I would imagine they did save the data and backups of the software. But don't underestimate the complexity of this task. There is a lot of one-off software and if you don't have someone who understands it still in house, you might be stuck. When I was at Pixar a technical director had to know 29 computer languages, due to the 30-year continuous evolution of their software. I think in the case of Toy Story there was a lot of conscious work put into keeping the film in a state that it could be re-rendered, simply because the folks involved knew how much faster computers would be in a few years, and they hoped to be able to make a sequel - it was a key to selling Pixar as a film studio worth the investment.
3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have. It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again. There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points. So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.
3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.
Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam. Remember colorization? It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film. It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color. When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.
It's not an experience you can't have in your home. Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300. The price will fall quickly enough.
Right. Sorry. It's not an X-ray until it hits something. If I'm not mistaken, you get an X-ray photon when an accelerated electron hits certain materials, from knocking another electron, or bremsstrahlung.
The paint chip that hit STS-59 made a ding 1/2 inch in diameter but did not puncture the window. It is not the only such windshield damage, just the largest.
You can't run high-speed rail and freight on the same tracks. It's because of the weight of freight cars. They can physically bend the rail enough for you to see it happening. So, the track doesn't stay in sufficient calibration to use for high-speed rail. Indeed, the first thing you do, if you want high-speed rail, is build an exclusive track line.
To be used for freight a system like this would need four tracks at a minimum. Two for passenger and two for freight.
How many of your alternatives have nothing to do with that phenomenon?
Turn that around. How many electrons that don't have to do with that phenomenon are killer electrons? Quite a few. They come out of your electrical outlet. Just touch them the wrong way, and you won't be posting on Slashdot again.
The problem is that mundane electrons are quite lethal in a broad set of conditions. I think "highly-energetic electrons" or "superfast electrons" makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Killer electrons. Geez, Just because ESA has to write to the level of a broad, uneducated audience, doesn't mean that Slashdot is that audience. Please write to the level of your audience.
How about X-Rays, Roentgen Rays, Ionizing radiation, Accelerated electrons, etc.
The problem is that the law that made ATT lose that case by placing Unix in the public domain has since been changed. If that case was held today, ATT might have won. Also, it didn't help ATT that the Berkeley folks were able to show that ATT plagirized them.
There is actually a parameter setting in your slashdot profile that will turn off the presentation of signatures. I put the signature there because it's a link, not just a signature.
Yes. But they built market share really well. At the expense of at least one Free Software project that I know.
It is possible that they made a wrong turn with the new management. Matt Asay was not the most clued-in person in the Open Source world, judging by his columns and the frequent hostility he experssed in them toward the Free Software community. If they are smart they will keep him working exclusively on operations.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I will just assume that you are very young. If you look into my writing, you will find that I am involved in court cases that go on for years, many of them with Microsoft involvement. Also, national (or international like EU) legislation where Microsoft is on the other side, going back to the W3C patent debate where MS and IBM were on the side of embedding royalty patents in the basic standards of the web. I have dealt with them directly and know their methods.
Segedunum has answered this better than I could have. It's true that I didn't spend much time around SuSE back then, I was a Debian developer. It may be the case that there was never room for SuSE, but this doesn't explain the Ubuntu phenomenon.
I think I heard that too. In which case Apple could be the exception. But then again we don't have full visibility of Apple - Microsoft agreements. We only hear about the ones that they say materially effect their stock.
The BSD I am talking about is a Caldera release of the Unix source code under the BSD license. It's well-documented. Regarding USL v. BSD, the key part is known, which is that Unix was released to Berkeley and the BSD users without a proper copyright statement, and before the Bern Copyright Convention was ratified by the US. At that time material without a proper copyright statement was in the public domain.
Jeremy Allison explains this better than I do. Sure, there are companies that aren't stratigic for Microsoft. But they do tend to eat their partners or take over their partner's niches to their partners detriment. Who do you think is Logitech's largest competitor?
Instead of buying a distribution, how about hiring some of the coders and providing them with specs to get your money-making products ported to ALL Linux distributions?
Because we don't really need those money-making products. We've got our own products that are already across distributions.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Do you not believe you are free unless you have the right to keep slaves, then?
Yes, I think I was still working at Pixar when they started.
I would imagine they did save the data and backups of the software. But don't underestimate the complexity of this task. There is a lot of one-off software and if you don't have someone who understands it still in house, you might be stuck. When I was at Pixar a technical director had to know 29 computer languages, due to the 30-year continuous evolution of their software. I think in the case of Toy Story there was a lot of conscious work put into keeping the film in a state that it could be re-rendered, simply because the folks involved knew how much faster computers would be in a few years, and they hoped to be able to make a sequel - it was a key to selling Pixar as a film studio worth the investment.
