Can someone tell me why competition for formats is a bad thing?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Beta vs. VHS was bad, but over time the amount of money lost by those who bought into Beta is miniscule, while the competition between the two brought the VHS format into peoples' homes much faster than it would have were there no competitor in the first place.
The same thing happened with DVD: when DivX was introduced, that lit a fire under the pants of the DVD manufacturers to lower prices and market the hell out of their product. I imagine we would not yet have $30 DVD players at WalMart were DivX not to have existed back in 1998.
I for one welcome our new overl...er, a format war. Only the early adopters of the loser formats will lose any money---and by definition, early adopters have money to throw around on uncertainty---while the wider public will benefit. Bring it on.
In this particular case, the war between CD-R(W) and CD+R(W) has brought the prices on both to throw-away levels much more quickly than for CD-R(W), which took over 6 years to get from wide introduction to ultra-cheap).
This is the work of BANANA activists: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. If one bird per year were killed, they'd still be making a fuss.
Call me a troll all you want, but make no mistake: the radical environmentalist movement and the anti-globalization crowd in this country are full of neo-Luddites who, as evidenced by their actions and desires, want humans to return to nature and become prey.
Important note: this comment doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who care for having a livable environment and don't want to see individuals, the government, and corporations dump, oxidize, and leak all sorts of crap that finds its way into our air and drinking water. See, this majority doesn't hold up the environment as some kind of idol, but instead sees how maintaining it at a certain level benefits humans as well as animals. I am one of these people, but can't call myself an environmentalist because that has unfortunately become a word associated with all sorts of left-wing whackos who put animal life above human life.
Can someone tell me why competition for formats is a bad thing?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Beta vs. VHS was bad, but over time the amount of money lost by those who bought into Beta is miniscule, while the competition between the two brought the VHS format into peoples' homes much faster than it would have were there no competitor in the first place.
The same thing happened with DVD: when DivX was introduced, that lit a fire under the pants of the DVD manufacturers to lower prices and market the hell out of their product. I imagine we would not yet have $30 DVD players at WalMart were DivX not to have existed back in 1998.
I for one welcome our new overl...er, a format war. Only the early adopters of the loser formats will lose any money---and by definition, early adopters have money to throw around on uncertainty---while the wider public will benefit. Bring it on.
These "fixes" are what we in the software industry call "kludges": solutions very specific to particular problems, and therefore not designed to detect, much less fix, even similar yet not identical problems.
The right fix is to architect a new system that is not vulnerable to these problems in the first place. But I suspect that will happen only with private spaceflight and resulting fiscal accountability.
Sure, there were cost overruns and embezzlements, like there are with any large government project ($50 hammers for the Navy, anyone?), but the benefits for the city as a whole (and it's not just to raise rents by improving the view - much of boston's residential land does not abut the artery corridor) will be great.
Cost overruns??? Embezzlement??
$2.5 billion $16 billion
That's more than a cost overrun or simple embezzlement. How can you be so casual about their wasting your money to the tune of 7x? I'm certainly not casual about them wasting my money!
Your comment indicates you know nothing about Massachusetts local politics. The governor for some strange reason has been Republican for the last decade, but that is merely an aberration: both houses of the legislature, both senators, and (all or most of) the representatives are Democrats. Seems pretty one-party to me.
Original projected cost: $2.5 billion Final cost: $16 billion
Do the math. Once this thing got started, no one in power was going to say, "STOP! It's costing too much!", both because it seemed irreversible and because the Dems in power in Boston (Massachusetts is a one-party state) were happy getting union favors in elections in return for more jobs artificially generated by the Big Dig's continuation.
Most of this $16 billion came from out of state, i.e., from your pocket. Do you think Boston residents who already command huge rents and appraisals should now be able to look out the window at a grassy knoll instead of elevated steel girders and command even higher rents and appraisals, and at your cost?
Really, the elevated artery could have been renovated to provide the same benefits---minus the prettiness---that the Big Dig provides, and at a much reduced cost. But what is $16 billion, really, when you consider the size of the federal budget, especially when spread over 15 years? Unfortunately, $16 billion here and $16 billion there add up to what is considered real money even by the standards of the federal government.
Several groups are lobbying to have the Big Dig tunnel and bridge (currently named the "Liberty Tunnel" and the "Lenoard P. Zakim Bridge") renamed "The Taxpayer's Tunnel/Bridge." Since there's no way we're getting our money back, maybe we can at least recognize the people who really made this possible: the taxpayers.
Yet, the Democratic cabal on Beacon Hill wants to rename the tunnel after Tip O'Neill, a Democratic Senator from the great Commonwealth of Taxachusetts who was responsible for this pork barrel project. As a taxpaying resident of Massachusetts, I am outraged that these people are trying to celebrate this corruption! I can't believe I'm the only one.
