This is Slashdot, where 2/3rds of the discussion will break out into redundant corrections of a single word. The whole point of the article will be lost, because geeks and nerds who have no social skills had only their anal retentive thirst for knowledge to rely on growing up, and so they are used to pointing out and determining facts as a way to impress people socially. Which doesn't work, of course, and only causes flamewars amongst other geeks.
Uh, no. Why would it? This was a proof of concept virus. Did you RTFA?
Not only that, but in the wild the virus would need to find a way to infect the machine in the first place. Again, this was a test.
Mainstream Windows viruses spread because of the idiocy of users. They open attachments, they download warez off Kazaa, and pretty much have no idea about security (no matter how many times you tell them). Yes, absolutely, 100%--people write viruses for the biggest target they can reach.
Sounds a bit like... the recording industry's relationship to its artists, doesn't it?
No. It doesn't. Record labels often are the ones who rent the studios, rent the equipment, hire the producers, the mixers, buy new instruments, give the artists a place to stay, and more.
Pixar is its own studio and hires its own people. Stop trying to turn this into a completely off-topic RIAA jab.
After all, nobody has ever made stories about toys coming to life (The Nutcracker, etc.) or monsters hiding in the closet who live in an alternative world (Little Monsters, etc.) or fish in the sea (countless animated films).
Hmm, I didn't see anybody mention the Area 51 Research Center or mention that the guy specifically stated it was being used for chemical processing and such. He even saw smoke coming from several areas of the base.
People couldn't really be this stupid, could they?
on
Rendering Shrek@Home?
·
· Score: 1
A studio renders their stuff in their studio because they need total control over the output and they need to see it immediately. Several apps like Maya allow you to adjust image render parameters after the render has completed.
You seriously think a studio would ever consider rendering their entire movie out on the Internet? Not only would people trade frames around, you'd be spoiling the entire film because everyone would see what they're rendering.
This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've seen posted to Slashdot! Up there with that guy asking Slashdot about schizophrenia.
Before the Area 51 Research Center died off, the guy there reported often about the activities of the base, and how it was "more active than ever before."
Mostly, it looked like it was being used for chemical processing of some sort. I imagine they still use the base because it would be a big waste otherwise (for crying out loud, they have the longest runway in North America), but nothing super-secret is going to happen there anymore. So they let people think they've stumbled onto a big secret.
Do you know I was paraphrasing a famous quote, "Linux is free only if you do not value your time?"
If I say something like that, it must be a "Troll," right? Way to censor a dissident opinion just because you disagree with it. I fully expect it all to be reversed in metamods--like it always is.
So a Microsoft guy said Linux was a waste of money. Cue the mocking article.
How is it different from Linux zealots saying Windows is a "waste of money?" You guys are just as one-sided, closed-minded, and full of self-serving ideology as they are, except that it's worse with you because for them it's just a paying job, but for you it's a religious belief.
Why not just use real actors then?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 1
What's the point of using CG to make absolute 100% photorealism if you could just stick a guy in front of a camera and film the same thing without having to wait for the scene to render for two days?
What a waste of time. Why would you go through all the trouble of photorealistic humans, animating their facial muscles, voicing them with actors, animating them, lighting them, rendering them for weeks at a time, when you could just hire a real guy and film his scenes in a day and have it as photorealistic as you'd ever get?
Sounds like George Lucas syndrome to me. If he had directed Lord of the Rings, Bilbo's house would have been an entirely CG backdrop. Luckily, Peter Jackson built to versions of the damn thing, big and small, just to film real actors inside it and composite them to get the sizes right.
I don't know about you, but I never stared at someone's chest to see if they moved a millimeter on the theater screen to signify breathing. You wouldn't be able to notice through clothing anyway.
Not to mention that they do plenty of breathing movements when animating speech.
And when I said Finding Nemo wasn't a good animated movie because it was detailed in any way, I wasn't saying the film wasn't detailed--I was saying it being detailed was not why it was a good animated film.
Sigh, Straw Man argument yet again. There is no mass of people called "Slashdotters" who have a monolithic point of view, no matter how much you scream about it.
