Well, i live in Britain and I don't recall the cinemas showing the extended versions of the first two films before they were released on dvd. I wish they had, cos that would have been well worth it.
For each of the three films, i was pretty disappointed when i saw them in the cinema for the first time. Yes, they were pretty spectacular, but they just were not as great as i'd hoped. Yet, several months later, when i bought the extended version on dvd and watched it, i found myself to be much more impressed. Those extra half hours in each of the films makes a very real difference. Getting the chance to see the "proper" version on the big screen would certainly make the wait for the dvd a little more bearable ^_^
It seems a little strange (assuming my memory is to be trusted on this) that they would choose to show only the last of the trilogy in the cinemas. Unless of course they mean to show all three (now that would be worth waiting for.)
Call me cynical, but i'm not sure the American government is going to be too worried about having their license revoked. Besides, who would know if it was them that was interfering?
If this is amateur then does that mean it's open to the public? Isn't this a bit of an unacceptable security risk for the american authorities? What's to stop them just jamming/flooding it to prevent it's use?
I like to think that, in addition to any scientific/medical benefits that the aliens might bring, they will be able to act as a mediator in brokering peace throughout the world. I would hope they could do the job that the UN should be doing, and that the US is claiming it's trying to do, namely trying to use it's privileged (sp?) position for good.
Please, will someone tell me. Why do the Americans feel so much animosity towards the French? Is it really because they did not fight to the death during The War? Or is there some deeper more fundamental cultural issue at work here?
If you can, then just download the love-sources kernel. It's very bleeding edge, using the mm-sources and adding a few more patches on top. It specifically fixes the nvidia thing along with lots of other little problems.
The maintainer, steel300 is great and tries to satisfy as many requests as possible.
I'm just reading Peter F Hamilton's new book, "Pandora's Star". And the people in the book have exaxtly this sort of thing.
Everyone has an implanted computer which they can control neurally, and a "virtual vision" display. They have the equivalent of spam filters for adverts and unwanted messages/email-v2. I think this is the way it'll go. There will be the same old unending battle between spam (in any form) and the requisite spam filters.
I may be wrong, but I think what the grandparent was trying to say was that robots can carry on after their planned mission duration, unlike humans.
These rover missions were planned to run for something like three months (I don't remember exactly). If it were a manned mission, given the inherent constraints, *very* soon after the three months were up the humans would have to curtail their mission. This would be because their food, water and oxygen would have been very carefully measured before launch. In order to save launch mass, there would be little or no surplus consumables. The mission is three months, so there is no reason to put four or five months worth of oxygen on the ship. It would cost more to get to mars, would not be used, and would have to be transported back to earth (at great cost as well).
With a robot, on the other hand, it does not have the same requirements. It does not have to take all these consumables with it. It can be built to take advantage of the local resources (sunlight). The same three month mission is now merely a paper deadline, an arbitrary target used to aim for when constructing the robot. Given the nature of such a machine, it will not cease functioning the minute the three months are up (like the humans) so it can be assumed to be capable of carrying on for longer, into extra time. The three month mission (which was what was budgeted for) is complete and they now have an essentially free (of charge) robot on mars to do some experiments or observations, possibly, which (on their own) would not have made a mars rover cost-effective.
With the Billions of Dollars spent since 2001, has the world become a safer place?
It depends on your definition of "the world". While it is certainly possible that America has become marginally safer from external terorrist attacks, the *rest* of the world has undoubtably become much, much more dangerous. This misguided crusade against foreign enemies has only served to increase resentment, destabilise countries and polarise world opinion.
How would you value the loss of privacy and restrictions in personal life as compared to the achieved level of felling a lot more secure?
It is good, and one of the main purposes, for a government to try to protect it's people from the dangers of the world. But, personally, I would be willing to risk the consequences of my government's actions, and instead have them try to tackle the problems which can lead to terrorism among other things. Restricting the freedoms of the people you are supposed to be serving does is not the best way to achieve this.
How much money would you want to spend on the war and when would you declare it over?
