So install GNU utilities on the system. From my limited experience, I've not seen shell utilities on any other Unix that were as good as the GNU utils.
Seems to me as if the movie industry is beginning to bite the hand that feeds it. While the paying civilians are the ones that pay their living, the academy members are the ones that help hype the film , and provide the aura of secrecy and desireability of the film: seeing it early, seeing it on opening day, and indeed, seeing it in the theatre at all. Granted, this aura of eliteness is minimal, but it counts for something, I don't doubt.
The other thing: the academy members are hardly the most likely to leak it before its release date. You've got hundreds, if not thousands, of people that see, handle, and manipulate a given film's data prior to it being released in theatres, most of them have less to lose than the academy folks. Many of them are the people that worked on the film itself, usually in the finishing process. I have no doubt that some, if not many of them make a copy of the finished production in as-good-as-if-not-better-than-cinema quality for themselves, as a keepsake and for something to tell/show their kids. After all, how many coders do you folks know that keep copies of their finished projects for personal reference?
I seriously doubt that there is that much security involved in post-production of the film. After all, most corporate espionage is done from the inside of the companies. Most problems of this sort come from Inside.
I know you're probably just trolling, as this is pretty rediculous, but:
IPV6 already has enough address space for that. 1Mb long IP addresses would also be redundant, as hardware devices already have independent addressing: that's how they talk to each other.
if he were to do it in that fashion, while throwing in mention of all the payoffs going on and how none of these court rulings are really making any difference to MS, i'd say that would actually be a pretty good presentation, and an honest one, too.
No thank you! I'd rather someone that is able to look at things without making snide comments every 5 minutes do it. Yes, whatever he does would likely be convincing, but this is only because people are sheep, and can't tell a logical argument from their left foot.
In a situation like this, where there actually is sufficient logical and pertinent information (as opposed to the unassociated and unrelated information he shoves into f/911), you want as honest a presentation as possible. A movie with 30 minutes of "this is what MS has done wrong" and 90 minutes of some fat Netscape ex-programmer complaining and crying about how their jobs were destroyed by MS's anti-competitive behavior. Thanks, but no thanks. I've got enough friends that bitch.
I don't read magazines regularly, but occasionally something in one of these magazines will pique my interest:
National Geographic - this one is nice, as it has culture pieces quite often that take a non-contemporary look at society, as well as fascinating findings on historic and geographical importance. It's rare for me to pick one up and not read all of it.
Linux Magazine - I get this one confused with Linux Journal, which I'll occasionally pick up by mistake: Journal is more about business stuff, while Magazine offers more technical issues. There's quite a lot of informative stuff, but I find it quite entertaining as well. I tend to pick this one up in the Minn./St. Paul airport while traveling.
2600 - it's usually garbage, but occasionally there'll be an interesting snippet of perl in it, or a well-written essay. They'll also have interesting little quips that people write in with about nuances theyve found out about our society's technology that are fun and remind me of my childhood. However, it seems that most of the stuff in them is written by k1dd13s in high school, as I'd say 3/4ths of the mag is dribble.
Popular Science - mostly just entertainment nowadays, but there's still some good scientific stuff in there. Piques the curriosity in me.:P
Reader's Digest - occasionally there's something in here that looks interesting. Usually just for the "Humour in Uniform" and other humour sections, really.
Time - my school gives them away for free, so I'll grab one once a month and put it by the toilet.:P
I'm sure there's something else here I'm missing, but I can't think of what it is for the life of me.
It might also have something to do with the fact that all the major characters in the DC universe didn't have depth. Most of them were your typical action heroes with little depth until fairly recently (last 15 years).
That, and DC Universe now belongs to Marvel, anyway. I believe they were bought out at or around the time of the "crossover universe" period, 6 years or so back. Why use DC heros for films when Marvel heroes are better suited?
I'm just waiting with baited breath for a Wolverine movie to be released. IMO, he's got more depth than most of the characters (including spidey), and who he is is largely unknown. You could do a LOT of nifty stuff with his character, as you could throw him into stuff in the WW2 era, as well as the modern era... a chronology of sorts.
Sam Raimi is a good director, yes. He is considered an auteur director as well. I love his work. Spiderman was good. However, Spiderman 2 is not his work alone.
