I thought that the current plan was to bind hydrogen into a solid substrate from which it could be easily released for combustion, but which would prevent accidental leaking. Is that not happening now?
To be fair, what Microsoft has always meant by richness is the capacity to embed unstructured (with respect to the encapsulating format) data, the semantics of which are available to specific readers only. RFC2822 mail has such a feature, for example. Headers which begin with "X-" are allowed, but are considered vendor-specific, and do not have a default semantic.
It makes me wonder, though... does ODF not have vendor-specific data hooks? If it does, then Microsoft is just blowing air, here.
It's a *library patch*. The "library/language" distinction is a thin one, and in this case is moot. I'm talking about impact, and a change to the parser would be less impactful than a change to the libraries (since changing the parser doesn't impact working code in the field).
*just* patching that library is no different than patching any other library. Not so. It's a core library which must be used by any program that uses the language, and therefore touches all of your software.
Yes, the vendor could sneak in other patches, but that's no different to *any* other patch from *any* vendor that provides a language runtime I said exactly that.
Are you saying you'd hold out on a patch for a security hole in IE because it might include a modified version of any of Microsoft's runtimes? I'm saying that any patch that is going to affect diverse development teams' work, across the entire organization is going to have to go through an expensive rollout process, and that's the unfortunate reality that people in large enterprises have to live with. The academic and small/medium-business world will probably never fully comprehend the complexity of running such a large business, but suffice to say that the techniques used in smaller companies and organizations simply don't scale.
Microsoft is notorious for being cavalier about slipping new runtimes in under the hood. Yep.
Gees you googlites just never let up. It's funny that anyone who points out the merits of Google's business is a "googlite"... I'm not. I think their business is fundamentally flawed, but all of the flaws I can find are relatively surmountable. They might actually succeed, and that does make me feel a bit better than thinking that the software world will be run by Microsoft and IBM (and with the entertainment industry being slowly taken over by Apple). The very fact that I saw IBM as the "white knight" of the software world until Google came along should indicate how bad things had gotten. Other companies (Red Hat for example) try to do the right thing as they grow, but are falling prey to many of the market pressures that most companies fall to.
The email ain't free you pay for it by viewing adds. You don't have to use it if that bothers you, but I don't pay a dime to use their email service (and if the ads bother you, don't display them). I consider that "free as in beer," even when my beer comes in a glass with the brewery's logo on it.
What next 'free' fucking pillows, patented wireless pillows, that monitor you sleep state and when you achieve REM sleep, feed you subconscious sound bites, add to that microphones for people who talk in their sleep, I think you need to take some time to relax and remember that you're not the only person in the world with concerns about the world... fortunately for you, some of your fellow concernees founded a company....
Neither of them is looking out for us. Google is no way doing this to make sure prices are low for broadband. They are doing it for profits and their shareholders. I would bet any benefit for users is temporary. Like the benefit from their text-only advertising on search results (something Slashdot posters claimed would be temporary years ago)?
Like the benefit from their free mail service which gave users more storage than any other service on the market, forcing other vendors to improve their offerings?
Like the benefit from their continued contributions to open source software projects over the years (in terms of developers, contributed code, contributed subsystems, advocacy, financial support, sponsored development, etc.)?
How much more than every other company does Google have to do before folks like you will even notice? If we spent half as much time finding fault with AT&T, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
1. Why are you painting Google as the bad guy here, when they're in the process of trying to wrest control of spectrum from AT&T... which Slashdot has endlessly complained about... by adding provisions for open use... which Slashdot has endlessly screamed for.
2. Why on earth was such an empty comment modded up?
How does this differ from any other security patch? It differs substantially from "any other" security patch, because it's specifically a language patch. Changes to your implementation language (even just to fix a bug) can have far-reaching impact, and you can't trust a vendor not to sneak in "extras" with such a patch. Now, compared to a CLR patch or a JavaScript patch for Firefox... no, this is on-par in terms of the expense of a rollout.
Wouldn't you just roll it out the same as with any other patch? Yes you would. Which means, a full release cycle. Most enterprises (a catch-all phrase that usually maps to the largest corporate environments, involving thousands of employees) support a range of in-house and 3rd party applications, utilities and infrastructure tools. QA on a release cycle for desktops can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in employee time and delayed projects, but to perform the release any more cavalierly can result in even more damage.
