This isn't about fear of the US controlling the Internet for some diabolical purpose, it's about other countries implementing some sort of content control.
I know I'll get flamed for it but I think it's worth asking; Why do we consider it a problem if countries want content control within their own borders? I certainly wouldn't want them to control what Americans can see on the internet, but do we have a right to tell Brazil what it's citizens can and can't see?
Most countries in the world censor something or other, including the U.S. We happen to be relatively free, but we do draw the line somewhere (see "obscenity" in a previous thread). These other countries happen to be more restrictive, but it's not our place to tell them they need to open up. If Brazil doesn't want pornography, that's their business. If China doesn't want opposing political views, it's their business.
I happen to believe China should be way more open to political opposition, but I don't have a right to force them that way, especially if they censor non-violently. Good luck trying to lable Internet censorship as violent.
We need to be respectful of the rest of the world using "our" internet. We can always threaten to take our ball and go home, but then we'll be stuck playing by ourselves back home.
This is just the point. We consider obscene speach to be wrong so we don't protect it. We understand that it's ok to supress speach we consider wrong. So does Iran. So does China. It's just that we have differing points of view on what is "wrong".
I'm not saying the U.S. should all of a sudden allow kiddie porn as protected speach, just that we should understand exactly what we're doing when we do ban it. What we're doing is decideing between right speach and wrong speach and banning the thing we think is wrong speach... just like every other country in the world.
Of course you're right, Linux enjoys no advantage. The prmary technology in competition with this mess is the game console. I still prefer PC games over what I usually see offered for consoles. The type of game and the flexibility of configuration, modding, etc are very appealing to me. But every time I see some technically illiterate person plunck down $150 for a console and they're actually playing it within 10 minutes of opening the box, I can't help but feel a little jealous.
You also pointed out that naming the level of the computer as "gaming" helps the situation. Maybe. On one hand, it makes it easier for the newbie to get an appropriate rig. On the other hand, unless he already knows what he's doing he's going to freak out at the suggestion he should pay double or more the price of other computers who's processors list the same clock spead. Even if you convince the newbie guy (likely... guys like powerful toys:-) he's going to have a tough time convincing his wife. "You want to pay $1000 more so the games will be prettier?" Ouch.
I'm sure that even with Eisner out Disney is gonna have to pony up with a better contract. My understanding of the current one is:
Disney's responsibility: -Loan money to produce movie -Distribute movie through established distribution channels
Disneys reward: Keep 50% of revenue
Pixar's responsibility: -Make 100% of the movie -Pay 100% of the cost to produce the movie (pay back loan)
Pixar's reward: Keep 50% of what's left
If I'm misunderstanding this, let me know. But if this is the deal it'll take a lot more than ditching Eisner to put a signature on a contract.
BTW, as a twist of fate it's interesting to note the roles are reversed for the iTunes venture. Disney makes the content and Apple is distributing it. You gotta wonder if Apple is keeping 50% of revenue for selling a hit show like "Lost".
Honest, not trying to start an argument here, but the screen real estate on a PSP is better for this, and it's actually cheaper. you can also play MP3s and even the odd video game or two.
Yeah, the iPod is great. It has a huge hard drive and it's pretty darn small. I'm not knocking the iPod, but I'd much rather have a PSP on an airplane.
That's a composite video cable (not S-video or component), which is common for VCRs and a poor choice for DVD players. A video source with 240 scan lines connected to a television with at least 480 scan lines via a VCR cable sounds like a bad idea to me
The specs say it does 480x480 output over the AV cable and the AV cable does support S-Video (It doesn't look like it does, but the specs say otherwise).
Of course if your source material via iTunes is only 320x240 the higher specs won't do you much good, but assuming you can get source at 480x480 it'll be every bit as good as your DVR.
Maybe overall CG technology and talent has exceeded my capability to distinguish between good and bad, or maybe I just don't notice the little things anymore, but can somebody please enlighten me as to what makes good CG and what makes great CG these days?
This is simple and it's really the same as the criteria for any special effect. Does it look like a special effect?
In Jurrasic park on many of the scenes it was hard for me to imagine I wasn't looking at a real dinosaur. Not all of AI had perfect special effects, but on the New York scene I found it difficult to believe I wasn't looking at New York under water.
