I must ask....why would anyone WANT to pirate such a movie? If you're going to risk being exposed for leaking a movie...at least leak a movie worth downloading.
I think the opposite would be better. I just know some movies are going to be utter shite, and I'm curious. But I'm not 14 dollars curious, so I download. I feel much less ripped off by the movie industry this way, and there have been some movies the last few years that showed real promise, and the marketing was slick, but after leaving the theater, I just feel cheated, so unto the industry I say say Screw You, if you want to peddle crap, I'm not paying.
Conversely, if something is going to be good, I'd actually prefer to see it on the big screen, because downloading it just to save a few bucks takes away from the Big Screen Experience, and I feel I've cheated myself out of some quality entertainment for no good reason.
Hence, Return Of The King has taken 28 bucks from me so far, and may yet get more out me before it's theatrical run is through.
All I ask of the movie industry is that it try to entertain me, and not just spew 'content' and bullshit marketing that preys on my innate curiousity and optimism for no other reason then to try and steal my money.
I paid good money for Underworld and yes, I came away a little disappointed, but I didn't feel ripped off. It felt like someone actually tried to make a fun movie for me, so I felt good about taking a chance and risking some of my entertainment budget on it.
Windows 98 works fro [sic]most small business needs (especially if they are not on the internet).
!?
I must ask you to qualify this statement. Win98SE ships with IE5 and IE6 can be downloaded for it, though I have not (yet) seen any web sites that INSIST on IE6 or later... usually, a web site will require IE5+.
SE also ships with Flash, and Media Player, I think... WTF are you doing on the internet that requires Win2k or later?
I believe that this also applies to Office 97. I still use Office 2000 and OpenOffice.
I agree wholeheartedly. I still use Office 97 myself, as I can't think of a decent reason to start using O2K or later. In fact, it seems to me that later versions of Word have abandoned the "Outline" mode, which I find quite useful. (Is this correct?)
I would speculate that many people are not upgrading because MS is not offering any compelling reasons to do so. Just saying "New and improved!" doesn't do it for me. In fact, I find many of XP's "improvements" actually get in my way, and I routinely '2000-ize' the UI of any XP box I have to deal with.
And am I the only one who has bigger headaches maintaining NTFS drives than Fat32 ones?
I think the point is that yes, my mom IS a GUI usability guru, for the simple fact that she has no technical expertise.
Meaning what, we should code UI to the stupidest user? Or rather the stupidity of the average user?
Of course for the/. crowd, more power is better, and it shouldn't be taken away, but there must be a usability layer that those with a very tiny amount of computer-knowledge can use.
Interestingly enough MacOS X is a combination of gooey friendly UI warm-fuzzies for all the nitwit Macheads out there, and all the text files in/etc you could ever hope for, as System 10 is, at it's core, a BSD fork.
If this new MS team can improve the core to the point where it's as good or better than Linux, then the only reason anyone would use Linux would be cost.
Are you sure nobody's using Linux for both cost reasons and political ones? Say, for example, Richard Stallman?
> Now 127.0.0.1/24 SHOULD be the way it's done, IMHO. I can't even come up with any oddball reasons for having more than 255 localhost IPs.
Multihoming.
Or virtual network interfaces. For testing, or for IP aliasing.
You'll have plenty of time to slave away behind a desk when you're older.
1) If he works now, he can legitimately claim to have 10 years experience when he's 22. Advantage.
2) If he actually starts making money now, that's another 10 years of compound interest on his RRSP. He can retire at the age of 32 without any silly fake.com boom stock options. Advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the opposite would be better. I just know some movies are going to be utter shite, and I'm curious. But I'm not 14 dollars curious, so I download. I feel much less ripped off by the movie industry this way, and there have been some movies the last few years that showed real promise, and the marketing was slick, but after leaving the theater, I just feel cheated, so unto the industry I say say Screw You, if you want to peddle crap, I'm not paying.
Conversely, if something is going to be good, I'd actually prefer to see it on the big screen, because downloading it just to save a few bucks takes away from the Big Screen Experience, and I feel I've cheated myself out of some quality entertainment for no good reason.
Hence, Return Of The King has taken 28 bucks from me so far, and may yet get more out me before it's theatrical run is through.
All I ask of the movie industry is that it try to entertain me, and not just spew 'content' and bullshit marketing that preys on my innate curiousity and optimism for no other reason then to try and steal my money.
I paid good money for Underworld and yes, I came away a little disappointed, but I didn't feel ripped off. It felt like someone actually tried to make a fun movie for me, so I felt good about taking a chance and risking some of my entertainment budget on it.
Am I the only movie goer who sees it this way?
I must ask you to qualify this statement. Win98SE ships with IE5 and IE6 can be downloaded for it, though I have not (yet) seen any web sites that INSIST on IE6 or later... usually, a web site will require IE5+.
SE also ships with Flash, and Media Player, I think... WTF are you doing on the internet that requires Win2k or later?
I agree wholeheartedly. I still use Office 97 myself, as I can't think of a decent reason to start using O2K or later. In fact, it seems to me that later versions of Word have abandoned the "Outline" mode, which I find quite useful. (Is this correct?)I would speculate that many people are not upgrading because MS is not offering any compelling reasons to do so. Just saying "New and improved!" doesn't do it for me. In fact, I find many of XP's "improvements" actually get in my way, and I routinely '2000-ize' the UI of any XP box I have to deal with.
And am I the only one who has bigger headaches maintaining NTFS drives than Fat32 ones?
Meaning what, we should code UI to the stupidest user? Or rather the stupidity of the average user?
Of course for the /. crowd, more power is better, and it shouldn't be taken away, but there must be a usability layer that those with a very tiny amount of computer-knowledge can use.
Interestingly enough MacOS X is a combination of gooey friendly UI warm-fuzzies for all the nitwit Macheads out there, and all the text files in /etc you could ever hope for, as System 10 is, at it's core, a BSD fork.
Are you sure nobody's using Linux for both cost reasons and political ones? Say, for example, Richard Stallman?
> Now 127.0.0.1/24 SHOULD be the way it's done, IMHO. I can't even come up with any oddball reasons for having more than 255 localhost IPs. Multihoming. Or virtual network interfaces. For testing, or for IP aliasing.
You'll have plenty of time to slave away behind a desk when you're older.
.com boom stock options. Advantage.
1) If he works now, he can legitimately claim to have 10 years experience when he's 22. Advantage.
2) If he actually starts making money now, that's another 10 years of compound interest on his RRSP. He can retire at the age of 32 without any silly fake