Some classmates and I in the PMST program at the University of Utah just completed a Business Fundementals course. As part of the course, we completed a semester long project that analyzed The SCO Group. We came to same conclusions that many analysts did, that if SCO wins this case, it will be huge for them. But no one can come close to saying for sure that they are going to win. Download the report here.
I guess I worded that incorrectly. What I meant by "encode one bit" is to somehow change some small aspect of the movie that wouldn't be noticed, but could be identified by someone who knew where to look. I didn't mean literally change one bit.
So I had a thought. The MPAA (at least pre-screener-ban) was trying hard to encode something into screeners to find out who was releasing them. All kinds of silly tricks like putting dots on the screen. The problem was that copiers noticed anything they tried because they were trying to put too much information in there.
Why not simply try to encode one simple bit in the whole movie? Then randomly give out the screeners but keep track of who you give the two different copies to. After say, 5 releases, you've narrowed down the field pretty well. At least they would have an idea of what types of people are releasing the screeners. Oscar judges? Reviewers? Soccer moms?
The reason that this hasn't worked yet is because no one has figured out how to make it work well.
Do you know what would be great? If I could go to McDonald's and they gave me free food in exchange for watching ads. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't it be great if/. could survive on ads alone? Well, if the business model doesn't work, then find something else. Yes, it would be a shame if/. shut down, but if they can't pay the bills, then, well, too bad for us.
I'm not saying I've got the solution, but like I've said more than once already, that's not my problem.
If you took away advertising and then every web site that didn't make a profit shut down, what exactly do you think would be left?
A whole lot. Every business around now knows that they need a web site to stay in business. Every university has and has had a web site for quite a while. I don't think that they make any money off of them. People who just like to have a web site for the heck of it and thousands of other web sites that don't need advertising.
You're assuming that if you were able to magically take all advertising down, that those web sites would HAVE to shut down. It's just not true. I doubt that slashdot would shut down. It's too popular and too potentially profitable for them to do that. They would find a way to charge people to stay open. If they can't figure it out, then they're simply poor businessmen.
So, how do you propose to pay for web hosting and bandwidth?
That's not my problem. If you want to run an ad-based site, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that said ads are now blockable. Just like the telemarketers are dealing with the DNC list. If you business model ceases to be profitable, that's not my problem.
If your content is so valuable, then maybe you should charge people for it. If you can't make enough to pay for hosting, then maybe your content isn't as valuable as you think it is.
True, charging people a couple cents for a page view is difficult at this point. But perhaps this will force those who need easy micropayments to make their business to figure out how to do it.
unless they were actually keeping track of my purchases
Which is exactly what they're doing. They're not doing this out of any wish to make your life better, unless it makes them more money. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.
does this do something useful, and is the implementation non-obvious?
I'm as anti-software-patent as anyone on slashdot, but the implementation has never needed to be non-obvious. The problem might be non-obvious. Take PCR for example. Looking at it, most biologists would say, "well of course, I could've thought of that". The answer of course is, "Well then, why didn't you?"
So you don't use the general case malloc() and free()?
No bonehead, I use the standard malloc() and free() like most do. The original posters point was that using GC is just as fast as not using one. My point was that he was wrong, not that my way is the fastest way. Of course it isn't. By your logic, I should write everything in assembly since that would be faster. Hell, I should just design custom hardware for everything I do.
I agree that a poorly-written or old-fashioned garbage collector can be PERCEIVED as slow, because the deallocation all happens in one big lump, but that doesn't mean that the overall runtime is necessarily that much more.
Most of the time in a garbage collector isn't spent in system level free() calls. It's spent searching the object store for objects to deallocate. If the GC process isn't a big part of the time used, then why all the research on improving GCs?
In non-GC lagnuages, memory management is specific to the code being written. In GC languages, memory management is general purpose. 99% of the time, a specific solution is faster than a general purpose one.
In fact, you and all your buddies at JPL should be fired.
I've worked with several people from JPL and have yet to meet one who actually has much of half a brain in his head. JPL used to known for employing the brightest and best of the scientific and engineering comminities. Now all that the folks at JPL seem to be interested in doing is touting the fact that, "I work at JPL".
Wooptie friggin' doo.
You've had decades since Apollo to actually make some serious accomplishments and you haven't accomplished much of anything. JPL hasn't produced anything really innovative in years. Stop resting on your past glory and start doing something.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should read what we wrote before you comment.
Some classmates and I in the PMST program at the University of Utah just completed a Business Fundementals course. As part of the course, we completed a semester long project that analyzed The SCO Group. We came to same conclusions that many analysts did, that if SCO wins this case, it will be huge for them. But no one can come close to saying for sure that they are going to win. Download the report here.
I am not a very religous kind of guy... So, there was little impetus for me to research that out farther then what I wrote above...
It's okay. Nobody else around here does any research either.
Your mama's a whore. But since I'm not into whores very much, I didn't do any research to back that up.
I guess I worded that incorrectly. What I meant by "encode one bit" is to somehow change some small aspect of the movie that wouldn't be noticed, but could be identified by someone who knew where to look. I didn't mean literally change one bit.
