That's hardly innovation. And probably won't last once they make it public, and people start filling it up. Expect to see serious limitations coming in when people start abusing it.
At what exact point did the Simpsons turn from an amusing satire into a lame cartoon that latches onto every single fad, celebrity and political-issue-of-the-day, turning each into an instantly-forgettable episode with dull stereotypes and unfunny jokes?
Not me. Everytime I go to the site it won't let me sign up. You need nerd friends who obsess over irrelevent run-of-the-mill webmail services to get invites, and I hate nerds, therefore no invites. Normal people generally don't give a damn about gmail or how much 'greater' it is than other e-mails, not everyone is a google fanboy.
And when someone does offer an invite they always want my e-mail address. Eh, why would I need to give away my existing address just to get a new one? That's like forcing people to drive to the car dealership. When I go to yahoo or hotmail I just sign up on the spot. Is google trying to harvest e-mail addresses?
1. Women on slashdot are nothing to do with women in real life. Partly because they're generally different people, partly because women on slashdot tend to pander to the crowd. Not many would come on and say 'I think nerds are all pathetic and ugly, at night I finger myself thinking of the captain of the football team' on slashdot, even if they were really thinking it.
2. What women say and what women do are two independent things. Most people type like that sentence above on email, and non-legible-typing people don't seem to have much trouble getting laid. Even normally intelligent people type like that, they just don't see e-mails as something important enough to type formally. Although to me, I type pretty easily, and it would take me more effort to type like that than to type legibly.
Yes, I thought that hershey was an American slang word for the arsehole, and that using it to refer to chocolate was in reference to the way chocolate looks like shit.
I'm sorry, but dark chocolate isn't chocolate, it's just dirt-tasting bitter blocks of shit. Milk chocolate, and especially white chocolate, are where it's at.
What's the point of buying chocolate easter bunnies when they taste exactly like the bar of chocolate you buy all year?
Because children like chocolate easter bunnies? Why would you make certain seasonal shapes of chocolate taste different just for the sake of it? Perhaps there's no market because there's no market for it. I'm sure if you go to some specialists shop you can get some variety, but don't expect it at the supermarket. Convenience and low-cost comes at a price.
It's not about money, you can get decent amateur actors. These were not decent amateur actors, they were downright awful. It's as if he walked into a room and randomly picked some people to act, even if they'd never acted before.
It's not about the story, it's about the films as a whole. I'm not a star wars fan, I don't give a damn about Anakin's path to evil or any of the backstory about republics and empires. You're a star wars fan, you're more interested in finding out the backstory than the actual films. Other people are actually interested in watching decent films, I think that's where the disagreements come from.
It's as if the new three films are there just to tell star wars fans what 'happened' before the originals, rather than to actually make something you're going to want to watch. Perhaps Lucas should have instead made a 'documentary' about the history of star wars, it would have saved a lot of disappointment.
There was a discussion about Star Wars the other day, and amidst all the +5 insightful "SW used to rock, but now it sucks" comments, I found this gem, where the poster explains how things fit together, and why it's done this way. It makes a lot of sense!
I'm afraid that post does nothing to explain why it was decided to have a lame script with awful dialogue, bad acting, a dull score and excessive low-quality CGI, not to mention no tension or excitement.
Watching the OT the universe seemed so much bigger than the characters. In Star Wars just the opening scenes allude to many things that were not explained until the prequels, and some not at all. You get a sense that there is a whole universe of things going on and you are just following the adventures of a particular group of people. Episode I & II seem to be more pre-packaged. There is no sense you are following the characters on their adventures through the universe, it is presented more as if the universe revolves around the characters.
I think that's a good one. Also it didn't help that the places they went to in episode 1 were completely dull.
I think that's where the Lord of the rings films fell down: there was no universe like in the books, they only ever went to the places that had something important to do with the script. There were no farmlands, no houses and villages, hardly any roads, it was as if the entire middle-earth consisted of a bunch of fortresses connected by plains.
Part of the appeal of such fantasy things is that there's a universe that sucks you in, if you don't have that, you've nothing left but cliches and one-dimensional characters. The plot is often less important than the world you create.
