And of course there's the fact that spam, without using spam-like words, just won't be effective.
Now I'm not saying spam in its present form of 'cum see me and my friends naked in my dorm room FREE' is particularly effective either, but if spammers can't make their spam at least... well, intriguing:-), what's the point?
Re:Cash cow if they pull it off
on
Fahrenheit
·
· Score: 1
I get the impression when they say 'interactive television show' what they actually mean is just a game where each level is released at seperate time intervals.
Just like in Max Payne or the majority of other games, you're forced to complete certain objections and your route through levels is pretty much linear.
'Interactive Television Show' is just a cool term for a new concept.
This is essentially what freeloader.com are doing, albeit with older games. I think their general idea is to get now 'budget' games e.g. SpecOps, GTA2 etc., and split them up into multiple parts or missions, much like this Farenheit.
So I don't think the idea in itself is new, but their implementaion of actually making a game with the intention of releasing it in parts is quite novel I think. And risky of course, let's just hope the game is half way decent otherwise someone's going to be wondering where all their money vanished to.
... but some of us don't care or even need to know. I don't see what the fuss is about, why not just include this easy-install with distros and provide an 'advanced' option for just that - advanced users.
Thus satisfying the geeks among us as well as your average Joe Bloggs who just wants a stable, usable OS with minimum effort.
I didn't deny any of the above plot rumours. I merely implied that for Lucas to be 'adding' stuff to IV or v he must be trying to enforce some first-trilogy story. Or making a money spinner.
I don't get it... why would Lucas insert new scenes into movies 30 years old. It seems a long way to go to cover his ass in terms of plot dependencies... I thought he had it all planned out anyway?!
I can't see how this will help the story anyway, as a previous poster said, how is he going to release them anyway? On some vastly expensive DVD boxed set I'd imagine.
Nah, my advice, leave the second part of the trilogy well alone... you've already mucked up the first!
I wouldn't say this guy was a troll... he's making a totally valid point. Afterall, this is effectively what a so called 'popup ad' is... just parameters to a function.
Despite the obvious short term advantages I hope everyone sees that this attempted patent is not a good thing. Not at all.
I always thought the compiler removed such things as variables names as they're a waste of space when everything can just be renamed a, b, c etc. etc. Afterall, the operating system doesn't NEED descriptive names.
And is it me or do these supposed 'image sniffs' (for want of a better description!) seem to have been faked?
Now I'm not one for conspiracy theorys but the images include such things as menu bars and drop down dialog boxes. Now I'm not entirely sure but this program basically sniffs network traffic like any other sniffer until it recognises an image format, correct? Well if that is true, how can he/anyone explain the drop down menus etc. Surely they're rendered by whatever OS!
The difference is that the alt.* tree of groups is just that - alternative, and was basically created to house this sort of crap (as well as genuine, useful groups of course).
The comp.*, rec.* etc. hierarchies of groups are much more strict regarding the creation and moderation fo groups and hence the fuss about the group in discussion.
No, I'm sorry, I stand by what I said; I think you should apply your philosophy to yourself, however.
It is up to the content provider to determine who can and can not look at the material they are SERVING. It is not up to external sites to decide who shall and shall not view this material.
If your material is private, confidential, only for a select group of users, whatever, why on earth are you serving this material on a public webserver on a public medium -.htaccess and the like are our friends here, use them!
I find this 'you're not allowed to link to me' mentallity hilarious. As we all know a link is no more than electronic 'word of mouth' or a sign post. The arrogance that goes along with "you're not allowed to tell people where our public content" is beyond me.. and let's face it, anything on the web IS for public viewing.
It may be copyrighted, but that's not the same as 'no public access'.
While this may sound a fair trade on the surface, the consequences of what you suggest scare the hell out of me.
With each week passing the powers that be seem to be pushing for small, yet significant, reductions in privacy in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.
While obviously the Sept. 11 attacks were horrific, and I truly feel for the families who were involved, the long term consequences of a continued, gradual loss of our basic rights is something far, far worse.
It seems to me Bush, Blair and co. are jumping on the bandwagon and using Sept 11 as leverage to push through new laws and changes to already exisiting privacy acts.
Fair enough, it may mean a reduction in another (as grand a scale) attack succeeding - but at what cost?
Slashdot Mirror
And of course there's the fact that spam, without using spam-like words, just won't be effective. Now I'm not saying spam in its present form of 'cum see me and my friends naked in my dorm room FREE' is particularly effective either, but if spammers can't make their spam at least... well, intriguing :-), what's the point?
