber lizard suit, putting on black eyeliner and being Evil Kirk. A lesser actor would have just said the lines and taken his paycheck, but Shatner gave it 100% in every scene, played it like he was on the opening night of Hamlet every single shoot, made it believable because - while the camera was on him - he believed in it.
I cannot think of any other actor of his generation who could have sold Roddenberry's vision to us in the way that he did. Shatner is Star Trek.
You don't need a mobile device to see it. If you've got wireless enabled on your desktop/laptop/netbook, just go to maps.google.com and click on the little round circle above the zoom bar. Accept any prompt to provide your location (which sends the SSIDS/MACs of nearby access points), and prepare to be amazed and/or appalled when The Man shows you (more or less) exactly where you are.
they can estimate your position for Google Maps on a mobile device, even if you have no GPS on that device. This has been public knowledge for at least a year now.
2+ years. It's a great application, with no more privacy implications than if you were to call someone with local knowledge and describe the landmarks that you could see near you.
Nobody, least of all Google, cares who owns "BT Home Connect 9923123" or "Pr0n4Free4EvarLan", they just care that there's a SSID in that area with that name.
Cue objections from Tin Foil Hatters who don't want The Man to be able to describe the outside of their parent's basement, lest their very souuuuls be stolen and sold to, god, I don't know, the Saucer People.
Fill me in, Hatters. To what Evil use could this information be put? Try to use reasons that might actually be valid on Planet Earth, if you please.
Transport costs too much? Just put some of our Saudi Arabian friends and allies on the last shuttle flight, and I'm pretty sure it'll make it to New York all by itself.
Sure, using someone else's mature, well featured engine is efficient and smart, and actually supports the article's point. It's just that it's so tempting for us code monkeys to roll our own that we often need a grown up to lay down the law and tell us to get on with writing the damn game.
Lame and silly. Surely there's a market here? The longer they leave it, the more we'll get used to... "sharing"... content, sans money or ads, instead of them making money from our eyeballs.
Plus, he's got continuity of ownership. Epic Rewrite Syndrome is often a consequence of bringing in fresh people to replace a burned out team, who - untainted by experience - reckon that they can do better, and that a complete rewrite will "pay for itself later".
Slashdot Mirror
Uh... you get the part about requiring energy to turn trees in the forest into paper in your hand, right? They don't pulp themselves, you know.
Just so we're clear, we're talking about a chap who believes that he has cast a spell which compels an Invisible Sky Giant to use him as a mouthpiece. Now, do you want to talk about cognitive dissonance?
[citation needed] And no, Gizmondo is not a credible source, even if they were a primary one.
From my passing acquiantance with law enforcement, I'd venture to suggest that people who "find" things also tend to get their lies in early and often. Not all dishonesty implies theft, but all theft implies dishonety. An assumption of innocence is for courts; us regular folk can apply the "What's more likely" test.
Beat me to it.
Riiiight. The difference between "found" and "stolen" is entirely in the mind of the... "finder". Heck, you can "find" a bike in the street... if you jump on it quick enough. Hang around gas stations, and you may "find" a car with the keys still in the ignition.
Go into Gizmondo's office late at night - "find" an open window - and wow, look at all the gear just ripe for "finding". After all if it's not grasped tightly in someone's hand at that very moment, it doesn't belong to anyone, right?
They paid $5000 for something that they knew - by their own admission - did not belong to the seller. If that's not dealing in stolen goods, then I don't know what is. You don't even have to know the law to be sure - a child could tell you that it's unethical and wrong.
At this point, an offer to pay "reasonable" expenses is about as generous as Ford apologizing for selling a car airbag that deploys as soon as you sit in the seat. Plus, it's covered in broken glass and rusty nails. Also, lemon juice.
It's nice that they're taking responsibility and all, but a bodyguard who beats up his own client isn't really the sort of person that you give second chances to.
Indeed, and only the Lord Kelvin can deliver you from them. Have you accepted the Lord Kelvin as your personal conservator from entropy?
It's on it's way. Don't worry, We already know where you live.
Let's be clear that in Brazil, separation of Church and State means "opposite sides of the confession box".
Article Fail: doesn't explain why I should give a damn about dams halfway around the world. Not even a car analogy; surely they could have worked in something about driving across salt flats?
Big private offices: see Peopleware, which is still the only text that actually uses studies and stats rather than Feng Shui wizard-gabble.
Of course, nobody (short of Google) can afford that any more, so we make up bullshit reasons to justify cramming devs into cramped noisy battery farms, while neatly ignoring that the job of a developer is to develop, not to network.