I think that Peter Jackson had the same problems in Lord of the Rings. Some of the CGI was ok, some of it was awful.
Some of the bad bits: - The battle in the last film. Was great until those horsemen came, then it just looked like a cartoon. It was like entirely CGI, it looks far too 'smooth' and orange for a battle. The battle in the two towers was a lot better. - Gollum. People praised it, but the way it moved, and its exagerrated expressions made it look like something out of "Who framed roger rabbit". The actor playing it was trying too hard. - The balrog. Too much fire, and the whip could have been drawn in with felt tip. Should have been darker and more mysterious. - The trolls. The movements were too quick and exagerrated, would probably have been better with costumes rather than CGI, and more rough scaly skin rather than the smooth clean surfaces that scream 'CGI!' - The baradur. What was it? In the first film it was a flaming vagina, in the last film a lighthouse. Was better in the book as a distant looming threat rather than an excuse to have some more CGI. - The orcs in moria, were clearly CGI especially when climbing down the pillars. Would probably have been best to use the CGI only where essential, rather than just to show off, it hardly ever works. - The palantir. No subtlety at all, just more special effects for the sake of special effects. - The glow-in-the-dark ghosts. Worst part of the trilogy. What an anti-climax to a battle! - The eagles. Looked like they were out of a computer game. Could take a lesson from monsters inc in regards to fur (or feathers in this case). - The black riders when frodo put on the ring. Too much CGI. The same goes for when frodo fell in the swamp. Sometimes subtlety is more effective than showing off. - The wargs. Just not convincing, again looked cartoonish, probably due to the exagerrated movements and expressions.
Although a lot of it worked: - The cities/fortresses. Looked like they were made out of stone. I think some of them were models. - The black flying dragon things. - When theoden's face changed. - The rocks being catapulted everywhere. Great effects. - The battering ram. Looked terrifying when it's face came through the gate. - The volcano. - The flames on the ring. - The ents. - The octopus thing in the first film. Was a bit OTT but slimy enough to look realistic. - The river-tsunami thing.
The problem is, even when you get good actors, if you give them awful scripts in a film with awful direction, they look like bad actors. Also the really good actors will just be embarassed by the awful dialogue, and it often shows.
As for Samuel L. Jackson, can he play any other characters than 'charismatic angry black guy'? Yeah he has presence and breathes life into his roles, but he hardly has much of a range.
Christopher Lee perhaps, but he's wasted in Lucas' pantomime-baddy role.
It's nice as well, mild and smooth, not like that bitter foreign muck. Not that I care much for chocolate anyway, a horrible sickly food for fat people.
Wow, and if you think that's wacky, the NAACP stands for the National Association of Colored People, when "colored" has been politically incorrect for half a century now!
I thought that coloured was the politically correct term, and that nigger and coon and wog were the ones frowned upon? Are we supposed to call them black now? And who is it who decides this, and from who do they get their authority?
Do we really want amateur porn? Most girls aren't in professional porn because they're not qualified to do it professionally, because they're ugly, fat, saggy, stretchmarked, hairy, scarred etc. Who wants porn of such girls, other than fetishists? There's a reason attractive women are always getting their pictures taken naked, people will pay for it, whilst lower-quality women have to find another job.
Since I got my first digital camera two years ago (which was on my phone) I've taken over 1200 photos (do the math!) for almost the same reason. To me, life is about living (cliched, sorry!). But human memory being what it is, when we forget what we've lived, what proof do we have that we lived it - it would be like we never did these things at all.
The proof would probably be the memories. If you forget it, or it didn't effect so the only way you'd realise you did it would be to look at pictures, then you probably weren't doing much worthwhile anyway. To me, life is about living, not recording. You're like one of those people who collects all their piss in jars. Also memories are often tarnished when you photograph them, then the event becomes more of a tourist attraction than anything important.
I would also think that if you were on a diet, snapping a pic of every meal might allow you to count calories or carbs or whatever it is you're counting.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to write it down with the right quantities?
In fact, it would destroy the software industry entirely, as practically all software uses header files that are under a different licence. I think it's better that we forget the idea that writing a program on an OS means you have to use the OS's licence. Those bearded open-source hippies might think they can apply their licence on other people's software, but they can't.
