No, the Canadian Rockies aren't threatened, but Florida would be about 1/3 under water if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, and about 90% underwater if the East sheet melted as well.
Antarctica doesn't have an east or west, because it's at a pole.
Anyone else think how arrogant it is that Americans think that anyone other than Americans running the Internet would destroy it? As if only Americans are capable of maintaining infrastructure.
There's no reason for Americans to have control over any domain name other than.us. None at all. I can't see any reason for small American corporations and universities to have more IP addresses than some countries either.
So what if they invented the Internet? Should the person who invented electricity dictate to the world how electricity should run? Should Scotland be able to control the world's TV?
American owns and operates barely a fraction of the Internet infrastructure. The rest of the world could run it fine ourselves, even with America completely cut off. I wonder how long they'd manage without all that dodgy foreign porn and warez. And I wonder how we'd manage without all that US-originating spam.
But if the open source software doesn't have the features you want either, the 'learning more', means learning software development. Hardly much of an option when you're into audio editing and not programming.
Unless you're suggesting that open source software is infinitely more featureful and powerful than the properietary alternatives, with the extra features just requiring more learning?
And a £50 meal is infinitely more expensive than an apple you pick off a tree. But if apples are no use to you and you want a £50 meal, you'll pay it. Especially if it's part of a budget a hundred times bigger.
Especially, if as in this case, your entire business revolves around it. If it worth messing with a business which gets through millions of dollars just to save $1000?
Yeah, that's why open source software is so well documented. It's not like the developers were lazy and neglected things like user interfaces because they were busy flaming people on Slashdot...
The generic Slashdot reader is not poor or unlucky, nor hard-working or cleverly inventive.
The generic Slashdot reader is a rich computer programmer with a very easy life, who coasts all day sat at a computer reading Slashdot, and writes posts which regurgitate things he's read a million times before.
How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
They don't have to justify it. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Music is a luxury item, they'll price it at the price that people are willing to pay. If people are willing to pay the same money for an album that they are a film on DVD, then they can get away with it.
A bigger screen means more expensive, shorter battery life, more easily scratched or broken (this is Apple after all), and more fingerprints on the screen. It will probably be bigger as well, no doubt the innards are packed into that thing, a bigger screen would mean the case would have to be thicker.
"Also consider that the vast majority of people in the world simply do not have the bandwidth to download HD videos. This is undoubtedly the future of content distribution, but it is the distant future - only Japan and Korea really have the telecommunications infrastructure to support this."
What are you even talking about? Comcast, in my area, offers HD video on demand.
I've highlighted some relevent points in your post. This insular, head-in-the-sand mentality HAS to end. Not everyone in the world is a techno-geek with broadband, mythtv and six computers all over the house. Some of us just want to put a DVD in and be done with it.
Yep, the $1.99 price point seems pretty nice. I think this is the beginning of the end for DVDs and services around DVDs
What about those of us who don't want a computer next to the TV? What about those of us who don't want to lose all our programmes and films every time the computer breaks down? What about those of us who want to be able to lend DVDs to people without cracking DRM? What about those of us who don't want to hear a fan whirring when we're watching TV?
197MB? I don't think will be much use for those of us without broadband. What are we supposed to do when all the TV comes over the Internet? And does this mean people are going to have to drag their computers into the living room, then put them next to the TV, making the room look a mess?
Video over Internet might be the future, but knowing how over-engineered, over-complex and unreliable computers are, I don't look forward to it. It's pretty easy to turn on the TV, whereas watching TV via the computer is a chore. Also TV doesn't cost $2 a programme. Eventually you'll be able to get the DVD for that price.
Perhaps 10-20 years in the future, there'll be unlimited broadband in every home like electricity or water. Then TVs will be Internet-enabled, you plug them into the Internet rather than an aeriel, then it automatically streams the TV. But technology isn't anywhere near that advanced yet.
Cheap shot: If they got rid of all the meaningless, empty filler scenes from Lost, maybe they could get the file size down to about 5MB.
Do I want to watch a 10 minute news bulletin podcasted to my iPod? Yes.
Problem is, the ipod doesn't have the Internet. If you have an ipod and decide to watch some news, you can't do it. You have to download it and transfer it in advance. In which case you may as well watch it as you download it, or just read the news of teletext.
You're saying you actually WANT an inconsistent interface? I can't think of a single reason why every other app should have a different interface. The worst is Linux file-selection dialogues. There are about a dozen different types of them.
More interestingly, can anyone see digital actors quickly surpassing their organic cousins, no matter what Peter Jackson says?
