"The half dozon hosts with Spiderman up for download in 800mb halfbakedTM quality clips have set a new internet speed record for transfering billions of $ of pirated copies in 2 weeks. 31331hax0r of Cult Of The Dead Movie says "yeah, we managed to upload the 160,000,000 gigabytes required to cost them a billion $ of ticket $ales, I even had to overclock my Pentium 266 and remove the 28k cap on my cable modem to do it". The MPAA reports empty moneybins and empty theatres all over the USA, "this is a serious trend for national security" reports Big Boss. New laws alowing the NSA to hack into piracy-terrorists are expected to be passed by congress today. "I'm afraid for the future of my children when multinational corporations can't make billions of dollars out of making overhyped movies" says a mother from Astroturf, California. "
I don't care if I get modded down for defending this post. This post was modded down as Troll, but I don't see why. It was satirical and it was funny! This is the line that cracked me up the most: "yeah, we managed to upload the 160,000,000 gigabytes required to cost them a billion $ of ticket $ales..."
It was satire, not an attempt to 'Troll'. I really wish that some moderators would read these posts a little more carefully. This is an honest constructive criticism, not a flame. I too have made mistakes reading posts and blown up at people I shouldn't have simply because I skimmed the post too quickly.
You know, normally I give people shit for correcting my spelling, but I wanted to thank you for being far more tasteful about it.:)
The reason I type 'elbow' is not because I think elbo is spelled that way, but rather it is an indication of how my 'speed typing' works. My fingers have a way of remembering commonly typed words, similar to how MS uses a word prediction feature in PocketPCs.
I use the letter 'o' followed by the letter 'w' so much that I end up typing 'ow' every time I type o. I backspace ALOT. Don't ask me why, but I end up typing 'spankish' instead of spanish alot heh.
In any case, it's not an indication that English is hard (tho it is...), it's an indication that I took too many shortcuts in optimizing how fast I can type.
Not serverely though, but enough to change my habits. The big problem I was having was that I'd constantly hold my arms up in order to use the computer. I wasn't resting either of my elbos, and this eventually caused severe strain to my neck, shoulders, and even wrists. The first thing I did was I made a habit of having my left arm better rested on the desk or on the arm of my chair. The next thing I did was I got a little tv-dinner table and have my mouse resting on it instead, allowing me to rest my right arm on the chair. My problems went away shortly after making those changes, and I'd recommend them to anybody else.
For all you cubicle dwellers like me out there, another tip is to move your computer to the corner of the l-shaped desk, if you have that opportunity. By using the corner, you can rest both your elbos on the desk.
Re:the interesting part is right at then end
on
Tracking Mafiaboy
·
· Score: 2
They do! If you install Windows XP, then anybody can get in!
*Wonders if he's the first to say: There's a fine line between hacking and marketing.*
The problem with 'on-line piracy' isn't that people are stealing money away from studios, the problem is that it will force the MPAA to use a more ethical business model.
Think about it, you pay for the movie BEFORE you are satisfied with it, and you really don't have a whole lot of choice if the movie sucks. (Yeah, you could get your money back, but how often does that happen?) Just about any other business gives you a 'satisfaction guaranteed' policy. Don't like your video card? Take it back within 30 days. Was your burger at McDonald's cold? They give you a card for a new sandwhich at a later time. Don't like a movie you bought on DVD or saw in the theater? Tough shit. You already had your service provided.
The 'on-line piracy' that the MPAA is worried about gives people the chance to discover if the movie sucks or not, and decide not to go see it. I mean, think about it: There is no possible way that you can recreate going to the theater in your own home. I don't know many people who could fit a movie screen that large. And I don't know about you, but I like seeing a movie with an audience, particularly if it's a comedy. There is always value in seeing the movie in the theater.