Instead of pumping money into the (certainly) immoral and (probably) illegal bullying and violence towards other, weaker countries, why not put the money into more progressive policies. Such as eradicating third world debt, subsidising cheap medicines, working towards an effective UN (this requires hard work and dedication, at least for the initiating country, it will get easier once a precedent has been set), trying to be a *neutral* and above all *invited* mediator between disputes. The US is the richest and most powerful country in the world, let's see it prove it wants a better world.
Who actually benefits from the spending spree on this war? Are YOU safer?
The ordinary people in any of the involved countries have not and will not benefit. It is those in power who started this process, and to find the ultimate reasons for it, one only needs to look for who will benefit the most from these actions. Though it is done in the name of The People, others stand to benefit more. This is probably one of those cases where it is hard to be *too* cynical and paranoid.
Well, the way I always understood it was that if I'm fooled once the fault is mine for being gullible, but if I'm fooled twice, the fault is yours for taking advantage of me. But I suppose both ways make some sort of sense, but my way is obviously better because it is correct:P
Dammit, _that's_ where they had them. I read this headline and thought "but they've had oil lenses for ages, surely". I guess it's going to be another one of those days...
I've never had this problem, I simply call the yanks americans; people from the continent of North America, North Americans; and people from the continent of South America.. but I'm sure you can see where this is going:)
As I live in Scotland, I may be confusing it slightly with our system. But I thought that you had to begin paying it off once you started earning something like 10-15,000. This, clearly, is not very much. I admit this may be way off the mark though. Personally, I believe that society benefits as much from a well educated workforce as do the well educated individuals. If graduates get better paying jobs then they will, over the courses of their lives, pay more income tax and pay for their education many times over. What these tuition fees amount to is nothing more than an extra tax on graduates. And thay hit them at a point in their lives when they are earning the least, so as to make it all the more crippling. I really don't like this as it seems to be totally undermining what Labour is supposed to stand for. And none of them seem to have the balls to stand up to Tony and his whips.
I don't know about the Blunkett dude. Never even heard of him in my life. I'll let you worry about him;)
I would imagine that right wing governments will support things like ID cards, jailing "criminals" without charge, treating non-citizens as inferior (ie. no laws apply to them), etc.
Blunkett is possibly the most right leaning member of the cabinet. He very much wants to introduce compulsory ID cards (we even have to pay for them ourselves) ostensibly as a crackdown against bogus asylum seekers (economic migrants). We have several "terrorist suspects" currently detained without charge, indefinitely. Asylum seekers are kept in conditions little better than prisons, often for months or even years, while their applications are processed - read lost - meanwhile they are prevented from working. All this under a Labour government.
As for Tony Blair, he is supposed to be a leftie, but he is currently trying to force through (despite his huge majority in the commons) a law giving universities the ability to charge more than others, while making all students have to pay back every fee, loan and bursary after graduation. This could easily add up to 15,000, not a very typical left policy.
With Bush the Lesser, Tony seems to be following him blindly. It is hard to get an impression of where his politics actually lie as regards Iraq, as he just rubber stamps Bush's blunderings. He is certainly a very persuasive man and has convinced some very smart people that he knows exactly what he is/was doing. I personally liked to believe that Tony had knowingly made a "deal with the devil" (Bush) in return for Bush's action on the Israel/Palestine mess. Sadly this does not seem to be progressing as expected, so it looks like Either Tony or myself was wrong.
As it is, the government, and especially Blair are in for a very tense week. The vote for the next stage of the tuition fees vote is next tuesday. If it fails, and despite the huge majority, it might - Labour high command is running around trying to convince all the back benchers that it is "in their best interests" to vote with the government on this one. If it fails, it could very well mean a resignation for Blair.
And if that wasn't enough, the very next day, the report on the death of the government weapons inspector David Kelly is published. It is expected to lay heavy blame on the the government and the BBC for the roles they played in the poor man's suicide.
I think the idea in "Red Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson is a pretty good one. Haul dozens of Shuttle fuel tanks (or are they O2 tanks, the big ones anyway) into orbit. They should be pretty cheap to get there; There would be no people or valuable equipment of any kind, so a large safety/cost-efficiency tradeoff could be made. Just a simple motor with just enough fuel to get into low orbit would be needed, these could be almost mass produced.