No. CGI still isn't that good. Especially when Peter Jackson uses it as much as humanly possible, even when it isn't necessary.
And slightly more interestingly, when will New Zealand surpass California in flim making, it is the ideal location, with better light, more interesting geography, and (at the moment) far cheaper to work in.
Can't see it. Not many films require the scenery of New Zealand. Even Peter Jackson felt he had to drown it in CGI and overblown helicopter shots. Other than that, there's no reason.
There are cheaper places to film, but people still use Hollywood. That's where most of the talent is, and the people who people actually want to see on screen. The market for films full of kiwi actors isn't that big. Most of the best directors are in America. New Zealand only has one director of any note, who's only done one film of any note. And even he can't be considered a great director as he lacks subtlety and understatement.
New Zealand was used for LOTR because of the scenery. The same way obscure rocky landscapes were used for Star Wars, and disused quarries were used for Doctor Who. No-one ever went back there to film anything else.
Why shouldn't an operating system come with a media player?
The only people to lose from your idea would be the customers. Instead of just turning the computer and getting on with it, users would have to search around the Internet and download a media player. How does that make things any easier?
I hate real player, I don't want it installed by default on my computer. When I buy a car it comes with a steering wheel, I don't have to go and buy one. A rival to the car manufacturer doesn't get to sue to have their faulty, irritating, asbestos steering wheel included in the car.
Can someone PLEASE explain how it hurts anyone other than the scumbags at Real when Microsoft include basic functionality with their OS?
What else will they have to take out? Will they have to stop allowing files to be unzipped because it competes with Winzip? Should packet filtering be banned because it competes with third-party firewalls? Should notepad be banned because it competes with third-party text editors? This is mad. The end user doesn't care whether some third-party company gets shafted, they just want to use their damn computer!
I use Linux. Is there a program which can play Real Player links in Linux? When I go to places on the BBC with video/audio, Firefox says I am missing a plugin and doesn't tell me what it is.
I don't want to mess about with codecs or whatnot. I have mplayer and xine but they don't seem to do anything. What the hell do I do? I'm hesitant to allow Real software anywhere near my computer.
That begs the question: do you need half a million media players, or text editors?
I'm a Linux user, and even I get fed up of my menus being full of dozens of different programmes which all pretty much do the same thing. I'd rather just have a 'media player' which plays everything. I get tired of having to download endless plugins and codecs just to play anything.
I get sick of trying to remember what the difference is between kate or kedit or kwrite or gedit or xedit. I can't get rid of them because I don't know which one is best, they all seem to differ in some subtle way.
I'd be pretty happy if the makers of xine, mplayer etc. all just got together and made one perfect media player with the best features of each, and all the codecs. It would come with each Linux distro, and when you install it, that issue is solved. You never need to worry about whether you need Xine or mplayer or whatever.
Do I need four office suites? I'd rather the developers stopped doing redundant work, got together, and just made one great office suite with the best features of each. That'd also mean four times as many people maintaining the code, so presumably four times less bugs and security holes.
One thing that Microsoft and Apple have got right is making things straightforward for the user. Remember most of us just use a computer as a tool, not a way of life.
1. That people have computers, with TV cards that they can actually get working (many cards don't work with Linux, many don't work with certain versions of Windows).
2. That the computer is on 24/7. I for one switch my computer off when I'm done with it. I don't like using up electricity, and I don't like a constant whirring sound. Especially when I'm trying to sleep.
3. That the computer is near the TV. Are you suggesting people drag cables half way around the house?
4. That the computer is near an aeriel socket. Or do they need a 50m aeriel extension dragged half way round the house?
5. That the reception is good enough. My TV gets reasonable reception but when I used a TV card the picture was dreadful. And jerky.
6. What happens when the computer is recording something then the computer gets rebooted or crashes? For example you need to reboot to install some hardware. Does that mean people miss programmes? Not good enough. That's why you want a single-purpose device.
7. If someone's on the computer doing some heavy processing, does the PVR stop working?
There's a reason people like specialist devices. Computers are jack of all trades, master of none.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the Canadian Rockies aren't threatened, but Florida would be about 1/3 under water if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, and about 90% underwater if the East sheet melted as well.
Antarctica doesn't have an east or west, because it's at a pole.
The climate was warmer in the middle-ages than it is now. Currently cold climates used to be tropical. How do the environmentalists explain that?
Anyone else think how arrogant it is that Americans think that anyone other than Americans running the Internet would destroy it? As if only Americans are capable of maintaining infrastructure.