If the movie's good, people will go see it even if they have seen a VCD version of it. The theater is a far superior version of it. On top of that, you may want to drag your friends to see it! Frankly, I think the piracy mentioned in this article is likely to make the good movies get more money, and the bad movies make less. This means that Hollywood will have to seriously raise the quality of what they are creating. Heh, you'd think with the >$100,000,000 budget of a lot of movies that quality would be of the utmost concern.
In short, what I'm saying is that the MPAA will be forced to use a 'Best Buy' style business model in order to maintain customer satisfaction. Until they do that, they will just have to learn to live with people wanting gratis advance copies of movies. Pity though, I'd be willing to pay half the cost of a movie ticket to see a 320 by 240 version of a movie off the net, particularly if I'm cautious about whether I'll like it or not.
I watched Spider-man (why did they hyphenate it?) in Brazil a week after it came out in the USA. It was subtitled.
Subtitling really doesn't take that long. You have a 90-minute long movie with people speaking from a script. They could have had the subtitles done before the movie was ready for release.
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with charging people according to how much bandwidth they use"
The problem comes from the business plan changing while you are still a customer. What got me interested at @home was the advertisement that said "Unlimited Internet 24/7 at the fastest speed possible."
Now, I am capped at 1.5 megs. Currently, AT&T Broadband is my provider so I'm pretty sure that this article doesn't affect me yet, but if ATTBI were to start this crap I'd be seriously offended. They lure me in with promises and then change the conditions on me.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to do that, particularly when I don't have much other choice. I could get DSL here I suppose. The thing is though, I don't WANT DSL. If the net connection goes down, I want *one* place to call, not three.
I won't complain, though, if they only make new policies affect new customers.
"...but my goodness, being one of the first members of the general public to witness the ability to send pictures real time across the ether"
I believe this would have had impact if the Television was a video phone vs. 'radio (entertainment)with pictures'.
If the people could see what we watch today, oh yeah they`d dog-pile on it. But what did they have to compare it to back then? I can understand the cynical view of it, particularly if you consider what had to be done to make the 'moving pictures' work.
I often fantasize about taking what I know about making movies today and going back in time to the early years of TV and making a huge name for myself. But if you were to present me with a new challenge (such as 128 kbit video for a Palm Pilot), I'd be hard pressed to think that I could make anything that anybody`d care about. I'd immediately say that it was too 'unsophisticated' for me to do anything with. But you know what'd happen? Somebody out there would make a cute/creative movie in that format and surprise the crap out of everybody.
"The web didn't impress me much when I saw a demonstration of it in a computer lab. My friend said, "Hey, Matt, check this out! You can throw a snowball at these scientists when you click on this link!"
I'm waiting for special internet keyboards that can send a shock to people to say something stupid. Now that would be cool. "
I'm disappointed that the above post was modded off-topic. It was quite obviously a satirical poke at the article that was mentioned.
Could a moderator please read the parent post and generate a second opinion? (even if I'm wrong?)
I agree with you to a point, however the industry isn't doing a very good job of making me optimistic about new shows. Most good shows I find nowadays are totally by accident. The new shows that come out, particularly the over-hyped ones, tend to be the soul-less biproduct of committee thinking.
Take Team Knight Rider, for example: I read a press release about this show that had a cool back story that tied in to the original show. I was pretty hyped about watching it, but then I actually saw an ep of it. Then I realized that the show didn't care at all about backstory, rather every scene was a result of somebody saying `we could improve the original Knight Rider show by making the semi into a cargo-jet`...
Are there good things to watch? Sure! But the desire to go looking for it fades when so many shows have the inspiration distilled out of them.
My friends and I used to do something like that, except what we`d do is we would change the channel in mid sentence to form really interesting new sentences...
"The British government is a model of efficiency and fairness..." "... see how easily it folds up?"
"3) And unconfirmed rumors say that Mario Sunshine will be designed for 3dglasses, thats why the screenshots seem so odd."
The reason the pictures are 'odd' is because they are photographs from projectors. I wouldn't take the glasses rumor too seriously.