Uh, there is most certainly a majority viewpoint around here, based not only on editors' opinions but the majority of +5 upmods for pro-IBM/pro-Linux comments.
You seem to be stating nobody can draw any conclusions about a majority because a few people might disagree. Too bad.
Are you seriously arguing that Slashdot and most of its readers don't support IBM?
Re:State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, I saw all of that. Nonetheless, the majority of the film took place in front of a blue haze.
Don't twist my words around to make it sound like I was insulting Pixar's work. But I believe entire forests and cities and castles globally illuminated and such can be just as much work if not more so than animating dust particles and refracting light through water.
Like I said, I know people spunk all over their screens at the mere mention of Pixar, but let's not bash Dreamworks just because we're fanboys. Shrek 2 looks fantastic.
Re:State of the art?
on
Shrek 2 How-To
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Shrek looked good to me. I don't know what to tell you. What does Pixar have? Little fish, plastic toys, and hairy monsters. Finding Nemo wasn't a good animated movie because it was detailed in any way (it was mostly just water, for pete's sake).
Shrek 2 had more believable humans than any Pixar movie has had. And they had to scale back Fiona's realism in the first film because she looked too realistic and didn't fit in with the cartoonish style.
I know there is major Pixar fanboyism going on, but come on, give credit where credit is due. The more good CG animation out there, the better, I say.
It's really simple. IBM, having nowhere else to turn, decided to embrace Linux to spite Microsoft. All the Slashdotters think IBM is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Meanwhile, IBM basks in the publicity from a thousand geeks who blindly follow anything remotely pro-Linux--even if it's a company as evil as IBM (how easily people forget past actions...if you think Microsoft is bad...).
1. Indigo, the new.Net secret sauce coming with Longhorn, will no longer use Remoting "over the wire". Everything is going to be SOAP and web services. Sounds wonderful, right? I think so too. BUT, many consultants are busy writing all your company's apps using remoting between servers! Guess what THAT means?
Oh my gosh, you are so right! A vague description of unnamed "consultants" who are busy writing my company's apps using remoting between servers! You have convinced me with your facts, sir.
2. All your computers are going to be landfill fodder, because Longhorn's hardware requirements are going to SMOKE 'em. Ah, well, we didn't need those 20,000 PCs anyway. And, the budget looks so much better cratered. It's like a big empty swimming pool. Makes me think of summer.
After all, you'll still be using the same PCs you use now in 2006, right?
3. Performance? The users are asking about performance? Um... HUSH! Look at the pretty screens, children! Ooh, transparency!
Complete troll. You don't know what performance will be like on a 2006-level computer with a standard DirectX 9 video card. How could this possibly be insightful? KDE has transparency too, and it's slower than syrup in winter.
4. Filesystem? We don't need no stinkin' filesystem. Let's put everything in a DATABASE!!! Ok, they might not get this into Longhorn, but it's coming. All your apps that touch the filesystem? Kiss 'em goodbye.
Except that NTFS is still there, so apps that access NTFS will, gasp, still be able to access NTFS since it's still there. WinFS is just a database service running on top of NTFS. But, hey, what's a little Slashbot misinformation to spread false memes that magically become "truth", eh? Just like how WinFS was "cancelled" and Longhorn is "vaporware."
5. More DRM. What's that? the users didn't ask for it? Let's surprise 'em; they'll be so happy!
Name a single bit of DRM in Windows XP. Activation? Regular users don't care. Windows Media Player? The first thing that pops up is a privacy page allowing you to disable automatic CD detection (which, you know, all Linux media players seem to do automatically without asking you).
If you don't want to use signed content, use something else. How is this difficult? You think there won't be free alternatives for Windows if you're so paranoid about your warez phoning home?
6. A new, different and strange iteration of IE to worry about. Sigh; better set up resources for the recoding of all your web pages, just in case.
Please cite a single example of what will be "new, different and strange" about the new IE, seeing as how you've never used it since it's not out yet and couldn't possibly know.
If something works in IE now, it will work in IE7. Microsoft isn't going to break 90% of the Internet for Longhorn. Things seem to be running just fine despite Slashbots' innate hatred of IE.