.us. None at all. I can't see any reason for small American corporations and universities to have more IP addresses than some countries either.
There's no reason for Americans to have control over any domain name other than
So what if they invented the Internet? Should the person who invented electricity dictate to the world how electricity should run? Should Scotland be able to control the world's TV?
American owns and operates barely a fraction of the Internet infrastructure. The rest of the world could run it fine ourselves, even with America completely cut off. I wonder how long they'd manage without all that dodgy foreign porn and warez. And I wonder how we'd manage without all that US-originating spam.
But if the open source software doesn't have the features you want either, the 'learning more', means learning software development. Hardly much of an option when you're into audio editing and not programming.
Unless you're suggesting that open source software is infinitely more featureful and powerful than the properietary alternatives, with the extra features just requiring more learning?
And a £50 meal is infinitely more expensive than an apple you pick off a tree. But if apples are no use to you and you want a £50 meal, you'll pay it. Especially if it's part of a budget a hundred times bigger.
Especially, if as in this case, your entire business revolves around it. If it worth messing with a business which gets through millions of dollars just to save $1000?
Nerds/geeks are stereotypically hardworking.
Yeah, that's why open source software is so well documented. It's not like the developers were lazy and neglected things like user interfaces because they were busy flaming people on Slashdot...
The generic Slashdot reader is not poor or unlucky, nor hard-working or cleverly inventive.
The generic Slashdot reader is a rich computer programmer with a very easy life, who coasts all day sat at a computer reading Slashdot, and writes posts which regurgitate things he's read a million times before.
How can an organization like the RIAA justify wanting more than 99 cents per song when you can purchase 44 minutes of audio and video for two dollars?
They don't have to justify it. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Music is a luxury item, they'll price it at the price that people are willing to pay. If people are willing to pay the same money for an album that they are a film on DVD, then they can get away with it.
A bigger screen means more expensive, shorter battery life, more easily scratched or broken (this is Apple after all), and more fingerprints on the screen. It will probably be bigger as well, no doubt the innards are packed into that thing, a bigger screen would mean the case would have to be thicker.
"Also consider that the vast majority of people in the world simply do not have the bandwidth to download HD videos. This is undoubtedly the future of content distribution, but it is the distant future - only Japan and Korea really have the telecommunications infrastructure to support this."
What are you even talking about? Comcast, in my area, offers HD video on demand.
I've highlighted some relevent points in your post. This insular, head-in-the-sand mentality HAS to end. Not everyone in the world is a techno-geek with broadband, mythtv and six computers all over the house. Some of us just want to put a DVD in and be done with it.
Yep, the $1.99 price point seems pretty nice. I think this is the beginning of the end for DVDs and services around DVDs
What about those of us who don't want a computer next to the TV? What about those of us who don't want to lose all our programmes and films every time the computer breaks down? What about those of us who want to be able to lend DVDs to people without cracking DRM? What about those of us who don't want to hear a fan whirring when we're watching TV?
It's just a soap, but with higher production values and less interesting characters.
197MB? I don't think will be much use for those of us without broadband. What are we supposed to do when all the TV comes over the Internet? And does this mean people are going to have to drag their computers into the living room, then put them next to the TV, making the room look a mess?
Video over Internet might be the future, but knowing how over-engineered, over-complex and unreliable computers are, I don't look forward to it. It's pretty easy to turn on the TV, whereas watching TV via the computer is a chore. Also TV doesn't cost $2 a programme. Eventually you'll be able to get the DVD for that price.
Perhaps 10-20 years in the future, there'll be unlimited broadband in every home like electricity or water. Then TVs will be Internet-enabled, you plug them into the Internet rather than an aeriel, then it automatically streams the TV. But technology isn't anywhere near that advanced yet.
Cheap shot: If they got rid of all the meaningless, empty filler scenes from Lost, maybe they could get the file size down to about 5MB.
Do I want to watch a 10 minute news bulletin podcasted to my iPod? Yes.
Problem is, the ipod doesn't have the Internet. If you have an ipod and decide to watch some news, you can't do it. You have to download it and transfer it in advance. In which case you may as well watch it as you download it, or just read the news of teletext.
I think the idea is:
1. If Apple (of Google) do something, it's innovative.
2. If someone else does exactly the same thing, it's a rip off.
No it's not. With things like Gaim you need logins for all the different services. If services merge, that's less logins you need.
Why would i want a "uniform" look?
You're saying you actually WANT an inconsistent interface? I can't think of a single reason why every other app should have a different interface. The worst is Linux file-selection dialogues. There are about a dozen different types of them.