Don't speak for us please. I am what would be called the 'silent majority', and after reading up on him, I hate this 'Roland' person too.
Also, slashdot and other 'blog'-type sites say they want to be taken as serious journalists like newspapers. In which case, newspapers have 'advertisement' above adverts, especially ones which are of the same format as normal articles, so slashdot should do the same for stories like this. If you want to be considered the same as the professionals then act accordingly. Yes, this also goes for the picture-adverts above the comments.
If whatever bullshit you're saying is true, that including GPL header files means your program has to be GPL, then commercial software on Linux is doomed. The fact is, there is commercial software on Linux that has header files, and it's not GPL, so it's not derivative.
Also, all one would have to do is GPL the parts of the source code which have the #includes, and keep the rest closed source.
A driver is not a derivative work, as it does not use code from the kernel. Also US copyright law doesn't necessarily apply, you have to take into account all the countries in which nvidia do business. I know this is slashdot and that you all think America is the only country which exists, but in this case it isn't.
Vocational drones? Better that than a load of college drones. At lease with a vocation they can learn some skills and make money, rather than getting into massive debt just to end up with a piece of paper that's effectively worthless as every other fucker has one.
As for computer programming, not much point getting into that. The market's saturated, and it's shrinking rather than growing, with jobs all going to India. Everyone and his dog has a computer science degree, but you can never find a decent tradesman when you want one.
Also, there is no such thing as 'software engineering'. Calling something engineering doesn't make it so. Professionaly, the word 'engineer' has a precise legal definition, and calling yourself one when you are not is illegal.
Actually, you don't. That is, unless you can prove that the nvidia driver is released under the GPL, or includes GPL code. Connecting to GPL code isn't the same as using GPL code.
The writers of the kernel can release the kernel under the GPL, but that doesn't mean they can force nvidia to release their driver under the GPL. As no code is incorporated, the GPL is completely irrelevent to the driver, whatever it says.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hardly innovation. And probably won't last once they make it public, and people start filling it up. Expect to see serious limitations coming in when people start abusing it.
At what exact point did the Simpsons turn from an amusing satire into a lame cartoon that latches onto every single fad, celebrity and political-issue-of-the-day, turning each into an instantly-forgettable episode with dull stereotypes and unfunny jokes?
Not me. Everytime I go to the site it won't let me sign up. You need nerd friends who obsess over irrelevent run-of-the-mill webmail services to get invites, and I hate nerds, therefore no invites. Normal people generally don't give a damn about gmail or how much 'greater' it is than other e-mails, not everyone is a google fanboy.
And when someone does offer an invite they always want my e-mail address. Eh, why would I need to give away my existing address just to get a new one? That's like forcing people to drive to the car dealership. When I go to yahoo or hotmail I just sign up on the spot. Is google trying to harvest e-mail addresses?
Unfortuanetly:
1. Women on slashdot are nothing to do with women in real life. Partly because they're generally different people, partly because women on slashdot tend to pander to the crowd. Not many would come on and say 'I think nerds are all pathetic and ugly, at night I finger myself thinking of the captain of the football team' on slashdot, even if they were really thinking it.
2. What women say and what women do are two independent things. Most people type like that sentence above on email, and non-legible-typing people don't seem to have much trouble getting laid. Even normally intelligent people type like that, they just don't see e-mails as something important enough to type formally. Although to me, I type pretty easily, and it would take me more effort to type like that than to type legibly.
Yes, I thought that hershey was an American slang word for the arsehole, and that using it to refer to chocolate was in reference to the way chocolate looks like shit.
I'm sorry, but dark chocolate isn't chocolate, it's just dirt-tasting bitter blocks of shit. Milk chocolate, and especially white chocolate, are where it's at.
What's the point of buying chocolate easter bunnies when they taste exactly like the bar of chocolate you buy all year?
Because children like chocolate easter bunnies? Why would you make certain seasonal shapes of chocolate taste different just for the sake of it? Perhaps there's no market because there's no market for it. I'm sure if you go to some specialists shop you can get some variety, but don't expect it at the supermarket. Convenience and low-cost comes at a price.