...is Peter Jackson's sense of scale: he seemed to place locations much closer to each other than they should be according to the maps and the feel from the book.
Osgiliath, for instance, is about 15 miles from Minas Tirith according to the map in my Houghton-Mifflin edition. It looked like it was about 2 miles away in the movie. Similarly, the Barad-dur and Orodruin appeared to be right next to each other in the movie, when they're over 20 miles apart in the maps!
This, honestly, is my biggest problem with the movie. Otherwise, I thought the changes were okay and the rest of it rocked.
One should not have any legal protection whatsoever of trade secrets.
Legal protection of inventions is something provided by the government when you agree to patent those inventions: part of the agreement is that you document your invention for the future public good in exchange for a limited (20 year) monopoly enforced by law. Patents are something like the GPL in this sense: the enforcement isn't provided in exchange for money, but rather in exchange for particular rights.
If you decide not to accept this agreement but instead rely on secrecy, then the burden should be on you to protect that invention. If it gets out, tough shit: you made your bed, now lie in it.
: the ICC is not retro-active. There is no way Roosevelt, Truman or : Nixon could be tried.
Straw man.
The firebombing of Tokyo, the A-bombing of Japan, and the war in Vietnam (however Johnson botched the execution of the last one) were all just decisions arrived at by consensual, representative governments. Yet, if the same decisions were made today for the same reasons, those people could be put on trial in the ICC (notwithstanding an American invasion of the Netherlands to liberate them). Hence, why the US will not subjugate to international waffling its freedom to act when necessary.
so when will Roosevelt and Truman be tried for the genocide they committed against innocent German and Japanese civilians? Or Nixon for genocide in the Vietnam war?
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why the US will never be a party to the ICC.
No, you are the one with the comprehension problem. That's not what I said.
Sure it is. Can't you even remember what you wrote? Geez.
Let's just say that's incredibly unlikely, looking at your current (and most likely permanent) lowly position in life.
LOL. Yeah, you've got my life all figured out. You certainly know more about it than I do. I wholly submit to your clearly superior intellect, Keanu.
A dickweed *and* a bit slow on the uptake! You must be a devil with the ladies!
I have yet to see anything but ad hominem attacks from you, so I'll refrain from replying to any more of your inanity. Your lack of ability to form coherent arguments based on elementary logic demonstrates that you, not me, are unlikely to progress far in life. I'm willing to stand by that judgment.
Clearly you're illiterate if you think you outclass me by claiming two degrees (three here, and from Cornell and MIT, all listed on my homepage) and a high-paying non-joke job (got one of those, too; probably paying a lot more than yours).
And you post anonymously, which immediately classifies you as the real weenie!
Like, the US is, like, uh.... goverened by a dictator... right?
You may not have the president you voted for, but you had a say in his election, as well as the election of your other representatives.
This is not the case in Iraq. I don't think the Iraqis had any say at all in the elec...er, I mean coup, that brought Saddam to power. I mean, unless you believe that 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam in the last election. Do you?
Spare me your moral relativism. Your response makes me laugh.
The UK is a monarchy in name only: the crown commands no actual power. The country itself is goverened by the lower house of Parliament, which is elected by the people.
A court comprising Iraqis in Iraq will try him. Not a US court. Not that abortion of universal jurisdiction, i.e. the ICC. Those who suffered under his rule will mete out proper judgment.
: no long commands the same international respect.
I assure you the US commands unparalleled strength, even compared to its own history. Perhaps it doesn't command the same amount of friendliness, but the two are entirely different.
Remember what Cicero said: oderint dum metuant ("let them hate, so long as they fear.")
I don't recognize the sovereignty of a nation that doesn't recognize the liberty of its people.
Anything else is an insult to the human rights of people who don't enjoy the freedoms you do. It's a shame you choose to exercise your free speech rights by advocating the suppression of theirs.
If you aren't Arab (and in this case, Arab isn't equivalent to Muslim), you probably don't understand the honor structure of those people. In this case, while Saddam remained free and was able to demonstrate his strength by surviving and directing attacks against coalition forces, his former Ba'ath party supporters were willing to fight for him.
With him captured, you can expect to see the vast majority of the domestic Iraqi resistance disappear.
The foreign (i.e., Syrian and Iranian) destabilization efforts will continue until a effective domestic police force exists.
Slashdot Mirror
In this particular case, the war between CD-R(W) and CD+R(W)
Obviously, here I mean DVD-R(W) and DVD+R(W). (Proofread! Proofread!)
Can someone tell me why competition for formats is a bad thing?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Beta vs. VHS was bad, but over time the amount of money lost by those who bought into Beta is miniscule, while the competition between the two brought the VHS format into peoples' homes much faster than it would have were there no competitor in the first place.