The full credits of the film tell the full story. Spiderman 2 was written by a total of 6 people - none of which was S. Raimi. There were also 6 producers and executive producers (although, 'executive producer' is often a title given to someone simply as a 'feel good' title and has little involvement). Cinematography was done by Anette Haellmig and Bob Hope. Bob Murawski did the editing. There are also hundreds of others that were directly involved in the production of this film (sound, art, makeup, set, casting, costumes, set managers, original music, special effects, visuals, stunts, hell - even assistants for the actors and common tradesmen such as electricians) - and that's not counting the actors and extras.
Granted, Raimi is responsible for the over-arcing presentation of the film, but he is in no way the sole artist behind this film. I'm a fan of his earlier works as well, but I'd credit the tallent of those he's worked with just as much as I'd credit him. Things such as Xena and Hercules were not exactly quality productions, even with extreme exageration and drugs influencing your opinion: they were cheesy as hell.
You seem like you're endulging in a bit of hero worship here. Raimi is a good director, yes. He's made due with some less-than adequate filming conditions, and has illustrated a phenominal ability to make due with minimal supplies, creating inventive means to get the film footage he wants. Given the scope and size of Spiderman (and Spiderman 2), I suspect that his hands-on directing style was less prominent than it has been in other works he's been involved in, simply due to this fact.
The acceptance, or maturity, of a technology can not occur without there being a desire or perceived need for it by the consumer. If there is no need, infinite supply (as is theoretically possible with such a thing as digital services) is meaningless, as people will still not use it.
That said: what's the desire, or demand, for micropayments in general? I can see how they would appeal for use in vending machines or game payments, but for per-view payments online?
The largest, and potentially only, source of income I can see for such a product would be through the porn industry. That way they might be able to more easily be able to meter out their 'service' in a commodity type fashion: "You 'used' X megs, so we charged you for that much" - as opposed to the blank service fee model, where the customer might frequently cancel the $5/month subscription, as "they didn't use it" *cough* and there'd be little/no incentive to pay for it.
Personally, I would stop going to most sites I currently visit if I had to pay for them. I already pay for internet access; why would I want to, or should I have to, pay for something which is currently free? "Premium" service on sites, however, might benefit - it would be easier to do a per-view billing model, again. For instance, on slashdot: charge $.01 or so for every slashdot article which someone gets before the rush/premium members.
Problem solving is just as trainable ability as any type of mathematics or programming. It requires critical thinking, and often a good handle on the deductive and inductive trains of thought. If you're a good problem solver, chances are you had someone in your youth that prompted and prodded you to think about things in different lights, and thus why you can think critically.
It makes a person wonder -why- the office is the most advert-free place, doesn't it?
Is it because we turn off at the office and aren't easily influenced there, as a culture? Is it because it's a difficult market to penetrate? Or is it simply because companies haven't realized the potential of haivng you look at their ad for 40 hours a week?
Think about it: you've got a lot of things at the office which advertise to you. IBM, Hewlett Packard, Coke and Pepsi, Quil, Bic, Sharpie, FedEx - the list goes on and on, but it's so much a part of the culture that we don't recognize it as advertising due to how severely ingrained we are already. Isn't that sick? McDonalds' golden arch on the cups - advertising. The company logo on a product (such as a car, printer, or printer) - advertising.
I fear the only way to combat it is to outlaw advertising, and we all know how soon that's going to happen - about as soon as the system stops cranking out marketing majors at the pace of 1 too many bodies an instance.
Well, if he cleaned the surface with a solvent to create the graffiti (ie, eraser art), chances are it would be easy enough to remove the solvent with water - no? Just spray it down, voila! that "artist"'s graffiti is gone - but the vodka ad remains.
There is little merit to what Moore has to say. I don't say that because of the content of what he says, but how he presents it: in a one-sided, sensationalist, Fox News fashion. By appealing to people's 'sensitivities' he creates a hot topic, just as major news outlets have with the endless war-related topics, etc.
My views are more aligned than opposed to what Moore has to say, and I still wish he'd shut up. He's a logically-terminant fool, with no insight other than the party line: he's the liberal Rush Limbaugh.
I don't trust Moore any more than I do Fox News. He's skirted nearly every 'unavoidable' question about his motives with strawman questions (ie, "What is your motivation for making this film? Is it to be in the lime light?" answer: "Do I look like the kind of person that would make a good impression on a stage?" - or some proximity). If he can't answer a question directed to him in an honest manner, he can't be trusted to answer questions of his own chosing.