So I had a thought. The MPAA (at least pre-screener-ban) was trying hard to encode something into screeners to find out who was releasing them. All kinds of silly tricks like putting dots on the screen. The problem was that copiers noticed anything they tried because they were trying to put too much information in there.
Why not simply try to encode one simple bit in the whole movie? Then randomly give out the screeners but keep track of who you give the two different copies to. After say, 5 releases, you've narrowed down the field pretty well. At least they would have an idea of what types of people are releasing the screeners. Oscar judges? Reviewers? Soccer moms?
Anyway, that would certainly help the problem.
Have you ever *made* a movie?
1. Charge people for the content
/. could survive on ads alone? Well, if the business model doesn't work, then find something else. Yes, it would be a shame if /. shut down, but if they can't pay the bills, then, well, too bad for us.
The reason that this hasn't worked yet is because no one has figured out how to make it work well.
Do you know what would be great? If I could go to McDonald's and they gave me free food in exchange for watching ads. Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't it be great if
I'm not saying I've got the solution, but like I've said more than once already, that's not my problem.
If you took away advertising and then every web site that didn't make a profit shut down, what exactly do you think would be left?
A whole lot. Every business around now knows that they need a web site to stay in business. Every university has and has had a web site for quite a while. I don't think that they make any money off of them. People who just like to have a web site for the heck of it and thousands of other web sites that don't need advertising.
You're assuming that if you were able to magically take all advertising down, that those web sites would HAVE to shut down. It's just not true. I doubt that slashdot would shut down. It's too popular and too potentially profitable for them to do that. They would find a way to charge people to stay open. If they can't figure it out, then they're simply poor businessmen.
So, how do you propose to pay for web hosting and bandwidth?
That's not my problem. If you want to run an ad-based site, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that said ads are now blockable. Just like the telemarketers are dealing with the DNC list. If you business model ceases to be profitable, that's not my problem.
If your content is so valuable, then maybe you should charge people for it. If you can't make enough to pay for hosting, then maybe your content isn't as valuable as you think it is.
True, charging people a couple cents for a page view is difficult at this point. But perhaps this will force those who need easy micropayments to make their business to figure out how to do it.
I didn't read the article
This is obvious.
unless they were actually keeping track of my purchases
Which is exactly what they're doing. They're not doing this out of any wish to make your life better, unless it makes them more money. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.
i'm sure that bandwidth isn't their only cost.
does this do something useful, and is the implementation non-obvious?
I'm as anti-software-patent as anyone on slashdot, but the implementation has never needed to be non-obvious. The problem might be non-obvious. Take PCR for example. Looking at it, most biologists would say, "well of course, I could've thought of that". The answer of course is, "Well then, why didn't you?"
Mallard ducks are known as the rapists of the animal kingdom.
what ever happened to the DOUBLE GULP?
Bet the person who bought your house wasn't working at McD's. Figure out were they get their money, and your home free.
If they got your home free, then they probably don't have very much money.
Complaining about teaching undergraduate classes.
So you don't use the general case malloc() and free()?
No bonehead, I use the standard malloc() and free() like most do. The original posters point was that using GC is just as fast as not using one. My point was that he was wrong, not that my way is the fastest way. Of course it isn't. By your logic, I should write everything in assembly since that would be faster. Hell, I should just design custom hardware for everything I do.
I agree that a poorly-written or old-fashioned garbage collector can be PERCEIVED as slow, because the deallocation all happens in one big lump, but that doesn't mean that the overall runtime is necessarily that much more.
Most of the time in a garbage collector isn't spent in system level free() calls. It's spent searching the object store for objects to deallocate. If the GC process isn't a big part of the time used, then why all the research on improving GCs?
In non-GC lagnuages, memory management is specific to the code being written. In GC languages, memory management is general purpose. 99% of the time, a specific solution is faster than a general purpose one.
I use it for processing genetics data.
Welcome to the real world buddy.
Just because the H1 procedures state that the H1B must be paid the fair-market rate, doesn't mean that there aren't ways around this. It happens.
Exactly.
You should be fired.
In fact, you and all your buddies at JPL should be fired.
I've worked with several people from JPL and have yet to meet one who actually has much of half a brain in his head. JPL used to known for employing the brightest and best of the scientific and engineering comminities. Now all that the folks at JPL seem to be interested in doing is touting the fact that, "I work at JPL".
Wooptie friggin' doo.
You've had decades since Apollo to actually make some serious accomplishments and you haven't accomplished much of anything. JPL hasn't produced anything really innovative in years. Stop resting on your past glory and start doing something.
applying for a Help Desk job at $40,000
A help desk job at $40,000? WHERE! I want that.
I'm doing real programming and have a CS degree. All I can seem to get is about $30,000.
I pay went from $0 to $X where X is a positive number.
Yeah, epsilon.
So, um, tell me sir, where are all these low-paying IT jobs? I haven't seen any advertised. Since some folks are making $0, they might be interested.