Ah, well. It should be exciting! And, who knows? Maybe the Indians will find it all just too ugly to work with and offshore all the work back here ("Oh, this is just too UGLY, you may take it back, please... No, really. No, I must insist. Oh, you are too kind, sir, but NO, I REALLY must insist... Oh you are making me very ANGRY sir, do not make me go medaeval on your unruly buttocks in the manner of Marcellus!").
Any moderator modding this up needs to have their heads checked. I fully expect to see this troll post linked on Anti-Slash within the next 24 hours.
Speaking of Mozilla and Firefox, ever noticed how text always spills over into those table cells on the left side of Slashdot? Is it Mozilla or is it Slashcode?
Hasn't happened since I switched to Opera when 7.5 came out.
Anything's better than FreeType's anti-aliasing. I'm constantly told by fanboys how "FreeType looks better than Microsoft!" and they give me a screenshot with absolutely ugly and horrible rendering, completely with varying levels of thickness on characters with curves like numbers and lowercase letters, even with the byte interpreter on. Apparently I'm supposed to ignore these flaws and declare it better than Windows.
OS X stands as the bastion of high-quality text rendering (and why wouldn't it, considering it uses PDF as a display layer). XP is a very close second.
Funny, one could ask the same thing whenever KDE adds new pointless features. That icon label shading is the most amateurish horrible visual effect I've seen in a desktop operating system. They couldn't even give it a decent fadeout effect?
Come on, you're being silly here. Longhorn has tiers of operationg going all the way back to a "Windows Classic" theme similar to Windows 2000. Microsoft is making sure they have a reliable presentation layer for a new generation of computers that will provide visual quality and not just bland text labels on top of gray like we've been getting since Windows 95. I like technology, so I like to hear about the stuff Microsoft's researchers are coming up with.
I forgot, this is a bash-Microsoft article. Brains must be turned off as a requisite for posting...
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is destined to replace those old UNIX systems companies are running. What's the surprise there?
When Linux rises above 1% usage on Google Zeitgeist, then it's time to stop the presses.
This is Slashdot, where 2/3rds of the discussion will break out into redundant corrections of a single word. The whole point of the article will be lost, because geeks and nerds who have no social skills had only their anal retentive thirst for knowledge to rely on growing up, and so they are used to pointing out and determining facts as a way to impress people socially. Which doesn't work, of course, and only causes flamewars amongst other geeks.
Some people need to get out more.
Uh, no. Why would it? This was a proof of concept virus. Did you RTFA?
Not only that, but in the wild the virus would need to find a way to infect the machine in the first place. Again, this was a test.
Mainstream Windows viruses spread because of the idiocy of users. They open attachments, they download warez off Kazaa, and pretty much have no idea about security (no matter how many times you tell them). Yes, absolutely, 100%--people write viruses for the biggest target they can reach.
You don't think people write Linux virus tests?
Sounds a bit like... the recording industry's relationship to its artists, doesn't it?
No. It doesn't. Record labels often are the ones who rent the studios, rent the equipment, hire the producers, the mixers, buy new instruments, give the artists a place to stay, and more.
Pixar is its own studio and hires its own people. Stop trying to turn this into a completely off-topic RIAA jab.
And yet despite all that, they still chose OS X instead of just using plain vanilla FreeBSD or Linux. Why do you think that is?
After all, nobody has ever made stories about toys coming to life (The Nutcracker, etc.) or monsters hiding in the closet who live in an alternative world (Little Monsters, etc.) or fish in the sea (countless animated films).
He's threatening our hegemony!
My posting history supports what I said. Go ahead and keep stalking my posts. ;)
Hmm, I didn't see anybody mention the Area 51 Research Center or mention that the guy specifically stated it was being used for chemical processing and such. He even saw smoke coming from several areas of the base.
A studio renders their stuff in their studio because they need total control over the output and they need to see it immediately. Several apps like Maya allow you to adjust image render parameters after the render has completed.
You seriously think a studio would ever consider rendering their entire movie out on the Internet? Not only would people trade frames around, you'd be spoiling the entire film because everyone would see what they're rendering.
