I own a P4 2GHz machine with an ASUS GeForce4 Ti4400 which I use hooked up to a VCR to record old family videos. Since the videos were recorded with a camcorder from the very early 1990s, the quality isn't too good - not to mention that the VHS tapes themselves are 12 years old. Therefore, I don't expect to get better resolution than 320x240.
At this resolution, using VirtualDub, I can capture direct to a DivX AVI file (usually with a 2048kbs bitrate) without dropping a single frame. Sound is recorded uncompressed, and simply exported from the video, compressed to MP3, and imported again. Saves a lot of time, and the video never has to be reencoded causing further degradation.
There are two websites, hosting basically the same content: rape porn - one hosted here in Australia, another overseas. There are two sets of teenagers viewing the said sites. Both parents come home, and are horrified to see what their child is viewing. Both write in to the ABA about their disgust of the site.
The ABA reviews the site, and because rape is illegal, the sites are both classified RC - or in other words, refused classification. The ABA than can only do something about the site hosted in Australia, with a cease and desist type letter. In no way can access to sites overseas be restricted.
Why not just use blackholes to get us where we want to go instantly! Wormholes might be the best thing to look for - if they exist, and we can learn to utilise them, we'll have instant access to anywhere in the gallery without having to worry about eons of travel.
Being stupid enough to leave a Palm Pilot unattended in the oven, I hope everyone in that household had second helpings of the pizza - thus choking on the toxic waste, dying, an earning first place in the Darwin Awards. Evolution - ain't it grand?
I'm not sure of the other countries, but in Australia, we have no rights given to us in the Constitution. Therefore, we have hundreds of civil groups, telling us *why* it's important the government does not take away our freedom. On the other hand, in America, those groups simply claim that the government can't do that (whatever that may be) because of the Constitution - hence some people simply say "oh well, doesn't seem too important anyway". Because we are constantly told why it's important in Australia, we value those freedoms much more, and create a huge uproar when politicians try and take it away.
The net always had a heart? If the heart was the people who were putting the net together back then, then what of the people who are putting it together now? What of those who add their own servers to the net? By your own definition, are they not the heart of the internet now?
And of course the net has evolved. Slashdot evolves every few hours, does it not? Everything on the net changes. No changes means no one visiting something they've always seen. Eventually, with these information changes, other things eventually get added. Look at Yahoo. Look at Google. Even slashdot gets new features to its slashcode. All these things cost money. Unless you're rich, you would at least like to recouperate these costs. Hence advertising. Even more new features to attract new customers.
Unless you're selling things via AOL or MSN, there's no longer any way even to reach a significant chunk of the Net universe, including the tech elites who still wield so much influence in cyberspace.
So, those sites that get slashdotted by us "tech elites" actually aren't reaching us? What about "all your base are belong to us". What of Napster? All these things reached a large chunk of the net. Invent a new search engine, better than Google. Include what you like on the homepage. You'll reach a hell of a lot of people.
As for new media sites struggling, can it be argued that the information on their sites is no longer of the quality it used to be? Because an article is split into as many as fifteen pages, each page containing at most three paragraphs? Media sites are forgetting the one main reason we visit them. For media in one easy-to-find place. Not split across pages so that advertising is shoved in our faces fifteen times instead of once.
Enter AOL, then and now a Main Street for middle-class access. Its labyrinthine commercial sites, shameless peddling of goods, vast network of messaging boards and sex sites...
Well, of course AOL is peddling things. Its a business. Give me a free access ISP, and I'll give you a much freer (sp?) internet. How can the internet truly be free when we have to pay to access it? (Free Library internet access withstanding - but how many people use that constantly?)
Of these developments, probably the early design era -- the Net's actual construction -- was its most idealistic. The early BBS's felt -- and were -- revolutionary, and few of the people first going online could help but feel they were participating in and witnessing the birth of a new kind of culture.
Well... duh. If you were there building the first spaceship to go to the moon, would you not feel the same? The same for building the original IBM PC? Anyone involved in building something big will feel the same way. And no longer will you feel the same about the future. How many of us really care if man lands on the moon again? Do we really care about another new PC with cries of "it'll change culture as we know it"? Been there, done that.
Briefly, Napster was the heart of the Net, and the Napster era -- now over -- one of it's most pivotal periods...
What about P2P nowadays? Could that not be the new "heart" of the web?
The free software movement, in fact, was the apogee of the Net's most recent political period, the legacy to the hacker idea of liberating information...
Wrong. Most people don't care, or have any thoughts about "free software". How can that be political, when most people don't care? Compare it to things such as abortion, terrorism, or even gay rights, and suddenly everyone has an opinion.
The internet is a communications medium. Don't ever forget that. Where's the heart of the Net now? Where's the heart of television or radio? There isn't one. And those mediums have survived without one. Yes, whilst television might not always have great shows on, then why does almost every household possess at least, and often more than, one television?
I can see some people playing practical jokes with this type of thing already... placing an animated Windows logo during boot to scare the crap out of die-hard Linux users... only for them to sigh a breath of relief when the familiar logon screen appears (but not before a change of pants).