It's not about money, you can get decent amateur actors. These were not decent amateur actors, they were downright awful. It's as if he walked into a room and randomly picked some people to act, even if they'd never acted before.
It's not about the story, it's about the films as a whole. I'm not a star wars fan, I don't give a damn about Anakin's path to evil or any of the backstory about republics and empires. You're a star wars fan, you're more interested in finding out the backstory than the actual films. Other people are actually interested in watching decent films, I think that's where the disagreements come from.
It's as if the new three films are there just to tell star wars fans what 'happened' before the originals, rather than to actually make something you're going to want to watch. Perhaps Lucas should have instead made a 'documentary' about the history of star wars, it would have saved a lot of disappointment.
There was a discussion about Star Wars the other day, and amidst all the +5 insightful "SW used to rock, but now it sucks" comments, I found this gem, where the poster explains how things fit together, and why it's done this way. It makes a lot of sense!
I'm afraid that post does nothing to explain why it was decided to have a lame script with awful dialogue, bad acting, a dull score and excessive low-quality CGI, not to mention no tension or excitement.
Watching the OT the universe seemed so much bigger than the characters. In Star Wars just the opening scenes allude to many things that were not explained until the prequels, and some not at all. You get a sense that there is a whole universe of things going on and you are just following the adventures of a particular group of people.
Episode I & II seem to be more pre-packaged. There is no sense you are following the characters on their adventures through the universe, it is presented more as if the universe revolves around the characters.
I think that's a good one. Also it didn't help that the places they went to in episode 1 were completely dull.
I think that's where the Lord of the rings films fell down: there was no universe like in the books, they only ever went to the places that had something important to do with the script. There were no farmlands, no houses and villages, hardly any roads, it was as if the entire middle-earth consisted of a bunch of fortresses connected by plains.
Part of the appeal of such fantasy things is that there's a universe that sucks you in, if you don't have that, you've nothing left but cliches and one-dimensional characters. The plot is often less important than the world you create.
I think that Peter Jackson had the same problems in Lord of the Rings. Some of the CGI was ok, some of it was awful.
Some of the bad bits:
- The battle in the last film. Was great until those horsemen came, then it just looked like a cartoon. It was like entirely CGI, it looks far too 'smooth' and orange for a battle. The battle in the two towers was a lot better.
- Gollum. People praised it, but the way it moved, and its exagerrated expressions made it look like something out of "Who framed roger rabbit". The actor playing it was trying too hard.
- The balrog. Too much fire, and the whip could have been drawn in with felt tip. Should have been darker and more mysterious.
- The trolls. The movements were too quick and exagerrated, would probably have been better with costumes rather than CGI, and more rough scaly skin rather than the smooth clean surfaces that scream 'CGI!'
- The baradur. What was it? In the first film it was a flaming vagina, in the last film a lighthouse. Was better in the book as a distant looming threat rather than an excuse to have some more CGI.
- The orcs in moria, were clearly CGI especially when climbing down the pillars. Would probably have been best to use the CGI only where essential, rather than just to show off, it hardly ever works.
- The palantir. No subtlety at all, just more special effects for the sake of special effects.
- The glow-in-the-dark ghosts. Worst part of the trilogy. What an anti-climax to a battle!
- The eagles. Looked like they were out of a computer game. Could take a lesson from monsters inc in regards to fur (or feathers in this case).
- The black riders when frodo put on the ring. Too much CGI. The same goes for when frodo fell in the swamp. Sometimes subtlety is more effective than showing off.
- The wargs. Just not convincing, again looked cartoonish, probably due to the exagerrated movements and expressions.
Although a lot of it worked:
- The cities/fortresses. Looked like they were made out of stone. I think some of them were models.
- The black flying dragon things.
- When theoden's face changed.
- The rocks being catapulted everywhere. Great effects.
- The battering ram. Looked terrifying when it's face came through the gate.
- The volcano.
- The flames on the ring.
- The ents.
- The octopus thing in the first film. Was a bit OTT but slimy enough to look realistic.
- The river-tsunami thing.
The problem is, even when you get good actors, if you give them awful scripts in a film with awful direction, they look like bad actors. Also the really good actors will just be embarassed by the awful dialogue, and it often shows.