Not to shoot a hole in your example - it's a good one - but coal stokers never lost their jobs to conveyor belts - at least not in the train locomotive department.
All it did was make the job easier for the fireman (what they were called). They still had to regulate precisely how fast they conveyor went, as it was considered quite the art to fire an engine properly, having many more factors involved than simply boiler temperature.
My grandfather lost his job as a fireman for the NYC Railroad when the line went to diesel engines. He was able to pick a job back up with them again several years later, though - as an engineer. This seems like a better analogy to the current trend than your's, IMO - we just don't know what the 'locomotive engineer' of the future will be. Welfare? There's not much further that someone that's already got 4 years of schooling can go. It's possible that many of us tech folks will end up indefinately unemployed, and/or simply doing menial labor or shit jobs (telemarketing/sales/etc.)
Here's the catch you're forgetting: programmers -are- redundant.
Any monkey -can- just pick up and start writing VisualBasic and get a working application for a custom environment. That's the lion's share of software development - custom environments. Thus, the lion's share of development can now be done by monkeys.
As a debian/gentoo user by choice, I have to ask this same question. What are the benefits of slackware over debian/gentoo? I can see the potential advantages of debian, gentoo, redhat/fedora, and mandrake each - but what of slackware? It doesn't seem to have a leg up on any of the other distros on install, ease of use, package management, community, et al.
Not specifically what, but -how- is slack superior in your mind?
I might also add that it's nice to be able to get up and stretch the legs every once in a while.
Being able to focus on something in the distance is -necessary- every hour or so if you're working on close-up work if you don't want to fuck your eyes over.
Slashdot Mirror
So install GNU utilities on the system. From my limited experience, I've not seen shell utilities on any other Unix that were as good as the GNU utils.
Alcohol won't harm computer components, though, while water can (if you get a short)! :P
Seems to me as if the movie industry is beginning to bite the hand that feeds it. While the paying civilians are the ones that pay their living, the academy members are the ones that help hype the film , and provide the aura of secrecy and desireability of the film: seeing it early, seeing it on opening day, and indeed, seeing it in the theatre at all. Granted, this aura of eliteness is minimal, but it counts for something, I don't doubt.
The other thing: the academy members are hardly the most likely to leak it before its release date. You've got hundreds, if not thousands, of people that see, handle, and manipulate a given film's data prior to it being released in theatres, most of them have less to lose than the academy folks. Many of them are the people that worked on the film itself, usually in the finishing process. I have no doubt that some, if not many of them make a copy of the finished production in as-good-as-if-not-better-than-cinema quality for themselves, as a keepsake and for something to tell/show their kids. After all, how many coders do you folks know that keep copies of their finished projects for personal reference?
I seriously doubt that there is that much security involved in post-production of the film. After all, most corporate espionage is done from the inside of the companies. Most problems of this sort come from Inside.
I know you're probably just trolling, as this is pretty rediculous, but:
IPV6 already has enough address space for that. 1Mb long IP addresses would also be redundant, as hardware devices already have independent addressing: that's how they talk to each other.
I suspect that the reason why there isn't such violence in Nebraska is because it wouldn't be allowed to pass by unchallenged.
If some punk kid thought he could pull a gun on you for "bothering" him about his music, he'd soon have half a dozen guns pointed at his head.
Ok, well not quite. But there are enough gun owners in nebraska and other such states to make such behavior foolhardy.
if he were to do it in that fashion, while throwing in mention of all the payoffs going on and how none of these court rulings are really making any difference to MS, i'd say that would actually be a pretty good presentation, and an honest one, too.
No thank you! I'd rather someone that is able to look at things without making snide comments every 5 minutes do it. Yes, whatever he does would likely be convincing, but this is only because people are sheep, and can't tell a logical argument from their left foot.
In a situation like this, where there actually is sufficient logical and pertinent information (as opposed to the unassociated and unrelated information he shoves into f/911), you want as honest a presentation as possible. A movie with 30 minutes of "this is what MS has done wrong" and 90 minutes of some fat Netscape ex-programmer complaining and crying about how their jobs were destroyed by MS's anti-competitive behavior. Thanks, but no thanks. I've got enough friends that bitch.
National Geographic - this one is nice, as it has culture pieces quite often that take a non-contemporary look at society, as well as fascinating findings on historic and geographical importance. It's rare for me to pick one up and not read all of it.