Most folks who've worked in small-to-medium businesses or less critical environments (such as education) simply can't comprehend the hell that is trying to coordinate a release to such a large community.
Second, however, is that if they win they they too are painted as a victim in the whole affair And, to some extent they are. I'm sure that the lack of technical expertise on the part of the people evaluating Sony's deal with this company lead them to enter into a deal that they would have avoided like the plague, had they understood the ramifications of their actions. Sony didn't want this, they just wanted a way to prevent duplication or at least measure it. That their motivation in that is deeply contrary to the general good of their customers is true, but beside the point.
Sony was a victim here, but that doesn't make them the "good guys."
And dont call me Anna. Heh. I presume you know the SNL sketch to which I was referring....
Yes, but I believe what the gp was saying is that this claim of "software wasnt delivered to specifications" is clearly a post hoc piece of garbage that they are alleging to try to pass the buck. At some point, someone started using the phrase "pass the buck" in this discussion. I'm not sure who the first poster was that did that, but we need to step back and think about that. That's certainly NOT what's going on here.
Sony is suing a company with whom they had a contractual arrangement. I very much doubt that they give a rat's hindquarters about what Slashdot posters think about the suit. What blame is there that posters feel Sony is trying to pass off? They don't care what their customers think. They've settled the criminal charges with various governments (that they CAN "settle" criminal charges is a mind-boggling abuse to me, but there it is). What benefit, other than recovering some of their lost financial interest in this matter do people think this case is serving for Sony?
Sometimes Anna, a lawsuit is just a lawsuit.
Re:Sony BMG does nothing to hurt their reputation
on
Sony Sues Rootkit Maker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First off, Sony will likely win, but as always, it will depend on the specifics of the contractual relationship.
It's probably understandable that technologists would assume that the original author of the software would be the correct target of the lawsuit. This is not so. Sony is not suing over the failure of the code (the code worked relatively correctly), but over the fact that the software was sold to them as a means of controlling their market, and it not only failed to do so, but cause serious injury to their business as a result. That's the fault of the people who represented this software to Sony as a viable solution with acceptable risk.
Glass does flow...a look at 80-150 year old windows will show this. Please follow the link in the post you were replying to, and/or look this up on snopes. This is not true. 80-150 year old glass is simply warped due to less advanced manufacturing techniques, and often thicker at the bottom because window makers tended to place the thicker edge at the bottom.
To answer my own question, the milestones in TV and film are outlined in excruciating detail on Wikipedia's Timeline of CGI in film and television. It points out a number of excellent films as series that I had forgotten about, and a few that I didn't realize had CG.
Wow. It's just stunning that CG in movies has been with us since the 1970s!
Wikipedia's Computer-generated imagery article also backs my intuition up on the idea that The Abyss was the entry of CG into the mainstream for the film industry (not a hard point to argue, given that it was the first movie to win an Academy Award on the basis of its CG effects).
Babylon 5 certainly did for television effects what Tron, Star Trek II, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park did for film. However, I don't think there was much cross-effect from B5 on film. Could be wrong, though.
I can't find any reference to the Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite sequence from 2001 having any computer animated elements. Can you be more specific?
Star Trek II is an excellent example. The whole genesis sequence was certainly a catalyst for some of the work that I saw happening on the technical side, even as late as 1989.
T2 was important, but it comes well after the same director's previous work: The Abyss. The more I hear from people on this one, the more convinced I am that The Abyss was the turning point in terms of perception of computer-generated effects.
I can confirm that, within the industry of computer-animation (which I was only loosely connected to in the late 80s), 1989 through the early 1990s was THE time to be entering that business, so it makes sense that it's when the result started being taken more seriously.
Certainly, it did not come out before Tron, which was the first feature film to use computer animation. Willow was also not largely influential within the industry. In fact, it was largely seen as a counter-example for just about everything that it did.
Read the original question that your GP asked. He was wondering when computer effects become "not cheating" with respect to the perceptions of the Academy, and presumably of the effects industry. I really see The Abyss as the defining moment, there, but I could be wrong if there's a better example.