Then, when there are enough of them in orbit, herd them into a group and weld them together. Voila, one huge-ass ship, or the exterior at any rate. The internals could then be made on earth and shipped up, or constructed in situ. Either way, we wouldn't have to build discrete modules on earth and then fly them up one-by-one.
Building some of the innards in orbit would make more sense, the raw materials could be shipped up, and once the shell was pressurised and spun up, it could be done without expensive space-suits.
Slashdot Mirror
For each of the three films, i was pretty disappointed when i saw them in the cinema for the first time. Yes, they were pretty spectacular, but they just were not as great as i'd hoped. Yet, several months later, when i bought the extended version on dvd and watched it, i found myself to be much more impressed. Those extra half hours in each of the films makes a very real difference. Getting the chance to see the "proper" version on the big screen would certainly make the wait for the dvd a little more bearable ^_^
It seems a little strange (assuming my memory is to be trusted on this) that they would choose to show only the last of the trilogy in the cinemas. Unless of course they mean to show all three (now that would be worth waiting for.)
Call me cynical, but i'm not sure the American government is going to be too worried about having their license revoked. Besides, who would know if it was them that was interfering?
If this is amateur then does that mean it's open to the public? Isn't this a bit of an unacceptable security risk for the american authorities? What's to stop them just jamming/flooding it to prevent it's use?
It's not funny, it's just a little ambitious.
What the hell?! Are these mods missing something? Am I missing something? What is "funny" about the above post?
I like to think that, in addition to any scientific/medical benefits that the aliens might bring, they will be able to act as a mediator in brokering peace throughout the world. I would hope they could do the job that the UN should be doing, and that the US is claiming it's trying to do, namely trying to use it's privileged (sp?) position for good.
Please, will someone tell me. Why do the Americans feel so much animosity towards the French? Is it really because they did not fight to the death during The War? Or is there some deeper more fundamental cultural issue at work here?
So what? The US was the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger (twice I might add). Does this mean that they intend to use them now?
By you logic, if the US had never supplied him with the weapons in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess now.
I guess the system could instead be used for reheating pizza deliveries when they're late or something.
The maintainer, steel300 is great and tries to satisfy as many requests as possible.
More information
Link to the patch and ebuild
Everyone has an implanted computer which they can control neurally, and a "virtual vision" display. They have the equivalent of spam filters for adverts and unwanted messages/email-v2. I think this is the way it'll go. There will be the same old unending battle between spam (in any form) and the requisite spam filters.
These rover missions were planned to run for something like three months (I don't remember exactly). If it were a manned mission, given the inherent constraints, *very* soon after the three months were up the humans would have to curtail their mission. This would be because their food, water and oxygen would have been very carefully measured before launch. In order to save launch mass, there would be little or no surplus consumables. The mission is three months, so there is no reason to put four or five months worth of oxygen on the ship. It would cost more to get to mars, would not be used, and would have to be transported back to earth (at great cost as well).
With a robot, on the other hand, it does not have the same requirements. It does not have to take all these consumables with it. It can be built to take advantage of the local resources (sunlight). The same three month mission is now merely a paper deadline, an arbitrary target used to aim for when constructing the robot. Given the nature of such a machine, it will not cease functioning the minute the three months are up (like the humans) so it can be assumed to be capable of carrying on for longer, into extra time. The three month mission (which was what was budgeted for) is complete and they now have an essentially free (of charge) robot on mars to do some experiments or observations, possibly, which (on their own) would not have made a mars rover cost-effective.
You, Sir, are a gentleman. Also, that command is amazing, I had no idea that one could even do such a sophisticated action in one command.
It is good, and one of the main purposes, for a government to try to protect it's people from the dangers of the world. But, personally, I would be willing to risk the consequences of my government's actions, and instead have them try to tackle the problems which can lead to terrorism among other things. Restricting the freedoms of the people you are supposed to be serving does is not the best way to achieve this.