As for Samuel L. Jackson, can he play any other characters than 'charismatic angry black guy'? Yeah he has presence and breathes life into his roles, but he hardly has much of a range.
Christopher Lee perhaps, but he's wasted in Lucas' pantomime-baddy role.
It's nice as well, mild and smooth, not like that bitter foreign muck. Not that I care much for chocolate anyway, a horrible sickly food for fat people.
What term would be universally preferable to "geek" by all computer enthusiasts everywhere on the planet?
Dunno, how about 'someone into computers'? Not every type of person needs its own insult.
Wow, and if you think that's wacky, the NAACP stands for the National Association of Colored People, when "colored" has been politically incorrect for half a century now!
I thought that coloured was the politically correct term, and that nigger and coon and wog were the ones frowned upon? Are we supposed to call them black now? And who is it who decides this, and from who do they get their authority?
Do we really want amateur porn? Most girls aren't in professional porn because they're not qualified to do it professionally, because they're ugly, fat, saggy, stretchmarked, hairy, scarred etc. Who wants porn of such girls, other than fetishists? There's a reason attractive women are always getting their pictures taken naked, people will pay for it, whilst lower-quality women have to find another job.
Since I got my first digital camera two years ago (which was on my phone) I've taken over 1200 photos (do the math!) for almost the same reason. To me, life is about living (cliched, sorry!). But human memory being what it is, when we forget what we've lived, what proof do we have that we lived it - it would be like we never did these things at all.
The proof would probably be the memories. If you forget it, or it didn't effect so the only way you'd realise you did it would be to look at pictures, then you probably weren't doing much worthwhile anyway. To me, life is about living, not recording. You're like one of those people who collects all their piss in jars. Also memories are often tarnished when you photograph them, then the event becomes more of a tourist attraction than anything important.
He's not an actual CEO, like of an important company, he's a CEO of a website. The same way I'm the CEO of my bedroom.
I would also think that if you were on a diet, snapping a pic of every meal might allow you to count calories or carbs or whatever it is you're counting.
Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to write it down with the right quantities?
In fact, it would destroy the software industry entirely, as practically all software uses header files that are under a different licence. I think it's better that we forget the idea that writing a program on an OS means you have to use the OS's licence. Those bearded open-source hippies might think they can apply their licence on other people's software, but they can't.
Don't speak for us please. I am what would be called the 'silent majority', and after reading up on him, I hate this 'Roland' person too.
Also, slashdot and other 'blog'-type sites say they want to be taken as serious journalists like newspapers. In which case, newspapers have 'advertisement' above adverts, especially ones which are of the same format as normal articles, so slashdot should do the same for stories like this. If you want to be considered the same as the professionals then act accordingly. Yes, this also goes for the picture-adverts above the comments.
If whatever bullshit you're saying is true, that including GPL header files means your program has to be GPL, then commercial software on Linux is doomed. The fact is, there is commercial software on Linux that has header files, and it's not GPL, so it's not derivative.
Also, all one would have to do is GPL the parts of the source code which have the #includes, and keep the rest closed source.
A driver is not a derivative work, as it does not use code from the kernel. Also US copyright law doesn't necessarily apply, you have to take into account all the countries in which nvidia do business. I know this is slashdot and that you all think America is the only country which exists, but in this case it isn't.
Vocational drones? Better that than a load of college drones. At lease with a vocation they can learn some skills and make money, rather than getting into massive debt just to end up with a piece of paper that's effectively worthless as every other fucker has one.
As for computer programming, not much point getting into that. The market's saturated, and it's shrinking rather than growing, with jobs all going to India. Everyone and his dog has a computer science degree, but you can never find a decent tradesman when you want one.
Also, there is no such thing as 'software engineering'. Calling something engineering doesn't make it so. Professionaly, the word 'engineer' has a precise legal definition, and calling yourself one when you are not is illegal.
Actually, you don't. That is, unless you can prove that the nvidia driver is released under the GPL, or includes GPL code. Connecting to GPL code isn't the same as using GPL code.
The writers of the kernel can release the kernel under the GPL, but that doesn't mean they can force nvidia to release their driver under the GPL. As no code is incorporated, the GPL is completely irrelevent to the driver, whatever it says.