The article mentions Tron. In another post I mentioned The Abyss. What other films advanced the art and perception of computer-generated effects? I can think of:
Toy Story (and Geri's Game, which I think was attached to Toy Story)
This film really advanced the public perception that movies could be all-CG, and opened the door for all of the CG films that followed.
Terminator 2 (another Cameron film)
This was, I think, the first use of a CG character in a live-action film.
Titanic (Cameron again)
The impact on the public with respect to the computer animation was minimal, but on Hollywood it was a huge deal. The fact that the ship was regarded as realistic by so much of the audience opened the door for dozens of projects that replaced models and stock footage with CG. It was, arguably, the most realistic CG in film to that date, and changed a lot of directors' and studios' perceptions.
I think it was before The Abyss, which won the 1989 best visual effects, but I'm not sure when. Certainly The Abyss was a watershed in many respects. It introduced morphing for motion blurring, as well as the first use that I'm aware of of computer-rotoscoped human forms (both techniques were used to make the water tentacle).
By "retraction", I meant that in the sense that newspapers use the term: the publication of a statement which redacts a previously published statement (e.g. my post in response to my initial post). The fact that Slashdot won't let me post a reply to my own post for a minute means that I sit there hitting "submit" on my one-line, "oops, I meant..." post for a minute. It's just annoying.
The ability to edit one's comments would be nice, but I'd only want to see that kind of feature if you could actually review the edit HISTORY of a comment, which would be a pretty serious change for Slash (the engine that runs Slashdot).
I missed the last sentence of the blurb, which does address CFS in the latest Linux kernel...sorry about that.... of course, Slashdot doesn't let you post a retraction right away.... grrr!... Still waiting...... this is getting old...
... allows any non-privileged user to run his/her program, e.g., like so 'cheat 99% program' thereby insuring... What?! I'm really not sure what's being said here. I understand the idea behind this, but the wording of the Slashdot piece is difficult to penetrate, even by Slashdot standards.
I'm assuming that we're saying that this application can get 99% of the time-slices on an otherwise occupied system, starving other tasks for resources. I'd be interested in hearing how this plays with the latest scheduler for the Linux kernel, which is supposed to favor the most needy applications.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that the current plan was to bind hydrogen into a solid substrate from which it could be easily released for combustion, but which would prevent accidental leaking. Is that not happening now?
To be fair, what Microsoft has always meant by richness is the capacity to embed unstructured (with respect to the encapsulating format) data, the semantics of which are available to specific readers only. RFC2822 mail has such a feature, for example. Headers which begin with "X-" are allowed, but are considered vendor-specific, and do not have a default semantic.
It makes me wonder, though... does ODF not have vendor-specific data hooks? If it does, then Microsoft is just blowing air, here.
I guess the most significant problem with fuel cells was that they just weren't cool enough... this should improve their "oooh" factor. ;-)
Like the benefit from their free mail service which gave users more storage than any other service on the market, forcing other vendors to improve their offerings?
Like the benefit from their continued contributions to open source software projects over the years (in terms of developers, contributed code, contributed subsystems, advocacy, financial support, sponsored development, etc.)?
How much more than every other company does Google have to do before folks like you will even notice? If we spent half as much time finding fault with AT&T, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
What the ... OK two questions:
1. Why are you painting Google as the bad guy here, when they're in the process of trying to wrest control of spectrum from AT&T... which Slashdot has endlessly complained about... by adding provisions for open use... which Slashdot has endlessly screamed for.
2. Why on earth was such an empty comment modded up?
Most folks who've worked in small-to-medium businesses or less critical environments (such as education) simply can't comprehend the hell that is trying to coordinate a release to such a large community.
Sony was a victim here, but that doesn't make them the "good guys." And dont call me Anna. Heh. I presume you know the SNL sketch to which I was referring....
Sony is suing a company with whom they had a contractual arrangement. I very much doubt that they give a rat's hindquarters about what Slashdot posters think about the suit. What blame is there that posters feel Sony is trying to pass off? They don't care what their customers think. They've settled the criminal charges with various governments (that they CAN "settle" criminal charges is a mind-boggling abuse to me, but there it is). What benefit, other than recovering some of their lost financial interest in this matter do people think this case is serving for Sony?
Sometimes Anna, a lawsuit is just a lawsuit.
First off, Sony will likely win, but as always, it will depend on the specifics of the contractual relationship.