Linux Magazine - I get this one confused with Linux Journal, which I'll occasionally pick up by mistake: Journal is more about business stuff, while Magazine offers more technical issues. There's quite a lot of informative stuff, but I find it quite entertaining as well. I tend to pick this one up in the Minn./St. Paul airport while traveling.
2600 - it's usually garbage, but occasionally there'll be an interesting snippet of perl in it, or a well-written essay. They'll also have interesting little quips that people write in with about nuances theyve found out about our society's technology that are fun and remind me of my childhood. However, it seems that most of the stuff in them is written by k1dd13s in high school, as I'd say 3/4ths of the mag is dribble.
Popular Science - mostly just entertainment nowadays, but there's still some good scientific stuff in there. Piques the curriosity in me. :P
Reader's Digest - occasionally there's something in here that looks interesting. Usually just for the "Humour in Uniform" and other humour sections, really.
Time - my school gives them away for free, so I'll grab one once a month and put it by the toilet. :P
I'm sure there's something else here I'm missing, but I can't think of what it is for the life of me.
It might also have something to do with the fact that all the major characters in the DC universe didn't have depth. Most of them were your typical action heroes with little depth until fairly recently (last 15 years).
That, and DC Universe now belongs to Marvel, anyway. I believe they were bought out at or around the time of the "crossover universe" period, 6 years or so back. Why use DC heros for films when Marvel heroes are better suited?
I'm just waiting with baited breath for a Wolverine movie to be released. IMO, he's got more depth than most of the characters (including spidey), and who he is is largely unknown. You could do a LOT of nifty stuff with his character, as you could throw him into stuff in the WW2 era, as well as the modern era... a chronology of sorts.
Sam Raimi is a good director, yes. He is considered an auteur director as well. I love his work. Spiderman was good. However, Spiderman 2 is not his work alone.
The full credits of the film tell the full story. Spiderman 2 was written by a total of 6 people - none of which was S. Raimi. There were also 6 producers and executive producers (although, 'executive producer' is often a title given to someone simply as a 'feel good' title and has little involvement). Cinematography was done by Anette Haellmig and Bob Hope. Bob Murawski did the editing. There are also hundreds of others that were directly involved in the production of this film (sound, art, makeup, set, casting, costumes, set managers, original music, special effects, visuals, stunts, hell - even assistants for the actors and common tradesmen such as electricians) - and that's not counting the actors and extras.
Granted, Raimi is responsible for the over-arcing presentation of the film, but he is in no way the sole artist behind this film. I'm a fan of his earlier works as well, but I'd credit the tallent of those he's worked with just as much as I'd credit him. Things such as Xena and Hercules were not exactly quality productions, even with extreme exageration and drugs influencing your opinion: they were cheesy as hell.
You seem like you're endulging in a bit of hero worship here. Raimi is a good director, yes. He's made due with some less-than adequate filming conditions, and has illustrated a phenominal ability to make due with minimal supplies, creating inventive means to get the film footage he wants. Given the scope and size of Spiderman (and Spiderman 2), I suspect that his hands-on directing style was less prominent than it has been in other works he's been involved in, simply due to this fact.
From what I've seen of photos, the current base is submerged in the ice: it's mostly basement, with a dome and some outlying sheds.
How the hell does something like this get questioned, when laws like the Patriot Act and the DMCA get overlooked completely?
The acceptance, or maturity, of a technology can not occur without there being a desire or perceived need for it by the consumer. If there is no need, infinite supply (as is theoretically possible with such a thing as digital services) is meaningless, as people will still not use it.
.01 or so for every slashdot article which someone gets before the rush/premium members.
That said: what's the desire, or demand, for micropayments in general? I can see how they would appeal for use in vending machines or game payments, but for per-view payments online?
The largest, and potentially only, source of income I can see for such a product would be through the porn industry. That way they might be able to more easily be able to meter out their 'service' in a commodity type fashion: "You 'used' X megs, so we charged you for that much" - as opposed to the blank service fee model, where the customer might frequently cancel the $5/month subscription, as "they didn't use it" *cough* and there'd be little/no incentive to pay for it.
Personally, I would stop going to most sites I currently visit if I had to pay for them. I already pay for internet access; why would I want to, or should I have to, pay for something which is currently free? "Premium" service on sites, however, might benefit - it would be easier to do a per-view billing model, again. For instance, on slashdot: charge $
Don't think yourself so superior.