As for Nintendo 'using a new strategy of being innovative...', why is this a new strategy for Nintendo? Have you been paying attention to Nintendo's evolution? Look at the SNES controller, then look at the N64 controller, then look at the GC controller... notice something? They'z a little bit different. Look at the Playstation controller, then the PS2 controller... or look at the XBOX controller that wants to be a Dreamcast controller.
What about the games? Look at how radically different the Mario games are from each other. Look at how Nintendo added the Super FX chip in Star Fox just to give gamers a new experience. Bah Im not gonna go on anymore, I think my point stands.
The reason that Nintendo has got a strong following is because you can always buy a Nintendo product and get something that totally blows your mind. Too bad Sony and MS haven't figured that out yet.
Hmm... reading through the comments, one thing that bothered me was the claim that users are the problem. I really don't agree with that. The biggest problem is that nobody has put all that much thought into really making anything secure. It seems reasonable to me that somebody could develop a security system that has some common sense to it.
Here is an example: Let's say that I am working on my highly secure workstation that only responds to my thumb print. This should trigger a set of rules that the computer should respond to. "The user is sitting here at the workstation, so whoever is trying to access data from this terminal from the Vancouver office cannot possibly be him."
I know that there are some security systems that use similar rules to verify access, but what Im describing is a computer that uses more intelligent deductive abilities to grant or deny access. If a computer were to be aware of what hours somebody works, and what key was used to open the door to the office, and was even smart enough to call the guy's cell phone and see if it can hear it ring, then it would be more discriminate about what is legit and what is a hack. *realizes that is one huge run-on sentence and apologizes*
The point Im making is that security is more than just passwords, it is about common sense. I believe this is possible. If a webserver, for example, knows that the word 'haxx0red' probably wouldn't show up on one of the pages, it could heal after somebody breaks in. Heck, the website could even be smart enough to know 'Hmm, it is 3 am, and the computer accessing me is 400 miles away from me. I seriously doubt this is somebody with legitimate access.'
Put more time into giving your systems common sense security, and they'll be harder to break into.
"wow, excellent information. AND fianlly someone on Slashdot that will agree to disagree instead of:-)"
I appreciate your kind words. I know what ya mean, some people like to drive a point into the ground hehe.
"You have certainly swayed my opinion a bit. I am interested in watching the movie again (I did like it) and seeing what you saw.."
Ah! Im glad what I told you was informative. Im curious to know if you get the same impression I did. I did spend just a little too much time being fanatical over Robocop, so you may see something different in it. Feel free to post in my journal (look in my sig) what you think.:)
As for an R-rated version of Lord of the Rings: Maybe there is actual blood in it? I dont remember actually seeing blood in the movie. Thats not to say it wasnt there, just dont remember. Who knows... maybe somebody getting eaten?
I really like when they add footage to movies that was previously edited. Its interesting how it can change your view of the movie. Thats one reason I really got into the Robocop director's edition. They even go into detail about how a particular shot was set up. I was totally shocked that one of the scenes they had in the movie was done with a puppet. When you see the Director's edition, I think youll be surprised too. They really nailed that effect.;)
"isn't the data rate of a floppy drive likewise going to be incredibly slow compared to the data rate of a CD drive? "
A floppy drive is incredibly slow compared to the data rate of a CD Drive.
"why would anyone claim an advance in storage technology *without* substantial improvements over standard speeds as well as density."
That is what I was saying. Several people were saying 'oh at a cd burning rate, itll take 24 hours to burn a 100 gig disk'. So I responded with 'DuH! Itll be faster than a CD burner!'
I think you're making the same point I am, even though you are arguin with me.
To be honest, though, since you are an AC I dont expect you to respond. I dont know why I bothered to. *grumbles about AC's not being notified when they are responded to*
I dont quite agree with you, but I just wanted you to know I appreciate the time you took to explain what you meant.:)
The X-rated version of Robocop is still expensive to get on DVD, but if you are a fan of the movie it is a must-have. The added scenes don't really add that many minutes to the movie, but there are subtle changes.