In Spider Man I was constantly being reminded I was looking at a computer generated image. Even on relatively static shots the way the light bounced off the costume, especially the eyes, looked like a computer had done it. In movement, in mass, in interaction with physical objects, I was constantly reminded that at least part of what I was looking at was not real.
I'm not saying the CG artists weren't doing a great job. I would absolutely love to play a video game or watch a completely animated film with this level of CG. But the live-action movie called Spiderman was attempting to make all the scenes look like they were live action and the CG just wasn't quite good enough for me to suspend my disbelief about the life of it all.
I know that many would consider me overly critical in this area, and maybe I am. Both me and quite a few million others have really enjoyed Spiderman. The thing is, I've seen CG that was so good that I didn't notice it was CG so I know it's an attainable goal. When I see a film that doesn't meet those standards, I can't help but notice. If you can consitantly spot the tricks of the magician it's awfully easy to grow board of the show.
Most cases still have 'em, they just don't hook 'em up to the sound card. They're just used for the POST beep from the motherboard. Pitty too as it would come in handy now and then to have real sound coming from your case.
Am I the only one who prefers models and stop motion animation to the CGI garbage of the last 15 years?
It depends on the CG. If I don't notice that it's CG I tend to like it. If it looks like CG I tend to groan.
Jurassic park was extremely well done CG and I loved it. Spiderman was, well, cartoony at best (but a good story and Kirsten Dunst go a long way). In Gone in Sixty Seconds they should have just used real cars in all the scenes. There was no excuse for CG shenanegans. But the New York scene in AI was flawless and would have been impossible to film in scale models alone.
Notice a trend? If the director is a master of visuals and refuses to accept compromise (just try to tell Spielberg "that's the best I can do") then your CG is gonna work. If your level of visual excellence is better exemplified by Xena the Warrior Princess then you may just be willing to settle.
I don't mean to bash Raimi. I loved a lot of his stuff, including Spiderman. But did any of you really think Spiderman's level of CG excellence met the level of Spielberg? Directors and producers need to be more demanding of their digital special effects. They should reject mediocre work as readily as wire work with, well, visible wires.
Compaq's business line (now HP) comes with something they call "Business Sound." It's basically a smallish speaker built into your computer case and hooked up to your sound card. It's in mono and it sounds crappy, so you won't be tempted to listen to music, but it does give you all the little beeps and things you'd expect from IM or email arriving. Nice idea really, but still susceptible to bad web music.
Well, except for the fact that your $299 PC didn't have a good enough video card to play the game in question. It looked really bad. You went back to the store to buy a better video card and came home with a nice one for $200. It wasn't top of the line, but it met the specs on your game box.
You followed the intallation instructions to a "T" but the card didn't fit any of your expansion slots. You went back to the store to get a different one, but no one was knowledgable enough to help you out. Finally some kid in the aisle overheard you and explained about AGP and PCI-Express. He steered you to the right card.
After following all the instructions you finally get your game set up, but the graphics look crappy. You complain that your $200.00 card isn't even as good as your PS2. You enjoy bad graphics until Xmas a half a year later when your nephew explains the concept of "Native Resolution." You love your gaming PC now and just think, it only took you half a year to get it right!
TW
P.S. I'm a frequent Windows PC gamer, but I don't have any illusions it's as easy as you make it. Newbies have a steep learning curve.
Not to be rude by calling you bass ackwards or anything, but...
But there are cases where companies could wind up paying more money under the new model, Park said. For example, if a user runs six virtual instances of a product such as BizTalk Server on a four-processor box, it would have to pay for six BizTalk licenses.
The article was plenty weird in how they gave their examples. Until I get a more clear explenation I'm just gonna assume that whatever will put more money in Bill's pocket is most accurate.
Nothing is more annoying than looking for some important (or trivial) piece of info at work and all of a sudden everyone hears music/sound effects/an announcer coming from your cube. I've actually taken to surfing with the sound off to avoid this. I shouldn't have to.
Anyone who puts automatic sound on their web site should be slapped around with rotting chicken legs and left in a kennel naked overnight. I don't even care if it wasn't an ad. Trust me, that MIDI you love actually sucks way more than you think it does. Honest. If you think I'll love it so much then furgodsake at least gimme a button to click on first. I beg of you.