Problem solving is just as trainable ability as any type of mathematics or programming. It requires critical thinking, and often a good handle on the deductive and inductive trains of thought. If you're a good problem solver, chances are you had someone in your youth that prompted and prodded you to think about things in different lights, and thus why you can think critically.
It makes a person wonder -why- the office is the most advert-free place, doesn't it?
Is it because we turn off at the office and aren't easily influenced there, as a culture? Is it because it's a difficult market to penetrate? Or is it simply because companies haven't realized the potential of haivng you look at their ad for 40 hours a week?
Think about it: you've got a lot of things at the office which advertise to you. IBM, Hewlett Packard, Coke and Pepsi, Quil, Bic, Sharpie, FedEx - the list goes on and on, but it's so much a part of the culture that we don't recognize it as advertising due to how severely ingrained we are already. Isn't that sick? McDonalds' golden arch on the cups - advertising. The company logo on a product (such as a car, printer, or printer) - advertising.
I fear the only way to combat it is to outlaw advertising, and we all know how soon that's going to happen - about as soon as the system stops cranking out marketing majors at the pace of 1 too many bodies an instance.
Well, if he cleaned the surface with a solvent to create the graffiti (ie, eraser art), chances are it would be easy enough to remove the solvent with water - no? Just spray it down, voila! that "artist"'s graffiti is gone - but the vodka ad remains.
don't you mean double-plus ten years ago?
And there's a government type that isn't corrupt?
Where there is people and money in the same place, there is corruption. People of the lawyer and politician persuasion introduce a multiplexor.
Moore has said that F/911 is a political satire.
But he hasn't said it on the film. The film itself presents itself as gospel truth.
There is little merit to what Moore has to say. I don't say that because of the content of what he says, but how he presents it: in a one-sided, sensationalist, Fox News fashion. By appealing to people's 'sensitivities' he creates a hot topic, just as major news outlets have with the endless war-related topics, etc.
My views are more aligned than opposed to what Moore has to say, and I still wish he'd shut up. He's a logically-terminant fool, with no insight other than the party line: he's the liberal Rush Limbaugh.
I don't trust Moore any more than I do Fox News. He's skirted nearly every 'unavoidable' question about his motives with strawman questions (ie, "What is your motivation for making this film? Is it to be in the lime light?" answer: "Do I look like the kind of person that would make a good impression on a stage?" - or some proximity). If he can't answer a question directed to him in an honest manner, he can't be trusted to answer questions of his own chosing.
Not to shoot a hole in your example - it's a good one - but coal stokers never lost their jobs to conveyor belts - at least not in the train locomotive department.
All it did was make the job easier for the fireman (what they were called). They still had to regulate precisely how fast they conveyor went, as it was considered quite the art to fire an engine properly, having many more factors involved than simply boiler temperature.
My grandfather lost his job as a fireman for the NYC Railroad when the line went to diesel engines. He was able to pick a job back up with them again several years later, though - as an engineer. This seems like a better analogy to the current trend than your's, IMO - we just don't know what the 'locomotive engineer' of the future will be. Welfare? There's not much further that someone that's already got 4 years of schooling can go. It's possible that many of us tech folks will end up indefinately unemployed, and/or simply doing menial labor or shit jobs (telemarketing/sales/etc.)
Here's the catch you're forgetting: programmers -are- redundant.
Any monkey -can- just pick up and start writing VisualBasic and get a working application for a custom environment. That's the lion's share of software development - custom environments. Thus, the lion's share of development can now be done by monkeys.
Thus: India. Functional redundancy.
What about Estes? This is surely to impact their bottom line - ie, their profit. Might they put up a fuss? Have they?
As a debian/gentoo user by choice, I have to ask this same question. What are the benefits of slackware over debian/gentoo? I can see the potential advantages of debian, gentoo, redhat/fedora, and mandrake each - but what of slackware? It doesn't seem to have a leg up on any of the other distros on install, ease of use, package management, community, et al.
Not specifically what, but -how- is slack superior in your mind?
I might also add that it's nice to be able to get up and stretch the legs every once in a while.
Being able to focus on something in the distance is -necessary- every hour or so if you're working on close-up work if you don't want to fuck your eyes over.