I get the impression when they say 'interactive television show' what they actually mean is just a game where each level is released at seperate time intervals.
Just like in Max Payne or the majority of other games, you're forced to complete certain objections and your route through levels is pretty much linear.
'Interactive Television Show' is just a cool term for a new concept.
This is essentially what freeloader.com are doing, albeit with older games. I think their general idea is to get now 'budget' games e.g. SpecOps, GTA2 etc., and split them up into multiple parts or missions, much like this Farenheit.
So I don't think the idea in itself is new, but their implementaion of actually making a game with the intention of releasing it in parts is quite novel I think. And risky of course, let's just hope the game is half way decent otherwise someone's going to be wondering where all their money vanished to.
... but some of us don't care or even need to know. I don't see what the fuss is about, why not just include this easy-install with distros and provide an 'advanced' option for just that - advanced users.
Thus satisfying the geeks among us as well as your average Joe Bloggs who just wants a stable, usable OS with minimum effort.
I didn't deny any of the above plot rumours. I merely implied that for Lucas to be 'adding' stuff to IV or v he must be trying to enforce some first-trilogy story. Or making a money spinner.
Either way, it's not good!
I don't get it... why would Lucas insert new scenes into movies 30 years old. It seems a long way to go to cover his ass in terms of plot dependencies... I thought he had it all planned out anyway?!
I can't see how this will help the story anyway, as a previous poster said, how is he going to release them anyway? On some vastly expensive DVD boxed set I'd imagine.
Nah, my advice, leave the second part of the trilogy well alone... you've already mucked up the first!
I wouldn't say this guy was a troll... he's making a totally valid point. Afterall, this is effectively what a so called 'popup ad' is... just parameters to a function.
Despite the obvious short term advantages I hope everyone sees that this attempted patent is not a good thing. Not at all.
I always thought the compiler removed such things as variables names as they're a waste of space when everything can just be renamed a, b, c etc. etc. Afterall, the operating system doesn't NEED descriptive names.
;-)
I've been known to be wrong however...
And is it me or do these supposed 'image sniffs' (for want of a better description!) seem to have been faked?
Now I'm not one for conspiracy theorys but the images include such things as menu bars and drop down dialog boxes. Now I'm not entirely sure but this program basically sniffs network traffic like any other sniffer until it recognises an image format, correct? Well if that is true, how can he/anyone explain the drop down menus etc. Surely they're rendered by whatever OS!
Maybe it's just me...
Does anyone know if there's a windows port/equivalent of this software? Definitely sounds interesting to have a play with.
:-)
I live in a Uni hall so this could effectively be what I've always been looking for - a free, dynamic, porn screensaver. Bonus
http://www.asciimation.co.nz
Star Wars in ascii... Maybe it's a geek thing?
It is if the source medium is shite - which it is!
The difference is that the alt.* tree of groups is just that - alternative, and was basically created to house this sort of crap (as well as genuine, useful groups of course).
The comp.*, rec.* etc. hierarchies of groups are much more strict regarding the creation and moderation fo groups and hence the fuss about the group in discussion.
No, I'm sorry, I stand by what I said; I think you should apply your philosophy to yourself, however.
.htaccess and the like are our friends here, use them!
It is up to the content provider to determine who can and can not look at the material they are SERVING. It is not up to external sites to decide who shall and shall not view this material.
If your material is private, confidential, only for a select group of users, whatever, why on earth are you serving this material on a public webserver on a public medium -
I find this 'you're not allowed to link to me' mentallity hilarious. As we all know a link is no more than electronic 'word of mouth' or a sign post. The arrogance that goes along with "you're not allowed to tell people where our public content" is beyond me.. and let's face it, anything on the web IS for public viewing.
It may be copyrighted, but that's not the same as 'no public access'.
While this may sound a fair trade on the surface, the consequences of what you suggest scare the hell out of me.
With each week passing the powers that be seem to be pushing for small, yet significant, reductions in privacy in the name of preventing future terrorist attacks.
While obviously the Sept. 11 attacks were horrific, and I truly feel for the families who were involved, the long term consequences of a continued, gradual loss of our basic rights is something far, far worse.
It seems to me Bush, Blair and co. are jumping on the bandwagon and using Sept 11 as leverage to push through new laws and changes to already exisiting privacy acts.
Fair enough, it may mean a reduction in another (as grand a scale) attack succeeding - but at what cost?