(full disclosure: my daughter and me are both on medication for mood disorders)
I hate to be flippant, but it also gives a very large kick in the ass to Tom Cruise and those who feel like he does. While your S.O. was facing her demons, she was actively being encouraged by others who feel that abnormal brain chemistry is some kind of myth.
This test, and the others to follow, are a scientific necessity. Tom Cruise will be forced to shut his mouth and your patients, and S.O., will come to understand that if the tests come up bad, they should seek help... just like people who's screenings show high blood cholestorol.
-cell phone -PSP -digital camera -laptop...and my daughter took...
-iPod -GameBoy Advanced -her own cell phone -her own notebook (yes, I realize this part is overkill, but _you_ try telling a 16 year old girl she needs to leave it at home)... all of which required their own, seperate power brick for charging. I ended up taking a power strip with me to plug all of the rest into at the hotel so I wouldn't have them spread all over the room.
In my bedroom I have a rats next of courds to serve the same function.
I agree, if it was just a cell phone I wouldn't pay the $250. But if all my devices had this built in it would be a pretty nice sized hassle removed from my life.
Don't you think you're being a little hard on/.? The phrase "simple site" is really off base here. They're definately not perfect, but considering the volume they have to deal with I'm inclined to cut them some slack.
BTW, I do agree that this has been left up on the main page way too long. When I said "cut them some slack," I was refering to the typos and dupes, not leaving a misdirection to offensive material up for 3+ hours.
My philosophy is that if DC is in such shape that I can never return, I really don't care about carrying around any personl data or very much anything else other than my life.
People tend to think of the "worse case scenerio," but it often falls short of this. Yes, escape with your life, but remember that at some point you'll likely want to rebuild it in a civilized society.
The living victims of the Tsunami, Katrina and Cherynobl all had to rebuild their lives. The living victims of Hiroshima and Dresden all had to rebuild their lives. Even the jews who survived Aushwitz had to rebuild their lives.
Short of total world destruction or your personal death, you will need to rebuild yours as well. It would be easier to do if you could convince your insurance company to cut you a check for your obliterated house.
Nope, you understood me, I just didn't understand the site. I guess what TW learned today was to look a little further before spouting off:-) This site actually looks pretty useful.
A cluster adds complexity to the environment, Complexity == Cost, even without the expensive software.
True, but with a good payoff. You can patch or otherwise modify one of the machines in a cluster without bringing your system offline. I know this is less important with Unix and Linux equipment, but even Linux admins can have bad days and screw something up during an upgrade. It happens. If it happens on the offline node of a cluster, you have some time to fix things while the user base is being nicely taken care of. If you only have a single box, even one with very nice redundant hardware, you're dead in the water.
I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.
Better to be "grounded" in a working technology that can be improved, refined and used than to attempt nothing while we wait around for something better to come along.
It's a testiment to convenience. People use email in the ways they do, and ignore other protocols that are more suitable, becaue it's just easier for them.
At the company I work for I constantly get requests to let larger and larger attachments through. The reason? We make it hard for them to get data out any other way. Our bosses are (somewhat justifiably) paranoid about opening up easy access to our file system from outside the company so the users use the one method that's relatively open, email.
You see this all over the place. Would you tell your aunt that it's ok to open a share to the outside on her Windows computer? Heck no. What's her alternative? Email. Can you name a service tha lets her upload a couple of gigs of non-specialized files that she could then share with her friends and family? No such service exists, unless you consider Gmail to be such a service.
The only way you'll ever get people to use the proper protocol, meaning one that's designed for the purpose it's being used for, is to make that protocol ubiquitus, easy and cheap. As long as you make the proper way hard, even if it's for a good reason like security, people will find other ways to route their data, even if those ways are a horrible kludge.
Well we mac users can feel smug about something else now.
That explains it. I've been misunderstanding the purpose of cool new and useful old features all this time. I thought they were there to make computing easier or more fun, but in the Apple community they're primarily there to help the users feel smug.
Finally I understand all those posts from Mac users here on Slasdot. THANKS!
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about fear of the US controlling the Internet for some diabolical purpose, it's about other countries implementing some sort of content control.
I know I'll get flamed for it but I think it's worth asking; Why do we consider it a problem if countries want content control within their own borders? I certainly wouldn't want them to control what Americans can see on the internet, but do we have a right to tell Brazil what it's citizens can and can't see?