It's probably understandable that technologists would assume that the original author of the software would be the correct target of the lawsuit. This is not so. Sony is not suing over the failure of the code (the code worked relatively correctly), but over the fact that the software was sold to them as a means of controlling their market, and it not only failed to do so, but cause serious injury to their business as a result. That's the fault of the people who represented this software to Sony as a viable solution with acceptable risk.
Glass *is* a liquid (sort of), but it does not flow, which is what I think you were getting at.
To answer my own question, the milestones in TV and film are outlined in excruciating detail on Wikipedia's Timeline of CGI in film and television. It points out a number of excellent films as series that I had forgotten about, and a few that I didn't realize had CG.
Wow. It's just stunning that CG in movies has been with us since the 1970s!
Wikipedia's Computer-generated imagery article also backs my intuition up on the idea that The Abyss was the entry of CG into the mainstream for the film industry (not a hard point to argue, given that it was the first movie to win an Academy Award on the basis of its CG effects).
Babylon 5 certainly did for television effects what Tron, Star Trek II, The Abyss, Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park did for film. However, I don't think there was much cross-effect from B5 on film. Could be wrong, though.
I can't find any reference to the Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite sequence from 2001 having any computer animated elements. Can you be more specific?
Star Trek II is an excellent example. The whole genesis sequence was certainly a catalyst for some of the work that I saw happening on the technical side, even as late as 1989.
T2 was important, but it comes well after the same director's previous work: The Abyss. The more I hear from people on this one, the more convinced I am that The Abyss was the turning point in terms of perception of computer-generated effects.
I can confirm that, within the industry of computer-animation (which I was only loosely connected to in the late 80s), 1989 through the early 1990s was THE time to be entering that business, so it makes sense that it's when the result started being taken more seriously.
Willow was the first what?
Certainly, it did not come out before Tron, which was the first feature film to use computer animation. Willow was also not largely influential within the industry. In fact, it was largely seen as a counter-example for just about everything that it did.
Read the original question that your GP asked. He was wondering when computer effects become "not cheating" with respect to the perceptions of the Academy, and presumably of the effects industry. I really see The Abyss as the defining moment, there, but I could be wrong if there's a better example.
The winners over the years were:
The article mentions Tron. In another post I mentioned The Abyss. What other films advanced the art and perception of computer-generated effects? I can think of:
Toy Story (and Geri's Game, which I think was attached to Toy Story)
This film really advanced the public perception that movies could be all-CG, and opened the door for all of the CG films that followed.
Terminator 2 (another Cameron film)
This was, I think, the first use of a CG character in a live-action film.
Titanic (Cameron again)
The impact on the public with respect to the computer animation was minimal, but on Hollywood it was a huge deal. The fact that the ship was regarded as realistic by so much of the audience opened the door for dozens of projects that replaced models and stock footage with CG. It was, arguably, the most realistic CG in film to that date, and changed a lot of directors' and studios' perceptions.
Anything anyone else can think of?
I think it was before The Abyss, which won the 1989 best visual effects, but I'm not sure when. Certainly The Abyss was a watershed in many respects. It introduced morphing for motion blurring, as well as the first use that I'm aware of of computer-rotoscoped human forms (both techniques were used to make the water tentacle).
By "retraction", I meant that in the sense that newspapers use the term: the publication of a statement which redacts a previously published statement (e.g. my post in response to my initial post). The fact that Slashdot won't let me post a reply to my own post for a minute means that I sit there hitting "submit" on my one-line, "oops, I meant..." post for a minute. It's just annoying.
The ability to edit one's comments would be nice, but I'd only want to see that kind of feature if you could actually review the edit HISTORY of a comment, which would be a pretty serious change for Slash (the engine that runs Slashdot).
I missed the last sentence of the blurb, which does address CFS in the latest Linux kernel...sorry about that. ... of course, Slashdot doesn't let you post a retraction right away.... grrr! ... Still waiting... ... this is getting old ...
... allows any non-privileged user to run his/her program, e.g., like so 'cheat 99% program' thereby insuringI'm assuming that we're saying that this application can get 99% of the time-slices on an otherwise occupied system, starving other tasks for resources. I'd be interested in hearing how this plays with the latest scheduler for the Linux kernel, which is supposed to favor the most needy applications.