The same thing happened with DVD: when DivX was introduced, that lit a fire under the pants of the DVD manufacturers to lower prices and market the hell out of their product. I imagine we would not yet have $30 DVD players at WalMart were DivX not to have existed back in 1998.
I for one welcome our new overl...er, a format war. Only the early adopters of the loser formats will lose any money---and by definition, early adopters have money to throw around on uncertainty---while the wider public will benefit. Bring it on.
In this particular case, the war between CD-R(W) and CD+R(W) has brought the prices on both to throw-away levels much more quickly than for CD-R(W), which took over 6 years to get from wide introduction to ultra-cheap).
This is the work of BANANA activists: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. If one bird per year were killed, they'd still be making a fuss.
Call me a troll all you want, but make no mistake: the radical environmentalist movement and the anti-globalization crowd in this country are full of neo-Luddites who, as evidenced by their actions and desires, want humans to return to nature and become prey.
Important note: this comment doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who care for having a livable environment and don't want to see individuals, the government, and corporations dump, oxidize, and leak all sorts of crap that finds its way into our air and drinking water. See, this majority doesn't hold up the environment as some kind of idol, but instead sees how maintaining it at a certain level benefits humans as well as animals. I am one of these people, but can't call myself an environmentalist because that has unfortunately become a word associated with all sorts of left-wing whackos who put animal life above human life.
Can someone tell me why competition for formats is a bad thing?
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Beta vs. VHS was bad, but over time the amount of money lost by those who bought into Beta is miniscule, while the competition between the two brought the VHS format into peoples' homes much faster than it would have were there no competitor in the first place.
The same thing happened with DVD: when DivX was introduced, that lit a fire under the pants of the DVD manufacturers to lower prices and market the hell out of their product. I imagine we would not yet have $30 DVD players at WalMart were DivX not to have existed back in 1998.
I for one welcome our new overl...er, a format war. Only the early adopters of the loser formats will lose any money---and by definition, early adopters have money to throw around on uncertainty---while the wider public will benefit. Bring it on.
These "fixes" are what we in the software industry call "kludges": solutions very specific to particular problems, and therefore not designed to detect, much less fix, even similar yet not identical problems.
The right fix is to architect a new system that is not vulnerable to these problems in the first place. But I suspect that will happen only with private spaceflight and resulting fiscal accountability.
Will our children forgive us, or curse us?
There's another choice, you know: they might thank us.
Can someone explain this to me?
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +2
20% Troll
30% Interesting
20% Insightful
Extra 'Troll' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 3
What's wrong with this math? Is some Slashdot editor dicking with me?
Sorry, you're right. My mistake: he was a representative, not a senator.
Sure, there were cost overruns and embezzlements, like there are with any large government project ($50 hammers for the Navy, anyone?), but the benefits for the city as a whole (and it's not just to raise rents by improving the view - much of boston's residential land does not abut the artery corridor) will be great.
Cost overruns??? Embezzlement??
$2.5 billion
$16 billion
That's more than a cost overrun or simple embezzlement. How can you be so casual about their wasting your money to the tune of 7x? I'm certainly not casual about them wasting my money!
Your comment indicates you know nothing about Massachusetts local politics. The governor for some strange reason has been Republican for the last decade, but that is merely an aberration: both houses of the legislature, both senators, and (all or most of) the representatives are Democrats. Seems pretty one-party to me.
Original projected cost: $2.5 billion
Final cost: $16 billion
Do the math. Once this thing got started, no one in power was going to say, "STOP! It's costing too much!", both because it seemed irreversible and because the Dems in power in Boston (Massachusetts is a one-party state) were happy getting union favors in elections in return for more jobs artificially generated by the Big Dig's continuation.
Most of this $16 billion came from out of state, i.e., from your pocket. Do you think Boston residents who already command huge rents and appraisals should now be able to look out the window at a grassy knoll instead of elevated steel girders and command even higher rents and appraisals, and at your cost?
Really, the elevated artery could have been renovated to provide the same benefits---minus the prettiness---that the Big Dig provides, and at a much reduced cost. But what is $16 billion, really, when you consider the size of the federal budget, especially when spread over 15 years? Unfortunately, $16 billion here and $16 billion there add up to what is considered real money even by the standards of the federal government.
Several groups are lobbying to have the Big Dig tunnel and bridge (currently named the "Liberty Tunnel" and the "Lenoard P. Zakim Bridge") renamed "The Taxpayer's Tunnel/Bridge." Since there's no way we're getting our money back, maybe we can at least recognize the people who really made this possible: the taxpayers.
Yet, the Democratic cabal on Beacon Hill wants to rename the tunnel after Tip O'Neill, a Democratic Senator from the great Commonwealth of Taxachusetts who was responsible for this pork barrel project. As a taxpaying resident of Massachusetts, I am outraged that these people are trying to celebrate this corruption! I can't believe I'm the only one.