Most countries in the world censor something or other, including the U.S. We happen to be relatively free, but we do draw the line somewhere (see "obscenity" in a previous thread). These other countries happen to be more restrictive, but it's not our place to tell them they need to open up. If Brazil doesn't want pornography, that's their business. If China doesn't want opposing political views, it's their business.
I happen to believe China should be way more open to political opposition, but I don't have a right to force them that way, especially if they censor non-violently. Good luck trying to lable Internet censorship as violent.
We need to be respectful of the rest of the world using "our" internet. We can always threaten to take our ball and go home, but then we'll be stuck playing by ourselves back home.
TW
This is just the point. We consider obscene speach to be wrong so we don't protect it. We understand that it's ok to supress speach we consider wrong. So does Iran. So does China. It's just that we have differing points of view on what is "wrong".
I'm not saying the U.S. should all of a sudden allow kiddie porn as protected speach, just that we should understand exactly what we're doing when we do ban it. What we're doing is decideing between right speach and wrong speach and banning the thing we think is wrong speach... just like every other country in the world.
TW
Of course you're right, Linux enjoys no advantage. The prmary technology in competition with this mess is the game console. I still prefer PC games over what I usually see offered for consoles. The type of game and the flexibility of configuration, modding, etc are very appealing to me. But every time I see some technically illiterate person plunck down $150 for a console and they're actually playing it within 10 minutes of opening the box, I can't help but feel a little jealous.
:-) he's going to have a tough time convincing his wife. "You want to pay $1000 more so the games will be prettier?" Ouch.
You also pointed out that naming the level of the computer as "gaming" helps the situation. Maybe. On one hand, it makes it easier for the newbie to get an appropriate rig. On the other hand, unless he already knows what he's doing he's going to freak out at the suggestion he should pay double or more the price of other computers who's processors list the same clock spead. Even if you convince the newbie guy (likely... guys like powerful toys
TW
I'm sure that even with Eisner out Disney is gonna have to pony up with a better contract. My understanding of the current one is:
Disney's responsibility:
-Loan money to produce movie
-Distribute movie through established distribution channels
Disneys reward:
Keep 50% of revenue
Pixar's responsibility:
-Make 100% of the movie
-Pay 100% of the cost to produce the movie (pay back loan)
Pixar's reward:
Keep 50% of what's left
If I'm misunderstanding this, let me know. But if this is the deal it'll take a lot more than ditching Eisner to put a signature on a contract.
BTW, as a twist of fate it's interesting to note the roles are reversed for the iTunes venture. Disney makes the content and Apple is distributing it. You gotta wonder if Apple is keeping 50% of revenue for selling a hit show like "Lost".
TW
More like comparable to VCD and SVCD
THANK YOU!
It was bad enough hearing everyone say 128kbps mp3s were "CD quality." I don't relish seeing the same crappy math with video.
TW
Honest, not trying to start an argument here, but the screen real estate on a PSP is better for this, and it's actually cheaper. you can also play MP3s and even the odd video game or two.
Yeah, the iPod is great. It has a huge hard drive and it's pretty darn small. I'm not knocking the iPod, but I'd much rather have a PSP on an airplane.
TW
That's a composite video cable (not S-video or component), which is common for VCRs and a poor choice for DVD players. A video source with 240 scan lines connected to a television with at least 480 scan lines via a VCR cable sounds like a bad idea to me
The specs say it does 480x480 output over the AV cable and the AV cable does support S-Video (It doesn't look like it does, but the specs say otherwise).
Of course if your source material via iTunes is only 320x240 the higher specs won't do you much good, but assuming you can get source at 480x480 it'll be every bit as good as your DVR.
TW
Granted their partnership with Jobs' Pixar Animation Studios was probably a big reason they agreed...
Didn't Pixar decline to renew their contract with Disney?
TW
Maybe overall CG technology and talent has exceeded my capability to distinguish between good and bad, or maybe I just don't notice the little things anymore, but can somebody please enlighten me as to what makes good CG and what makes great CG these days?
This is simple and it's really the same as the criteria for any special effect. Does it look like a special effect?