This project can only help usability.
(just try to tell Spielberg "that's the best I can do")
Isn't that what the script-writer for War of the Worlds did?
More interestingly, can anyone see digital actors quickly surpassing their organic cousins, no matter what Peter Jackson says?
No. CGI still isn't that good. Especially when Peter Jackson uses it as much as humanly possible, even when it isn't necessary.
And slightly more interestingly, when will New Zealand surpass California in flim making, it is the ideal location, with better light, more interesting geography, and (at the moment) far cheaper to work in.
Can't see it. Not many films require the scenery of New Zealand. Even Peter Jackson felt he had to drown it in CGI and overblown helicopter shots. Other than that, there's no reason.
There are cheaper places to film, but people still use Hollywood. That's where most of the talent is, and the people who people actually want to see on screen. The market for films full of kiwi actors isn't that big. Most of the best directors are in America. New Zealand only has one director of any note, who's only done one film of any note. And even he can't be considered a great director as he lacks subtlety and understatement.
New Zealand was used for LOTR because of the scenery. The same way obscure rocky landscapes were used for Star Wars, and disused quarries were used for Doctor Who. No-one ever went back there to film anything else.
Why shouldn't an operating system come with a media player?
The only people to lose from your idea would be the customers. Instead of just turning the computer and getting on with it, users would have to search around the Internet and download a media player. How does that make things any easier?
I hate real player, I don't want it installed by default on my computer. When I buy a car it comes with a steering wheel, I don't have to go and buy one. A rival to the car manufacturer doesn't get to sue to have their faulty, irritating, asbestos steering wheel included in the car.
Can someone PLEASE explain how it hurts anyone other than the scumbags at Real when Microsoft include basic functionality with their OS?
What else will they have to take out? Will they have to stop allowing files to be unzipped because it competes with Winzip? Should packet filtering be banned because it competes with third-party firewalls? Should notepad be banned because it competes with third-party text editors? This is mad. The end user doesn't care whether some third-party company gets shafted, they just want to use their damn computer!
I use Linux. Is there a program which can play Real Player links in Linux? When I go to places on the BBC with video/audio, Firefox says I am missing a plugin and doesn't tell me what it is.
I don't want to mess about with codecs or whatnot. I have mplayer and xine but they don't seem to do anything. What the hell do I do? I'm hesitant to allow Real software anywhere near my computer.
That begs the question: do you need half a million media players, or text editors?
I'm a Linux user, and even I get fed up of my menus being full of dozens of different programmes which all pretty much do the same thing. I'd rather just have a 'media player' which plays everything. I get tired of having to download endless plugins and codecs just to play anything.
I get sick of trying to remember what the difference is between kate or kedit or kwrite or gedit or xedit. I can't get rid of them because I don't know which one is best, they all seem to differ in some subtle way.
I'd be pretty happy if the makers of xine, mplayer etc. all just got together and made one perfect media player with the best features of each, and all the codecs. It would come with each Linux distro, and when you install it, that issue is solved. You never need to worry about whether you need Xine or mplayer or whatever.
Do I need four office suites? I'd rather the developers stopped doing redundant work, got together, and just made one great office suite with the best features of each. That'd also mean four times as many people maintaining the code, so presumably four times less bugs and security holes.
One thing that Microsoft and Apple have got right is making things straightforward for the user. Remember most of us just use a computer as a tool, not a way of life.
Well, you're assuming a few things:
1. That people have computers, with TV cards that they can actually get working (many cards don't work with Linux, many don't work with certain versions of Windows).
2. That the computer is on 24/7. I for one switch my computer off when I'm done with it. I don't like using up electricity, and I don't like a constant whirring sound. Especially when I'm trying to sleep.
3. That the computer is near the TV. Are you suggesting people drag cables half way around the house?
4. That the computer is near an aeriel socket. Or do they need a 50m aeriel extension dragged half way round the house?
5. That the reception is good enough. My TV gets reasonable reception but when I used a TV card the picture was dreadful. And jerky.
6. What happens when the computer is recording something then the computer gets rebooted or crashes? For example you need to reboot to install some hardware. Does that mean people miss programmes? Not good enough. That's why you want a single-purpose device.
7. If someone's on the computer doing some heavy processing, does the PVR stop working?
There's a reason people like specialist devices. Computers are jack of all trades, master of none.
I've got a hauppage card. Doesn't work with Linux.
20 dollars? When was that written? The taxi to the court will cost more than that.
Using juries in civil cases is stupid anyway.