This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've seen posted to Slashdot! Up there with that guy asking Slashdot about schizophrenia.
Before the Area 51 Research Center died off, the guy there reported often about the activities of the base, and how it was "more active than ever before."
Mostly, it looked like it was being used for chemical processing of some sort. I imagine they still use the base because it would be a big waste otherwise (for crying out loud, they have the longest runway in North America), but nothing super-secret is going to happen there anymore. So they let people think they've stumbled onto a big secret.
Do you know I was paraphrasing a famous quote, "Linux is free only if you do not value your time?"
If I say something like that, it must be a "Troll," right? Way to censor a dissident opinion just because you disagree with it. I fully expect it all to be reversed in metamods--like it always is.
Linux also costs time.
So a Microsoft guy said Linux was a waste of money. Cue the mocking article.
How is it different from Linux zealots saying Windows is a "waste of money?" You guys are just as one-sided, closed-minded, and full of self-serving ideology as they are, except that it's worse with you because for them it's just a paying job, but for you it's a religious belief.
What's the point of using CG to make absolute 100% photorealism if you could just stick a guy in front of a camera and film the same thing without having to wait for the scene to render for two days?
What a waste of time. Why would you go through all the trouble of photorealistic humans, animating their facial muscles, voicing them with actors, animating them, lighting them, rendering them for weeks at a time, when you could just hire a real guy and film his scenes in a day and have it as photorealistic as you'd ever get?
Sounds like George Lucas syndrome to me. If he had directed Lord of the Rings, Bilbo's house would have been an entirely CG backdrop. Luckily, Peter Jackson built to versions of the damn thing, big and small, just to film real actors inside it and composite them to get the sizes right.
I don't know about you, but I never stared at someone's chest to see if they moved a millimeter on the theater screen to signify breathing. You wouldn't be able to notice through clothing anyway.
Not to mention that they do plenty of breathing movements when animating speech.
And when I said Finding Nemo wasn't a good animated movie because it was detailed in any way, I wasn't saying the film wasn't detailed--I was saying it being detailed was not why it was a good animated film.
Sigh, Straw Man argument yet again. There is no mass of people called "Slashdotters" who have a monolithic point of view, no matter how much you scream about it.
Uh, there is most certainly a majority viewpoint around here, based not only on editors' opinions but the majority of +5 upmods for pro-IBM/pro-Linux comments.
You seem to be stating nobody can draw any conclusions about a majority because a few people might disagree. Too bad.
Are you seriously arguing that Slashdot and most of its readers don't support IBM?
Yeah, I saw all of that. Nonetheless, the majority of the film took place in front of a blue haze.
Don't twist my words around to make it sound like I was insulting Pixar's work. But I believe entire forests and cities and castles globally illuminated and such can be just as much work if not more so than animating dust particles and refracting light through water.
Like I said, I know people spunk all over their screens at the mere mention of Pixar, but let's not bash Dreamworks just because we're fanboys. Shrek 2 looks fantastic.
Shrek looked good to me. I don't know what to tell you. What does Pixar have? Little fish, plastic toys, and hairy monsters. Finding Nemo wasn't a good animated movie because it was detailed in any way (it was mostly just water, for pete's sake).
Shrek 2 had more believable humans than any Pixar movie has had. And they had to scale back Fiona's realism in the first film because she looked too realistic and didn't fit in with the cartoonish style.
I know there is major Pixar fanboyism going on, but come on, give credit where credit is due. The more good CG animation out there, the better, I say.
It's really simple. IBM, having nowhere else to turn, decided to embrace Linux to spite Microsoft. All the Slashdotters think IBM is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Meanwhile, IBM basks in the publicity from a thousand geeks who blindly follow anything remotely pro-Linux--even if it's a company as evil as IBM (how easily people forget past actions...if you think Microsoft is bad...).
1. Indigo, the new .Net secret sauce coming with Longhorn, will no longer use Remoting "over the wire". Everything is going to be SOAP and web services. Sounds wonderful, right? I think so too. BUT, many consultants are busy writing all your company's apps using remoting between servers! Guess what THAT means?