Remember when ED-209 blew away that executive? The scene basically goes like this:
- Executive points gun at ED - ED orders he drop the gun - He drops the gun, ED doesnt register that fact - ED fires a few shots at the guy and kills him - ED powers down
Seems pretty cold blooded, doesnt it? In the X-rated version, it goes like this:
- Executive points gun at ED, ED orders he drop the gun - He drops the gun, ED doesnt register - ED opens fire - Executive falls on table, dead - ED Keeps firing. The camera is above his blood and *splat splat splat* there is lots of blood flying into the air - ED shuts down when the engineer yanks the circuit boards
That scene would have earned the movie an X-rating (for violence) because of all the extra blood splattering. But in the Director's comments, he explains that when that scene was shown to test audiences, the people laughed! When the shortened version that you saw in the theater was shown, people thought it was scary. In this case, editing the scene to avoid an X-rating made the movie more disturbing.
I think the reason that it was funny was because it was obvious that ED-209 was seriously malfunctioning. I mean he must have put 100 or so rounds into a dead body! But in the edited version, it was like ED-209 just didnt like the guy a whole lot and killed him in cold blood. The ratings board really screwed up that scene in the movie.
There are more little things like that to the movie, plus a great explanation of how ED-209 was built and animated. I really enjoyed the Director's version even tho it cost me $40 (2 years ago).
What cracks me up is in the second movie, OCP never quite got the idea that they shouldnt arm beta-versions of their cyborgs. They had a couple of problems with getting fired on by their own creations hehe.
I dunno, I found the whole 'beta testing a cyborg' aspect of Robocop 1 and 2 to be very amusing. I consider that Scifi, but I guess from what you said I can understand why you dont see it that way.
I understand your concerns, but the data points you provide arent as scary as they seem.
Lets start with Senator Disney for a sec: The probability that general purpose PCs will be outlawed is surprisingly slim. It was universally turned down not that long ago.
Could MS make a proprietary PC? Oh yeah. So what? I dont think MS could extend their monopoly over to custom hardware.
The reason that Windows is dominant now is that MS has made agreements with lots of PC manufacturers to put Windows on the box. People want PCs, but they are hard pressed to find a PC that doesnt have Windows on it. If MS were to make a proprietary version, though, who would buy it? MS cant force anybody into it no matter what experience they gained from the XBOX.
If Sen Disney's bill passed, then set top boxes would be inevitable. MS wouldnt be the only one to make one. And guess what? They'd have a hard time getting their OS into somebody else's. If Sony, for example, made a set top box to use as a PC, would they go with Windows? Given their history with other companies (Like Nintendo, for example...) Id say that the answer is no. Theyd want to keep all the royalties etc that they'd get from the reasons you mentioned before.
I dont know if Im making my points clear enough. I do think your conerns are valid, but I dont think that itll be as bad as you are imagining.
I see what you are saying, but the memo doesnt show they are behaving that way. It just shows that an executive had some controversial ideas about what MS should do. This memo isnt evidence of anything, only an indication of motive.
Again, Im not saying MS is innocent, Im merely saying that we cannot punish *anybody* until proof has been provided that the crime has actually been commited.
However, I will concede that the court would be well within its right to say to MS 'You better not act like that memo suggests...'.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh. *just looked it up*
I coulda sworn elbow didn't have a w in it heh.
Well, okay: In this case it was a word I have habitually mispelled for the last 18 or so years.
However, most of my other typos can be explained that way....
*hides because he made an ass of himself on Slashdot again.*
"The half dozon hosts with Spiderman up for download in 800mb halfbakedTM quality clips have set a new internet speed record for transfering billions of $ of pirated copies in 2 weeks. 31331hax0r of Cult Of The Dead Movie says "yeah, we managed to upload the 160,000,000 gigabytes required to cost them a billion $ of ticket $ales, I even had to overclock my Pentium 266 and remove the 28k cap on my cable modem to do it". The MPAA reports empty moneybins and empty theatres all over the USA, "this is a serious trend for national security" reports Big Boss. New laws alowing the NSA to hack into piracy-terrorists are expected to be passed by congress today. "I'm afraid for the future of my children when multinational corporations can't make billions of dollars out of making overhyped movies" says a mother from Astroturf, California. "
I don't care if I get modded down for defending this post. This post was modded down as Troll, but I don't see why. It was satirical and it was funny! This is the line that cracked me up the most:
"yeah, we managed to upload the 160,000,000 gigabytes required to cost them a billion $ of ticket $ales..."