Exactly. Shatner is a superb actor. He chose to play Kirk as big and wild and over the top in the Historical Documents because that's what was needed to contrast with Nimoy's compelling portrayal of Spock, and Kelley's passionate restraint; it made for compelling drama and kept the show on the air. Having created the mythos, in the films he could dial it back and riff on the legend that he created.
Oh dear, this again? You lost this argument 40 years ago, when Star Trek created the fanboi. You can put it down to Roddenberry's drive and genius, Nimoy's utterly compelling Spock - the first truly human alien - or Kelly or Doohan's flawless portrayals of their parts, superb method actors all of them.
But here's the thing. None of it would have worked with Jeffrey Hunter in the Big Chair. The supporting cast provided a solid and convincing human backdrop, the first believable future world, but what really sold Star Trek to us as show was Shatner's unfliching and towering passion.
Shatner was a stage actor, and he played every scene as though he were projecting to the back of the theater. Call it hammy, cheesy, any food-based moniker you like, but the one thing you cannot ever accuse him of is being bland, or ignorable. He stole every scene, he owned every scene.
And it was deliberate; Shatner is method too. He chose to play the part that way because when he sat in the Big Chair, he was James T. Kirk, and James T. Kirk had to be larger than life, and possessed of superhuman self confidence. A man chosen from billions to command the flagship of a Star Fleet tasked with: how could he be anything other than the way Shatner played him?
There are not just words. These are the Kirk's entire raison d'être. To boldly go. Kirk could never be just a man; he had to be a superhumanly cocky, skirting the border between genius and occupational insanity, always above and apart from the rest of the crew. Yes, Shatner's wild portrayal of Kirk jarred with the solid or nuanced performances of the rest of the cast, but Shatner owned the show, in the way that Kirk owned the ship.
Consider the ridiculous things that Shatner had to do in the Historical Documents; running from one side of a sound set to the other in response to a camera being tilted, fighting a guy in a big rubber lizard suit, putting on black eyeliner and being Evil Kirk. A lesser actor would have just said the lines and taken his paycheck, but Shatner gave it 100% in every scene, played it like he was on the opening night of Hamlet every single shoot, made it believable because - while the camera was on him - he believed in it.
I cannot think of any other actor of his generation who could have sold Roddenberry's vision to us in the way that he did. Shatner is Star Trek.
You fail an Internets. Bollywood "creates" nearly twice as many films as Hollywood, which are watched by many more people. I guess you wouldn't class them as real movies, since they haven't figured out that the real business is in marketing and moichandising.
You win three Internets for referencing the best Star Trek movie never made.
You don't need a mobile device to see it. If you've got wireless enabled on your desktop/laptop/netbook, just go to maps.google.com and click on the little round circle above the zoom bar. Accept any prompt to provide your location (which sends the SSIDS/MACs of nearby access points), and prepare to be amazed and/or appalled when The Man shows you (more or less) exactly where you are.
I think what you meant to say was "Echelon Area 51 Windings Majestic Zionist Black Helicopter MOLE PEOPLE CONSPIRACY"
Whoosh! (That's the sound of a joke flying right under your feet)
2+ years. It's a great application, with no more privacy implications than if you were to call someone with local knowledge and describe the landmarks that you could see near you.
Nobody, least of all Google, cares who owns "BT Home Connect 9923123" or "Pr0n4Free4EvarLan", they just care that there's a SSID in that area with that name.
Cue objections from Tin Foil Hatters who don't want The Man to be able to describe the outside of their parent's basement, lest their very souuuuls be stolen and sold to, god, I don't know, the Saucer People.
Fill me in, Hatters. To what Evil use could this information be put? Try to use reasons that might actually be valid on Planet Earth, if you please.
Transport costs too much? Just put some of our Saudi Arabian friends and allies on the last shuttle flight, and I'm pretty sure it'll make it to New York all by itself.
Hush, or he will stab at thee.
Maybe they could try some sort of Final Solution? Wishy washy liberals.
Sure, using someone else's mature, well featured engine is efficient and smart, and actually supports the article's point. It's just that it's so tempting for us code monkeys to roll our own that we often need a grown up to lay down the law and tell us to get on with writing the damn game.
No, which is why you can choose to updating to the new firmware and EULA, or not. If you don't, no problem, you're just excommunicated.
Lame and silly. Surely there's a market here? The longer they leave it, the more we'll get used to... "sharing"... content, sans money or ads, instead of them making money from our eyeballs.
Plus, he's got continuity of ownership. Epic Rewrite Syndrome is often a consequence of bringing in fresh people to replace a burned out team, who - untainted by experience - reckon that they can do better, and that a complete rewrite will "pay for itself later".