...is Peter Jackson's sense of scale: he seemed to place locations much closer to each other than they should be according to the maps and the feel from the book.
Osgiliath, for instance, is about 15 miles from Minas Tirith according to the map in my Houghton-Mifflin edition. It looked like it was about 2 miles away in the movie. Similarly, the Barad-dur and Orodruin appeared to be right next to each other in the movie, when they're over 20 miles apart in the maps!
This, honestly, is my biggest problem with the movie. Otherwise, I thought the changes were okay and the rest of it rocked.
One should not have any legal protection whatsoever of trade secrets.
Legal protection of inventions is something provided by the government when you agree to patent those inventions: part of the agreement is that you document your invention for the future public good in exchange for a limited (20 year) monopoly enforced by law. Patents are something like the GPL in this sense: the enforcement isn't provided in exchange for money, but rather in exchange for particular rights.
If you decide not to accept this agreement but instead rely on secrecy, then the burden should be on you to protect that invention. If it gets out, tough shit: you made your bed, now lie in it.
: the ICC is not retro-active. There is no way Roosevelt, Truman or
: Nixon could be tried.
Straw man.
The firebombing of Tokyo, the A-bombing of Japan, and the war in Vietnam (however Johnson botched the execution of the last one) were all just decisions arrived at by consensual, representative governments. Yet, if the same decisions were made today for the same reasons, those people could be put on trial in the ICC (notwithstanding an American invasion of the Netherlands to liberate them). Hence, why the US will not subjugate to international waffling its freedom to act when necessary.
so when will Roosevelt and Truman be tried for the genocide they committed against innocent German and Japanese civilians? Or Nixon for genocide in the Vietnam war?
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why the US will never be a party to the ICC.
No, you are the one with the comprehension problem. That's not what I said.
Sure it is. Can't you even remember what you wrote? Geez.
Let's just say that's incredibly unlikely, looking at your current (and most likely permanent) lowly position in life.
LOL. Yeah, you've got my life all figured out. You certainly know more about it than I do. I wholly submit to your clearly superior intellect, Keanu.
A dickweed *and* a bit slow on the uptake! You must be a devil with the ladies!
I have yet to see anything but ad hominem attacks from you, so I'll refrain from replying to any more of your inanity. Your lack of ability to form coherent arguments based on elementary logic demonstrates that you, not me, are unlikely to progress far in life. I'm willing to stand by that judgment.
Clearly you're illiterate if you think you outclass me by claiming two degrees (three here, and from Cornell and MIT, all listed on my homepage) and a high-paying non-joke job (got one of those, too; probably paying a lot more than yours).
And you post anonymously, which immediately classifies you as the real weenie!
So, I repeat:
LOL. Bite me, meathead.
LOL. Bite me, meathead.
[Insert Beavis and Butthead laugh]
Like, the US is, like, uh.... goverened by a dictator... right?
You may not have the president you voted for, but you had a say in his election, as well as the election of your other representatives.
This is not the case in Iraq. I don't think the Iraqis had any say at all in the elec...er, I mean coup, that brought Saddam to power. I mean, unless you believe that 100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam in the last election. Do you?
Spare me your moral relativism. Your response makes me laugh.
The UK is a monarchy in name only: the crown commands no actual power. The country itself is goverened by the lower house of Parliament, which is elected by the people.
Why am I even responding to this trolling...
A court comprising Iraqis in Iraq will try him. Not a US court. Not that abortion of universal jurisdiction, i.e. the ICC. Those who suffered under his rule will mete out proper judgment.
: no long commands the same international respect.
I assure you the US commands unparalleled strength, even compared to its own history. Perhaps it doesn't command the same amount of friendliness, but the two are entirely different.
Remember what Cicero said: oderint dum metuant ("let them hate, so long as they fear.")
: our government invaded a sovereign nation
I don't recognize the sovereignty of a nation that doesn't recognize the liberty of its people.
Anything else is an insult to the human rights of people who don't enjoy the freedoms you do. It's a shame you choose to exercise your free speech rights by advocating the suppression of theirs.
Who is modding this stuff up to "insightful"?
If you aren't Arab (and in this case, Arab isn't equivalent to Muslim), you probably don't understand the honor structure of those people. In this case, while Saddam remained free and was able to demonstrate his strength by surviving and directing attacks against coalition forces, his former Ba'ath party supporters were willing to fight for him.
With him captured, you can expect to see the vast majority of the domestic Iraqi resistance disappear.
The foreign (i.e., Syrian and Iranian) destabilization efforts will continue until a effective domestic police force exists.
Echo chamber.
You are only reading Slashdot, where Windows->Linux conversions are highly-publicized.
Note: I love Linux, and can't stand using Windows, but that doesn't make this statement any less true.