It was satire, not an attempt to 'Troll'. I really wish that some moderators would read these posts a little more carefully. This is an honest constructive criticism, not a flame. I too have made mistakes reading posts and blown up at people I shouldn't have simply because I skimmed the post too quickly.
You know, normally I give people shit for correcting my spelling, but I wanted to thank you for being far more tasteful about it. :)
The reason I type 'elbow' is not because I think elbo is spelled that way, but rather it is an indication of how my 'speed typing' works. My fingers have a way of remembering commonly typed words, similar to how MS uses a word prediction feature in PocketPCs.
I use the letter 'o' followed by the letter 'w' so much that I end up typing 'ow' every time I type o. I backspace ALOT. Don't ask me why, but I end up typing 'spankish' instead of spanish alot heh.
In any case, it's not an indication that English is hard (tho it is...), it's an indication that I took too many shortcuts in optimizing how fast I can type.
"I have never, ever gotten the "tough shit" reaction when there was something wrong at a theater."
Did you catch the part where I said:
"Think about it, you pay for the movie BEFORE you are satisfied with it, and you really don't have a whole lot of choice if the movie sucks. "
You should have since you quoted me in it.
I never said anything about film breaking or bad audio or whatever.
Hey! You're right!
d erman/401-450/asm398fc.jpg
Interesting trick of the eye: Check out this Spiderman cover:
http://www.supersiteusa.com/P-1/$/Pics/Comics/Spi
For some reason, I never registered a hyphen was there because of the E next to the R there. Take a look, you'll see what I mean.
*Humbly retracts that comment.*
Not serverely though, but enough to change my habits. The big problem I was having was that I'd constantly hold my arms up in order to use the computer. I wasn't resting either of my elbos, and this eventually caused severe strain to my neck, shoulders, and even wrists. The first thing I did was I made a habit of having my left arm better rested on the desk or on the arm of my chair. The next thing I did was I got a little tv-dinner table and have my mouse resting on it instead, allowing me to rest my right arm on the chair. My problems went away shortly after making those changes, and I'd recommend them to anybody else.
For all you cubicle dwellers like me out there, another tip is to move your computer to the corner of the l-shaped desk, if you have that opportunity. By using the corner, you can rest both your elbos on the desk.
They do! If you install Windows XP, then anybody can get in!
*Wonders if he's the first to say: There's a fine line between hacking and marketing.*
The problem with 'on-line piracy' isn't that people are stealing money away from studios, the problem is that it will force the MPAA to use a more ethical business model.
Think about it, you pay for the movie BEFORE you are satisfied with it, and you really don't have a whole lot of choice if the movie sucks. (Yeah, you could get your money back, but how often does that happen?) Just about any other business gives you a 'satisfaction guaranteed' policy. Don't like your video card? Take it back within 30 days. Was your burger at McDonald's cold? They give you a card for a new sandwhich at a later time. Don't like a movie you bought on DVD or saw in the theater? Tough shit. You already had your service provided.
The 'on-line piracy' that the MPAA is worried about gives people the chance to discover if the movie sucks or not, and decide not to go see it. I mean, think about it: There is no possible way that you can recreate going to the theater in your own home. I don't know many people who could fit a movie screen that large. And I don't know about you, but I like seeing a movie with an audience, particularly if it's a comedy. There is always value in seeing the movie in the theater.