In Jurrasic park on many of the scenes it was hard for me to imagine I wasn't looking at a real dinosaur. Not all of AI had perfect special effects, but on the New York scene I found it difficult to believe I wasn't looking at New York under water.
In Spider Man I was constantly being reminded I was looking at a computer generated image. Even on relatively static shots the way the light bounced off the costume, especially the eyes, looked like a computer had done it. In movement, in mass, in interaction with physical objects, I was constantly reminded that at least part of what I was looking at was not real.
I'm not saying the CG artists weren't doing a great job. I would absolutely love to play a video game or watch a completely animated film with this level of CG. But the live-action movie called Spiderman was attempting to make all the scenes look like they were live action and the CG just wasn't quite good enough for me to suspend my disbelief about the life of it all.
I know that many would consider me overly critical in this area, and maybe I am. Both me and quite a few million others have really enjoyed Spiderman. The thing is, I've seen CG that was so good that I didn't notice it was CG so I know it's an attainable goal. When I see a film that doesn't meet those standards, I can't help but notice. If you can consitantly spot the tricks of the magician it's awfully easy to grow board of the show.
TW
Most cases still have 'em, they just don't hook 'em up to the sound card. They're just used for the POST beep from the motherboard. Pitty too as it would come in handy now and then to have real sound coming from your case.
TW
Am I the only one who prefers models and stop motion animation to the CGI garbage of the last 15 years?
It depends on the CG. If I don't notice that it's CG I tend to like it. If it looks like CG I tend to groan.
Jurassic park was extremely well done CG and I loved it. Spiderman was, well, cartoony at best (but a good story and Kirsten Dunst go a long way). In Gone in Sixty Seconds they should have just used real cars in all the scenes. There was no excuse for CG shenanegans. But the New York scene in AI was flawless and would have been impossible to film in scale models alone.
Notice a trend? If the director is a master of visuals and refuses to accept compromise (just try to tell Spielberg "that's the best I can do") then your CG is gonna work. If your level of visual excellence is better exemplified by Xena the Warrior Princess then you may just be willing to settle.
I don't mean to bash Raimi. I loved a lot of his stuff, including Spiderman. But did any of you really think Spiderman's level of CG excellence met the level of Spielberg? Directors and producers need to be more demanding of their digital special effects. They should reject mediocre work as readily as wire work with, well, visible wires.
TW
Compaq's business line (now HP) comes with something they call "Business Sound." It's basically a smallish speaker built into your computer case and hooked up to your sound card. It's in mono and it sounds crappy, so you won't be tempted to listen to music, but it does give you all the little beeps and things you'd expect from IM or email arriving. Nice idea really, but still susceptible to bad web music.
TW
Well, except for the fact that your $299 PC didn't have a good enough video card to play the game in question. It looked really bad. You went back to the store to buy a better video card and came home with a nice one for $200. It wasn't top of the line, but it met the specs on your game box.
You followed the intallation instructions to a "T" but the card didn't fit any of your expansion slots. You went back to the store to get a different one, but no one was knowledgable enough to help you out. Finally some kid in the aisle overheard you and explained about AGP and PCI-Express. He steered you to the right card.
After following all the instructions you finally get your game set up, but the graphics look crappy. You complain that your $200.00 card isn't even as good as your PS2. You enjoy bad graphics until Xmas a half a year later when your nephew explains the concept of "Native Resolution." You love your gaming PC now and just think, it only took you half a year to get it right!
TW
P.S. I'm a frequent Windows PC gamer, but I don't have any illusions it's as easy as you make it. Newbies have a steep learning curve.
The article was plenty weird in how they gave their examples. Until I get a more clear explenation I'm just gonna assume that whatever will put more money in Bill's pocket is most accurate.
TW
Nothing is more annoying than looking for some important (or trivial) piece of info at work and all of a sudden everyone hears music/sound effects/an announcer coming from your cube. I've actually taken to surfing with the sound off to avoid this. I shouldn't have to.
Anyone who puts automatic sound on their web site should be slapped around with rotting chicken legs and left in a kennel naked overnight. I don't even care if it wasn't an ad. Trust me, that MIDI you love actually sucks way more than you think it does. Honest. If you think I'll love it so much then furgodsake at least gimme a button to click on first. I beg of you.