Instead of pumping money into the (certainly) immoral and (probably) illegal bullying and violence towards other, weaker countries, why not put the money into more progressive policies. Such as eradicating third world debt, subsidising cheap medicines, working towards an effective UN (this requires hard work and dedication, at least for the initiating country, it will get easier once a precedent has been set), trying to be a *neutral* and above all *invited* mediator between disputes. The US is the richest and most powerful country in the world, let's see it prove it wants a better world.
The ordinary people in any of the involved countries have not and will not benefit. It is those in power who started this process, and to find the ultimate reasons for it, one only needs to look for who will benefit the most from these actions. Though it is done in the name of The People, others stand to benefit more. This is probably one of those cases where it is hard to be *too* cynical and paranoid.
Damnit, where is that (+1: prescient) when you need it?
Well, the way I always understood it was that if I'm fooled once the fault is mine for being gullible, but if I'm fooled twice, the fault is yours for taking advantage of me. But I suppose both ways make some sort of sense, but my way is obviously better because it is correct :P
Dammit, _that's_ where they had them. I read this headline and thought "but they've had oil lenses for ages, surely". I guess it's going to be another one of those days...
I hate to be a "sayings nazi" but I've been seeing this a lot lately on slashdot.
The correct saying is "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you".
Sorry to be so strict. ^_^
You're new around here, aren't you?
I've never had this problem, I simply call the yanks americans; people from the continent of North America, North Americans; and people from the continent of South America.. but I'm sure you can see where this is going:)
Then again, on the other hand, that sounds only too believable
What a sad world we live in...
As I live in Scotland, I may be confusing it slightly with our system. But I thought that you had to begin paying it off once you started earning something like 10-15,000. This, clearly, is not very much. I admit this may be way off the mark though. Personally, I believe that society benefits as much from a well educated workforce as do the well educated individuals. If graduates get better paying jobs then they will, over the courses of their lives, pay more income tax and pay for their education many times over. What these tuition fees amount to is nothing more than an extra tax on graduates. And thay hit them at a point in their lives when they are earning the least, so as to make it all the more crippling. I really don't like this as it seems to be totally undermining what Labour is supposed to stand for. And none of them seem to have the balls to stand up to Tony and his whips.
As for Tony Blair, he is supposed to be a leftie, but he is currently trying to force through (despite his huge majority in the commons) a law giving universities the ability to charge more than others, while making all students have to pay back every fee, loan and bursary after graduation. This could easily add up to 15,000, not a very typical left policy.
With Bush the Lesser, Tony seems to be following him blindly. It is hard to get an impression of where his politics actually lie as regards Iraq, as he just rubber stamps Bush's blunderings. He is certainly a very persuasive man and has convinced some very smart people that he knows exactly what he is/was doing. I personally liked to believe that Tony had knowingly made a "deal with the devil" (Bush) in return for Bush's action on the Israel/Palestine mess. Sadly this does not seem to be progressing as expected, so it looks like Either Tony or myself was wrong.
As it is, the government, and especially Blair are in for a very tense week. The vote for the next stage of the tuition fees vote is next tuesday. If it fails, and despite the huge majority, it might - Labour high command is running around trying to convince all the back benchers that it is "in their best interests" to vote with the government on this one. If it fails, it could very well mean a resignation for Blair.
And if that wasn't enough, the very next day, the report on the death of the government weapons inspector David Kelly is published. It is expected to lay heavy blame on the the government and the BBC for the roles they played in the poor man's suicide.
Richard
I think the idea in "Red Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson is a pretty good one. Haul dozens of Shuttle fuel tanks (or are they O2 tanks, the big ones anyway) into orbit. They should be pretty cheap to get there; There would be no people or valuable equipment of any kind, so a large safety/cost-efficiency tradeoff could be made. Just a simple motor with just enough fuel to get into low orbit would be needed, these could be almost mass produced.
Then, when there are enough of them in orbit, herd them into a group and weld them together. Voila, one huge-ass ship, or the exterior at any rate. The internals could then be made on earth and shipped up, or constructed in situ. Either way, we wouldn't have to build discrete modules on earth and then fly them up one-by-one.
Building some of the innards in orbit would make more sense, the raw materials could be shipped up, and once the shell was pressurised and spun up, it could be done without expensive space-suits.