If the movie's good, people will go see it even if they have seen a VCD version of it. The theater is a far superior version of it. On top of that, you may want to drag your friends to see it! Frankly, I think the piracy mentioned in this article is likely to make the good movies get more money, and the bad movies make less. This means that Hollywood will have to seriously raise the quality of what they are creating. Heh, you'd think with the >$100,000,000 budget of a lot of movies that quality would be of the utmost concern.
In short, what I'm saying is that the MPAA will be forced to use a 'Best Buy' style business model in order to maintain customer satisfaction. Until they do that, they will just have to learn to live with people wanting gratis advance copies of movies. Pity though, I'd be willing to pay half the cost of a movie ticket to see a 320 by 240 version of a movie off the net, particularly if I'm cautious about whether I'll like it or not.
It doesn't need to have bandwidth for a 1280 by 1024 @ 24fps uncompressed stream. They use MPEG 2.
Subtitling takes time."
I watched Spider-man (why did they hyphenate it?) in Brazil a week after it came out in the USA. It was subtitled.
Subtitling really doesn't take that long. You have a 90-minute long movie with people speaking from a script. They could have had the subtitles done before the movie was ready for release.
"How dare they? I mean, why the hell should people who cost them more money have to pay more? "
Because that is the promise they made? Don't you remember Cable Modems advertised as "Unlimited Usage 24/7"?
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with charging people according to how much bandwidth they use"
The problem comes from the business plan changing while you are still a customer. What got me interested at @home was the advertisement that said "Unlimited Internet 24/7 at the fastest speed possible."
Now, I am capped at 1.5 megs. Currently, AT&T Broadband is my provider so I'm pretty sure that this article doesn't affect me yet, but if ATTBI were to start this crap I'd be seriously offended. They lure me in with promises and then change the conditions on me.
Companies shouldn't be allowed to do that, particularly when I don't have much other choice. I could get DSL here I suppose. The thing is though, I don't WANT DSL. If the net connection goes down, I want *one* place to call, not three.
I won't complain, though, if they only make new policies affect new customers.
"...but my goodness, being one of the first members of the general public to witness the ability to send pictures real time across the ether"
I believe this would have had impact if the Television was a video phone vs. 'radio (entertainment)with pictures'.
If the people could see what we watch today, oh yeah they`d dog-pile on it. But what did they have to compare it to back then? I can understand the cynical view of it, particularly if you consider what had to be done to make the 'moving pictures' work.
I often fantasize about taking what I know about making movies today and going back in time to the early years of TV and making a huge name for myself. But if you were to present me with a new challenge (such as 128 kbit video for a Palm Pilot), I'd be hard pressed to think that I could make anything that anybody`d care about. I'd immediately say that it was too 'unsophisticated' for me to do anything with. But you know what'd happen? Somebody out there would make a cute/creative movie in that format and surprise the crap out of everybody.
"The web didn't impress me much when I saw a demonstration of it in a computer lab. My friend said, "Hey, Matt, check this out! You can throw a snowball at these scientists when you click on this link!"
I'm waiting for special internet keyboards that can send a shock to people to say something stupid. Now that would be cool. "
I'm disappointed that the above post was modded off-topic. It was quite obviously a satirical poke at the article that was mentioned.
Could a moderator please read the parent post and generate a second opinion? (even if I'm wrong?)
I agree with you to a point, however the industry isn't doing a very good job of making me optimistic about new shows. Most good shows I find nowadays are totally by accident. The new shows that come out, particularly the over-hyped ones, tend to be the soul-less biproduct of committee thinking.
Take Team Knight Rider, for example: I read a press release about this show that had a cool back story that tied in to the original show. I was pretty hyped about watching it, but then I actually saw an ep of it. Then I realized that the show didn't care at all about backstory, rather every scene was a result of somebody saying `we could improve the original Knight Rider show by making the semi into a cargo-jet`...
Are there good things to watch? Sure! But the desire to go looking for it fades when so many shows have the inspiration distilled out of them.
Oh... I dunno. Hearing about how the celebrities are vastly more important than the rest of us is always very entertaining.