Umm. How could this possibly help WINE? Honestly. You say so yourself that it can only run Win 3.1 apps. I remember Desqview myself... Tandy shipped it with 286es if I remember correctly. This is like saying "let's open the source to DOS cause it could help UNIX shell writers. Puh-leeze.
It will help the WINE authors precisely because of the reason you stated: it runs Windows 3.1 apps. WINE doesn't run all Windows 3.1 apps - because not all APIs have been completed. Therefore, if the source for Desqview is available, so are the APIs. Including any bugs which programs might rely on. This will help further in figuring out how Microsoft have developed the WIN32 APIs, considering that Win95 if basically an updated Win 3.1.
Do people actually rent DVD's? Because of the higher cost of renting them, I've found that it's usually best just to buy the movie outright. In most cases, I find that a movie worth watching is worth watching again. So I think it would be kind of nice to have a movie library.
Not sure of how much *you* pay for a DVD rental where you live, but here in Brisbane (Australia), Civic Video charges only $2.95 for a new release rental. This is also the same price as a VHS tape - but on the other hand, the DVDs usually come with the second "bonus materials" disc.
On the DVD rental discussion: has anyone noticed that the DVD rentals from Fox are always without the features available in the store bought discs? At least now, they can't charge the video stores double for a disc with half the content.
As has been said, there is no real banning of internet sites. I still have access to everything. If I wanted to look at illegal sites, I could. The law only prevents illegal data from being hosted in Australia.
From The Age
Under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, the public will be able to lodge complaints about offensive material with the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which will have the power to direct Internet service providers to remove it or face hefty criminal penalties.
As quoted from Australian Personal ComputerThe government has a rather interesting interpretation of 'success' when it comes to Internet censorship. When the first (decidedly rubbery) figures on the Internet censorship scheme were released a mere nine months after it started, officials decreed that a system which had only managed to identify and shut down 62 'offending' sites was an outstanding success. When APC did a quick check using a search engine, we found roughly 7 million potentially offensive sites. Drop in the ocean anyone?
What's worse about this is the laws were passed to gain the support of two independant senators so that the government could press ahead with the second sale of Telstra. (Telstra is the federally owned telco company, of which the government has sold 49% of).
62 sites, most of which hosted porn without AVS controls, or bomb-making instructions, isn't something to get up-in-arms (excuse the pun) about.
The problem is not with it being removed from Flight Simulator 2002: but rather a patch to remove it from the 2000 edition.
It's like saying we should remove all references to Rome from modern media - after all, Rome did fall.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Microsoft wrote the Matrix, with code so convulted that even the machines have no idea where to even begin fixing things?
The same types of people who pay $1000 for a toilet seat...
I own a P4 2GHz machine with an ASUS GeForce4 Ti4400 which I use hooked up to a VCR to record old family videos. Since the videos were recorded with a camcorder from the very early 1990s, the quality isn't too good - not to mention that the VHS tapes themselves are 12 years old. Therefore, I don't expect to get better resolution than 320x240.
At this resolution, using VirtualDub, I can capture direct to a DivX AVI file (usually with a 2048kbs bitrate) without dropping a single frame. Sound is recorded uncompressed, and simply exported from the video, compressed to MP3, and imported again. Saves a lot of time, and the video never has to be reencoded causing further degradation.
To clarify, it works like this:
There are two websites, hosting basically the same content: rape porn - one hosted here in Australia, another overseas. There are two sets of teenagers viewing the said sites. Both parents come home, and are horrified to see what their child is viewing. Both write in to the ABA about their disgust of the site.
The ABA reviews the site, and because rape is illegal, the sites are both classified RC - or in other words, refused classification. The ABA than can only do something about the site hosted in Australia, with a cease and desist type letter. In no way can access to sites overseas be restricted.
Now, now, now, that's just going plain overboard. There's no need for the "s" at the end.
What about hosting the site overseas? That way, the DMCA copyright law would not apply...
Why not just use blackholes to get us where we want to go instantly! Wormholes might be the best thing to look for - if they exist, and we can learn to utilise them, we'll have instant access to anywhere in the gallery without having to worry about eons of travel.
Being stupid enough to leave a Palm Pilot unattended in the oven, I hope everyone in that household had second helpings of the pizza - thus choking on the toxic waste, dying, an earning first place in the Darwin Awards. Evolution - ain't it grand?
I'm not sure of the other countries, but in Australia, we have no rights given to us in the Constitution. Therefore, we have hundreds of civil groups, telling us *why* it's important the government does not take away our freedom. On the other hand, in America, those groups simply claim that the government can't do that (whatever that may be) because of the Constitution - hence some people simply say "oh well, doesn't seem too important anyway". Because we are constantly told why it's important in Australia, we value those freedoms much more, and create a huge uproar when politicians try and take it away.