TW
(full disclosure: my daughter and me are both on medication for mood disorders)
I hate to be flippant, but it also gives a very large kick in the ass to Tom Cruise and those who feel like he does. While your S.O. was facing her demons, she was actively being encouraged by others who feel that abnormal brain chemistry is some kind of myth.
This test, and the others to follow, are a scientific necessity. Tom Cruise will be forced to shut his mouth and your patients, and S.O., will come to understand that if the tests come up bad, they should seek help... just like people who's screenings show high blood cholestorol.
TW
My last vacation I took...
...and my daughter took...
... all of which required their own, seperate power brick for charging. I ended up taking a power strip with me to plug all of the rest into at the hotel so I wouldn't have them spread all over the room.
-cell phone
-PSP
-digital camera
-laptop
-iPod
-GameBoy Advanced
-her own cell phone
-her own notebook (yes, I realize this part is overkill, but _you_ try telling a 16 year old girl she needs to leave it at home)
In my bedroom I have a rats next of courds to serve the same function.
I agree, if it was just a cell phone I wouldn't pay the $250. But if all my devices had this built in it would be a pretty nice sized hassle removed from my life.
TW
Don't you think you're being a little hard on /.? The phrase "simple site" is really off base here. They're definately not perfect, but considering the volume they have to deal with I'm inclined to cut them some slack.
BTW, I do agree that this has been left up on the main page way too long. When I said "cut them some slack," I was refering to the typos and dupes, not leaving a misdirection to offensive material up for 3+ hours.
TW
My philosophy is that if DC is in such shape that I can never return, I really don't care about carrying around any personl data or very much anything else other than my life.
People tend to think of the "worse case scenerio," but it often falls short of this. Yes, escape with your life, but remember that at some point you'll likely want to rebuild it in a civilized society.
The living victims of the Tsunami, Katrina and Cherynobl all had to rebuild their lives. The living victims of Hiroshima and Dresden all had to rebuild their lives. Even the jews who survived Aushwitz had to rebuild their lives.
Short of total world destruction or your personal death, you will need to rebuild yours as well. It would be easier to do if you could convince your insurance company to cut you a check for your obliterated house.
TW
Nope, you understood me, I just didn't understand the site. I guess what TW learned today was to look a little further before spouting off :-) This site actually looks pretty useful.
TW
A cluster adds complexity to the environment, Complexity == Cost, even without the expensive software.
True, but with a good payoff. You can patch or otherwise modify one of the machines in a cluster without bringing your system offline. I know this is less important with Unix and Linux equipment, but even Linux admins can have bad days and screw something up during an upgrade. It happens. If it happens on the offline node of a cluster, you have some time to fix things while the user base is being nicely taken care of. If you only have a single box, even one with very nice redundant hardware, you're dead in the water.
TW
The PutFile link was interesting, but I was amused to see that YouSendIt uses the email system which tends to support my point.
TW
I hope this doesn't hopelessly ground us in chemical rockets the way car racing stuck us with internal combustion engines.
Better to be "grounded" in a working technology that can be improved, refined and used than to attempt nothing while we wait around for something better to come along.
A bird in the hand...
TW
It's a testiment to convenience. People use email in the ways they do, and ignore other protocols that are more suitable, becaue it's just easier for them.
At the company I work for I constantly get requests to let larger and larger attachments through. The reason? We make it hard for them to get data out any other way. Our bosses are (somewhat justifiably) paranoid about opening up easy access to our file system from outside the company so the users use the one method that's relatively open, email.
You see this all over the place. Would you tell your aunt that it's ok to open a share to the outside on her Windows computer? Heck no. What's her alternative? Email. Can you name a service tha lets her upload a couple of gigs of non-specialized files that she could then share with her friends and family? No such service exists, unless you consider Gmail to be such a service.
The only way you'll ever get people to use the proper protocol, meaning one that's designed for the purpose it's being used for, is to make that protocol ubiquitus, easy and cheap. As long as you make the proper way hard, even if it's for a good reason like security, people will find other ways to route their data, even if those ways are a horrible kludge.
TW
Well we mac users can feel smug about something else now.
That explains it. I've been misunderstanding the purpose of cool new and useful old features all this time. I thought they were there to make computing easier or more fun, but in the Apple community they're primarily there to help the users feel smug.
Finally I understand all those posts from Mac users here on Slasdot. THANKS!
TW