""On second thought, don't bother answering, as you're obviously an imbecile
Damn dude, dont be so f`n rude. Show some class.
My friends and I used to do something like that, except what we`d do is we would change the channel in mid sentence to form really interesting new sentences...
"The British government is a model of efficiency and fairness..." "... see how easily it folds up?"
"3) And unconfirmed rumors say that Mario Sunshine will be designed for 3dglasses, thats why the screenshots seem so odd."
The reason the pictures are 'odd' is because they are photographs from projectors. I wouldn't take the glasses rumor too seriously.
As for Nintendo 'using a new strategy of being innovative...', why is this a new strategy for Nintendo? Have you been paying attention to Nintendo's evolution? Look at the SNES controller, then look at the N64 controller, then look at the GC controller... notice something? They'z a little bit different. Look at the Playstation controller, then the PS2 controller... or look at the XBOX controller that wants to be a Dreamcast controller.
What about the games? Look at how radically different the Mario games are from each other. Look at how Nintendo added the Super FX chip in Star Fox just to give gamers a new experience. Bah Im not gonna go on anymore, I think my point stands.
The reason that Nintendo has got a strong following is because you can always buy a Nintendo product and get something that totally blows your mind. Too bad Sony and MS haven't figured that out yet.
Hmm... reading through the comments, one thing that bothered me was the claim that users are the problem. I really don't agree with that. The biggest problem is that nobody has put all that much thought into really making anything secure. It seems reasonable to me that somebody could develop a security system that has some common sense to it.
Here is an example: Let's say that I am working on my highly secure workstation that only responds to my thumb print. This should trigger a set of rules that the computer should respond to. "The user is sitting here at the workstation, so whoever is trying to access data from this terminal from the Vancouver office cannot possibly be him."
I know that there are some security systems that use similar rules to verify access, but what Im describing is a computer that uses more intelligent deductive abilities to grant or deny access. If a computer were to be aware of what hours somebody works, and what key was used to open the door to the office, and was even smart enough to call the guy's cell phone and see if it can hear it ring, then it would be more discriminate about what is legit and what is a hack. *realizes that is one huge run-on sentence and apologizes*
The point Im making is that security is more than just passwords, it is about common sense. I believe this is possible. If a webserver, for example, knows that the word 'haxx0red' probably wouldn't show up on one of the pages, it could heal after somebody breaks in. Heck, the website could even be smart enough to know 'Hmm, it is 3 am, and the computer accessing me is 400 miles away from me. I seriously doubt this is somebody with legitimate access.'
Put more time into giving your systems common sense security, and they'll be harder to break into.
"wow, excellent information. AND fianlly someone on Slashdot that will agree to disagree instead of :-)"
:)
;)
I appreciate your kind words. I know what ya mean, some people like to drive a point into the ground hehe.
"You have certainly swayed my opinion a bit. I am interested in watching the movie again (I did like it) and seeing what you saw.."
Ah! Im glad what I told you was informative. Im curious to know if you get the same impression I did. I did spend just a little too much time being fanatical over Robocop, so you may see something different in it. Feel free to post in my journal (look in my sig) what you think.
As for an R-rated version of Lord of the Rings: Maybe there is actual blood in it? I dont remember actually seeing blood in the movie. Thats not to say it wasnt there, just dont remember. Who knows... maybe somebody getting eaten?
I really like when they add footage to movies that was previously edited. Its interesting how it can change your view of the movie. Thats one reason I really got into the Robocop director's edition. They even go into detail about how a particular shot was set up. I was totally shocked that one of the scenes they had in the movie was done with a puppet. When you see the Director's edition, I think youll be surprised too. They really nailed that effect.
Cheers man
"isn't the data rate of a floppy drive likewise going to be incredibly slow compared to the data rate of a CD drive? "
A floppy drive is incredibly slow compared to the data rate of a CD Drive.
"why would anyone claim an advance in storage technology *without* substantial improvements over standard speeds as well as density."