Oh my gosh, you are so right! A vague description of unnamed "consultants" who are busy writing my company's apps using remoting between servers! You have convinced me with your facts, sir.
2. All your computers are going to be landfill fodder, because Longhorn's hardware requirements are going to SMOKE 'em. Ah, well, we didn't need those 20,000 PCs anyway. And, the budget looks so much better cratered. It's like a big empty swimming pool. Makes me think of summer.
After all, you'll still be using the same PCs you use now in 2006, right?
3. Performance? The users are asking about performance? Um... HUSH! Look at the pretty screens, children! Ooh, transparency!
Complete troll. You don't know what performance will be like on a 2006-level computer with a standard DirectX 9 video card. How could this possibly be insightful? KDE has transparency too, and it's slower than syrup in winter.
4. Filesystem? We don't need no stinkin' filesystem. Let's put everything in a DATABASE!!!
Ok, they might not get this into Longhorn, but it's coming. All your apps that touch the filesystem? Kiss 'em goodbye.
Except that NTFS is still there, so apps that access NTFS will, gasp, still be able to access NTFS since it's still there. WinFS is just a database service running on top of NTFS. But, hey, what's a little Slashbot misinformation to spread false memes that magically become "truth", eh? Just like how WinFS was "cancelled" and Longhorn is "vaporware."
5. More DRM. What's that? the users didn't ask for it? Let's surprise 'em; they'll be so happy!
Name a single bit of DRM in Windows XP. Activation? Regular users don't care. Windows Media Player? The first thing that pops up is a privacy page allowing you to disable automatic CD detection (which, you know, all Linux media players seem to do automatically without asking you).
If you don't want to use signed content, use something else. How is this difficult? You think there won't be free alternatives for Windows if you're so paranoid about your warez phoning home?
6. A new, different and strange iteration of IE to worry about. Sigh; better set up resources for the recoding of all your web pages, just in case.
Please cite a single example of what will be "new, different and strange" about the new IE, seeing as how you've never used it since it's not out yet and couldn't possibly know.
If something works in IE now, it will work in IE7. Microsoft isn't going to break 90% of the Internet for Longhorn. Things seem to be running just fine despite Slashbots' innate hatred of IE.
Ah, well. It should be exciting! And, who knows? Maybe the Indians will find it all just too ugly to work with and offshore all the work back here ("Oh, this is just too UGLY, you may take it back, please... No, really. No, I must insist. Oh, you are too kind, sir, but NO, I REALLY must insist... Oh you are making me very ANGRY sir, do not make me go medaeval on your unruly buttocks in the manner of Marcellus!").
Any moderator modding this up needs to have their heads checked. I fully expect to see this troll post linked on Anti-Slash within the next 24 hours.
Speaking of Mozilla and Firefox, ever noticed how text always spills over into those table cells on the left side of Slashdot? Is it Mozilla or is it Slashcode?
Hasn't happened since I switched to Opera when 7.5 came out.
Anything's better than FreeType's anti-aliasing. I'm constantly told by fanboys how "FreeType looks better than Microsoft!" and they give me a screenshot with absolutely ugly and horrible rendering, completely with varying levels of thickness on characters with curves like numbers and lowercase letters, even with the byte interpreter on. Apparently I'm supposed to ignore these flaws and declare it better than Windows.
OS X stands as the bastion of high-quality text rendering (and why wouldn't it, considering it uses PDF as a display layer). XP is a very close second.
Funny, one could ask the same thing whenever KDE adds new pointless features. That icon label shading is the most amateurish horrible visual effect I've seen in a desktop operating system. They couldn't even give it a decent fadeout effect?
Come on, you're being silly here. Longhorn has tiers of operationg going all the way back to a "Windows Classic" theme similar to Windows 2000. Microsoft is making sure they have a reliable presentation layer for a new generation of computers that will provide visual quality and not just bland text labels on top of gray like we've been getting since Windows 95. I like technology, so I like to hear about the stuff Microsoft's researchers are coming up with.
I forgot, this is a bash-Microsoft article. Brains must be turned off as a requisite for posting...