3D works for computer graphic animation, given twice the rendering capacity you would otherwise have. It's pretty simple to move the "camera" point and render again. There will be some tuning of textures, etc., to look right when viewed simultaneously from two camera points. So, given sufficient computer capacity you can get a 3D movie without significant additional labor, and it's the labor that is really expensive.
3D works for new live action, given proper cinematography.
Conversion of existing 2D film to 3D is garbage, and should rightly be called a scam. Remember colorization? It was mostly done because the tax write-offs on "new" film were more lucrative to the film company than on legacy film. It wasn't that the audience experience would be enhanced by fake color. When the tax law changed, colorization mostly went away.
It's not an experience you can't have in your home. Samsung has a "3D ready" 55 inch TV on the market now, for $2300. The price will fall quickly enough.
How about: stars are cathodes and something around the star, like those big magnetic loops we see in a flare, are the anode.
Right. Sorry. It's not an X-ray until it hits something. If I'm not mistaken, you get an X-ray photon when an accelerated electron hits certain materials, from knocking another electron, or bremsstrahlung.
The paint chip that hit STS-59 made a ding 1/2 inch in diameter but did not puncture the window. It is not the only such windshield damage, just the largest.
See, that's the trouble with putting switching information in-band.
You can't run high-speed rail and freight on the same tracks. It's because of the weight of freight cars. They can physically bend the rail enough for you to see it happening. So, the track doesn't stay in sufficient calibration to use for high-speed rail. Indeed, the first thing you do, if you want high-speed rail, is build an exclusive track line.
To be used for freight a system like this would need four tracks at a minimum. Two for passenger and two for freight.
The real truth is that the electron stream was intermittent in an unusual pattern, like this: .-- --- --- -
Turn that around. How many electrons that don't have to do with that phenomenon are killer electrons? Quite a few. They come out of your electrical outlet. Just touch them the wrong way, and you won't be posting on Slashdot again.
The problem is that mundane electrons are quite lethal in a broad set of conditions. I think "highly-energetic electrons" or "superfast electrons" makes a heck of a lot more sense.
Killer electrons. Geez, Just because ESA has to write to the level of a broad, uneducated audience, doesn't mean that Slashdot is that audience. Please write to the level of your audience.
How about X-Rays, Roentgen Rays, Ionizing radiation, Accelerated electrons, etc.
That's odd. Over here, I see a line with two dashes, and then a link. Clicking on the link works. Perhaps a software bug.
The problem is that the law that made ATT lose that case by placing Unix in the public domain has since been changed. If that case was held today, ATT might have won. Also, it didn't help ATT that the Berkeley folks were able to show that ATT plagirized them.
There is actually a parameter setting in your slashdot profile that will turn off the presentation of signatures. I put the signature there because it's a link, not just a signature.
Yes. But they built market share really well. At the expense of at least one Free Software project that I know.
It is possible that they made a wrong turn with the new management. Matt Asay was not the most clued-in person in the Open Source world, judging by his columns and the frequent hostility he experssed in them toward the Free Software community. If they are smart they will keep him working exclusively on operations.
At the risk of feeding a troll, I will just assume that you are very young. If you look into my writing, you will find that I am involved in court cases that go on for years, many of them with Microsoft involvement. Also, national (or international like EU) legislation where Microsoft is on the other side, going back to the W3C patent debate where MS and IBM were on the side of embedding royalty patents in the basic standards of the web. I have dealt with them directly and know their methods.
Segedunum has answered this better than I could have. It's true that I didn't spend much time around SuSE back then, I was a Debian developer. It may be the case that there was never room for SuSE, but this doesn't explain the Ubuntu phenomenon.
I think I heard that too. In which case Apple could be the exception. But then again we don't have full visibility of Apple - Microsoft agreements. We only hear about the ones that they say materially effect their stock.
The BSD I am talking about is a Caldera release of the Unix source code under the BSD license. It's well-documented. Regarding USL v. BSD, the key part is known, which is that Unix was released to Berkeley and the BSD users without a proper copyright statement, and before the Bern Copyright Convention was ratified by the US. At that time material without a proper copyright statement was in the public domain.
How is having them better if they are arguably in the public domain and obsolete too? Be concrete.
Jeremy Allison explains this better than I do. Sure, there are companies that aren't stratigic for Microsoft. But they do tend to eat their partners or take over their partner's niches to their partners detriment. Who do you think is Logitech's largest competitor?
They did. But then Microsoft owns them at least partially.