That is what I was saying. Several people were saying 'oh at a cd burning rate, itll take 24 hours to burn a 100 gig disk'. So I responded with 'DuH! Itll be faster than a CD burner!'
I think you're making the same point I am, even though you are arguin with me.
To be honest, though, since you are an AC I dont expect you to respond. I dont know why I bothered to. *grumbles about AC's not being notified when they are responded to*
I dont quite agree with you, but I just wanted you to know I appreciate the time you took to explain what you meant. :)
:)
The X-rated version of Robocop is still expensive to get on DVD, but if you are a fan of the movie it is a must-have. The added scenes don't really add that many minutes to the movie, but there are subtle changes.
Remember when ED-209 blew away that executive? The scene basically goes like this:
- Executive points gun at ED
- ED orders he drop the gun
- He drops the gun, ED doesnt register that fact
- ED fires a few shots at the guy and kills him
- ED powers down
Seems pretty cold blooded, doesnt it? In the X-rated version, it goes like this:
- Executive points gun at ED, ED orders he drop the gun
- He drops the gun, ED doesnt register
- ED opens fire
- Executive falls on table, dead
- ED Keeps firing. The camera is above his blood and *splat splat splat* there is lots of blood flying into the air
- ED shuts down when the engineer yanks the circuit boards
That scene would have earned the movie an X-rating (for violence) because of all the extra blood splattering. But in the Director's comments, he explains that when that scene was shown to test audiences, the people laughed! When the shortened version that you saw in the theater was shown, people thought it was scary. In this case, editing the scene to avoid an X-rating made the movie more disturbing.
I think the reason that it was funny was because it was obvious that ED-209 was seriously malfunctioning. I mean he must have put 100 or so rounds into a dead body! But in the edited version, it was like ED-209 just didnt like the guy a whole lot and killed him in cold blood. The ratings board really screwed up that scene in the movie.
There are more little things like that to the movie, plus a great explanation of how ED-209 was built and animated. I really enjoyed the Director's version even tho it cost me $40 (2 years ago).
What cracks me up is in the second movie, OCP never quite got the idea that they shouldnt arm beta-versions of their cyborgs. They had a couple of problems with getting fired on by their own creations hehe.
I dunno, I found the whole 'beta testing a cyborg' aspect of Robocop 1 and 2 to be very amusing. I consider that Scifi, but I guess from what you said I can understand why you dont see it that way.
Cheers
I understand your concerns, but the data points you provide arent as scary as they seem.
Lets start with Senator Disney for a sec: The probability that general purpose PCs will be outlawed is surprisingly slim. It was universally turned down not that long ago.
Could MS make a proprietary PC? Oh yeah. So what? I dont think MS could extend their monopoly over to custom hardware.
The reason that Windows is dominant now is that MS has made agreements with lots of PC manufacturers to put Windows on the box. People want PCs, but they are hard pressed to find a PC that doesnt have Windows on it. If MS were to make a proprietary version, though, who would buy it? MS cant force anybody into it no matter what experience they gained from the XBOX.
If Sen Disney's bill passed, then set top boxes would be inevitable. MS wouldnt be the only one to make one. And guess what? They'd have a hard time getting their OS into somebody else's. If Sony, for example, made a set top box to use as a PC, would they go with Windows? Given their history with other companies (Like Nintendo, for example...) Id say that the answer is no. Theyd want to keep all the royalties etc that they'd get from the reasons you mentioned before.
I dont know if Im making my points clear enough. I do think your conerns are valid, but I dont think that itll be as bad as you are imagining.
I see what you are saying, but the memo doesnt show they are behaving that way. It just shows that an executive had some controversial ideas about what MS should do. This memo isnt evidence of anything, only an indication of motive.
Again, Im not saying MS is innocent, Im merely saying that we cannot punish *anybody* until proof has been provided that the crime has actually been commited.
However, I will concede that the court would be well within its right to say to MS 'You better not act like that memo suggests...'.