And of course the net has evolved. Slashdot evolves every few hours, does it not? Everything on the net changes. No changes means no one visiting something they've always seen. Eventually, with these information changes, other things eventually get added. Look at Yahoo. Look at Google. Even slashdot gets new features to its slashcode. All these things cost money. Unless you're rich, you would at least like to recouperate these costs. Hence advertising. Even more new features to attract new customers.
Unless you're selling things via AOL or MSN, there's no longer any way even to reach a significant chunk of the Net universe, including the tech elites who still wield so much influence in cyberspace.
So, those sites that get slashdotted by us "tech elites" actually aren't reaching us? What about "all your base are belong to us". What of Napster? All these things reached a large chunk of the net. Invent a new search engine, better than Google. Include what you like on the homepage. You'll reach a hell of a lot of people.
As for new media sites struggling, can it be argued that the information on their sites is no longer of the quality it used to be? Because an article is split into as many as fifteen pages, each page containing at most three paragraphs? Media sites are forgetting the one main reason we visit them. For media in one easy-to-find place. Not split across pages so that advertising is shoved in our faces fifteen times instead of once.
Enter AOL, then and now a Main Street for middle-class access. Its labyrinthine commercial sites, shameless peddling of goods, vast network of messaging boards and sex sites...
Well, of course AOL is peddling things. Its a business. Give me a free access ISP, and I'll give you a much freer (sp?) internet. How can the internet truly be free when we have to pay to access it? (Free Library internet access withstanding - but how many people use that constantly?)
Of these developments, probably the early design era -- the Net's actual construction -- was its most idealistic. The early BBS's felt -- and were -- revolutionary, and few of the people first going online could help but feel they were participating in and witnessing the birth of a new kind of culture.
Well... duh. If you were there building the first spaceship to go to the moon, would you not feel the same? The same for building the original IBM PC? Anyone involved in building something big will feel the same way. And no longer will you feel the same about the future. How many of us really care if man lands on the moon again? Do we really care about another new PC with cries of "it'll change culture as we know it"? Been there, done that.
Briefly, Napster was the heart of the Net, and the Napster era -- now over -- one of it's most pivotal periods...
What about P2P nowadays? Could that not be the new "heart" of the web?
The free software movement, in fact, was the apogee of the Net's most recent political period, the legacy to the hacker idea of liberating information...
Wrong. Most people don't care, or have any thoughts about "free software". How can that be political, when most people don't care? Compare it to things such as abortion, terrorism, or even gay rights, and suddenly everyone has an opinion.
The internet is a communications medium. Don't ever forget that. Where's the heart of the Net now? Where's the heart of television or radio? There isn't one. And those mediums have survived without one. Yes, whilst television might not always have great shows on, then why does almost every household possess at least, and often more than, one television?
The Dreamcast was released in 1998 in Japan. Even now, in 2002, the final three or so games are being released. I'd call that about three-four years.
I can see some people playing practical jokes with this type of thing already... placing an animated Windows logo during boot to scare the crap out of die-hard Linux users... only for them to sigh a breath of relief when the familiar logon screen appears (but not before a change of pants).
It will help the WINE authors precisely because of the reason you stated: it runs Windows 3.1 apps. WINE doesn't run all Windows 3.1 apps - because not all APIs have been completed. Therefore, if the source for Desqview is available, so are the APIs. Including any bugs which programs might rely on. This will help further in figuring out how Microsoft have developed the WIN32 APIs, considering that Win95 if basically an updated Win 3.1.
Oh darn. How do I unsend a truckload of "Get Rich Quick" email messages?
Not sure of how much *you* pay for a DVD rental where you live, but here in Brisbane (Australia), Civic Video charges only $2.95 for a new release rental. This is also the same price as a VHS tape - but on the other hand, the DVDs usually come with the second "bonus materials" disc.
On the DVD rental discussion: has anyone noticed that the DVD rentals from Fox are always without the features available in the store bought discs? At least now, they can't charge the video stores double for a disc with half the content.
An important question begs to be asked: Can I rob these said banks Bonnie & Clyde style?
From The Age Under the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill, the public will be able to lodge complaints about offensive material with the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which will have the power to direct Internet service providers to remove it or face hefty criminal penalties.
As quoted from Australian Personal Computer The government has a rather interesting interpretation of 'success' when it comes to Internet censorship. When the first (decidedly rubbery) figures on the Internet censorship scheme were released a mere nine months after it started, officials decreed that a system which had only managed to identify and shut down 62 'offending' sites was an outstanding success. When APC did a quick check using a search engine, we found roughly 7 million potentially offensive sites. Drop in the ocean anyone?
What's worse about this is the laws were passed to gain the support of two independant senators so that the government could press ahead with the second sale of Telstra. (Telstra is the federally owned telco company, of which the government has sold 49% of). 62 sites, most of which hosted porn without AVS controls, or bomb-making instructions, isn't something to get up-in-arms (excuse the pun) about.
The problem is not with it being removed from Flight Simulator 2002: but rather a patch to remove it from the 2000 edition. It's like saying we should remove all references to Rome from modern media - after all, Rome did fall.
I wonder if this is the judge's way at getting back at Lucas for allowing NSync into Episode 2?