I have a friend who's father is a professional photographer. He has gigabytes and gigabytes of images stored for his customers, should they want to order re-prints. They're thinking about setting up raid terabyte file server. I can certainyl say that this is good news for them!
Is he really going to convert that many JPGs into some obscure format that isn't widely-supported just to save some space? I wouldn't.
It reminds me of people saying we should use Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3 because the sound quality is better for a given bitrate. True, but given that I could fit my entire CD collection and P2Ped MP3s (*cough* I meant *legally* downloaded MP3s) onto the 20Gb iPod at what I would consider an acceptable level of compression (192Kbps, notlame-encoded (*)), the hassle of switching to a relatively poorly-supported format just isn't worth it.
BTW, I'm definitely interested to hear how your father's friend stores his images; as another reply said, does he really store them as JPEGs, or are they uncompressed?
If the latter, I'd guess that he'll need incredible amounts of storage space, and a terabyte might not be *that* big.
(*) I find it incredible that I can get listenable MP3s at 128Kbps- though I prefer 192- and yet I download some at the same bitrate and there is very obvious artefacting. No wonder 128Kbps has a bad reputation; people out there are either using lousy encoders, or they are converting files that have already been previously compressed at least once.
>> I just installed an 800Gb hard disk in my system.
> I always wondered how much space it took to keep track of who's been naughty and who's been nice...
800 marketing gigabytes = 800 * 10^9 bytes.
6 billion people on earth = 6 * 10^9.
Therefore, each person gets allocated 800/6 = 133 bytes each. Enough for a brief note, and no more.
Incidentally, I expected there would be *plenty* of space before I did the calculation.
As far as I know, its Arabic origins favour the soft-'j' pronounciation.
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
My copy of Akira was excessive because it was just a vanilla two-disc set spread across two boxes for no good reason. It wasn't even a nice looking box.
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, some films still haven't been released properly. Blade Runner, for example. I haven't seen the DVD all the way through (to be honest, I'm not that big a fan of the film), but even at a glance, I wasn't really impressed with the picture-quality. Having read reviews of it, it's apparently quite a poor transfer (not anamorphic AFAIK, so it has the *same damn problem* as my letterbox VHS), and there are quite a few other problems listed.
Plus, the film comes with no extras IIRC. Ideally, Blade Runner should come with a sparkling print, and a copy of *both* versions (two-disc set) at a reasonable price. Personally, I think they'll definitely do that at some stage (it'll be overpriced at first, then appear in a sale), so I'm sticking with my VHS for now.
On a less prestigious level, the current DVD transfer of Top Gun (done in the late 90s IIRC) is poor; apparently Paramount were against DVDs in the early stages, and their transfers aren't that great. So there are a number of films out there, either on DVD or not, that still need a decent DVD release.
And, frankly, Hollywood toss is Hollywood toss and I wouldn't waste time with third-rate Blockbusters regardless of the extras.
Can you give me a link to that oversized tin-box version of Akira, BTW?
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
Conversely, I'd argue that buying a DVD because the packaging is nice, the extras are long or the image quality is impressive is just _so_ 1999.
What? The fashionable mags have told you that it's passe, so you don't do that now, but you would have in 1999?
What does 1999 have to do with it anyway?
I *would* buy a disc of a crap film if I liked the box enough on its own to merit buying it. I've never been in that situation though, and generally I hate box-sets as overpriced crap bought by people with (a) too much money, or (b) *way* too much interest in a particular film(s). In the latter case, the box-set having a single gimmick that gives rabid fans an excuse to buy yet another copy of their favourite movie.
I mean, the new Matrix boxset came in a version with a bust of Neo's head, and though the transparent plastic containing the stacked discs was nice, it struck me as being... well, see above. I don't like gratuitous bloat in packaging and stuff like that anyway.
I mean, it pissed me off that my copy of Akira came on two discs in *two separate cases*. Why?! Did they think it would look better than putting the two discs in one case?
The most expensive DVD I have cost approx UKP 16.00 (roughly US$29.00); most of them were under a tenner. I was never that much into films, and still amn't really (if nothing else, I lack the patience to watch most films in one sitting; strikes me as ironic that since the dawn of attention-sapping MTV, most films have gone from just over 90 minutes to at least two hours, and frequently 135 minutes). But DVD *is* way more watchable than VHS.
I'm not going to dis VHS or video cassettes in general; they're great for something that was basically designed in the early 1970s, and for time-shifting TV, they're great. But they *always* felt vaguely trashy for watching anything of quality (and I realise that I felt this way *before* DVD arrived).
Yeah; my comments about China did not take into account the 'Communist' party's self-preservation instinct.
Of course, when those in power have to choose between the good of the country and their retaining power, they will choose to remain power.
The Chinese government is, regardless of what they claim, no more 'socialist' or 'communist' than they are 'democratic' (which is in the name of the country, just like it was with East Germany). They are a self-serving dictatorship which came to power using that as its basis, but the ideology is now long-gone.
Regarding the "not American" comment. It was context for the rest of my comment. Nothing more.
Since Slashdot is (like it or not) US-based and US-biased, I didn't want to hide behind the implicit assumption of American-ness, since I felt this would be lying by omission and possibly confuse the argument. My basis of argument is not the same as yours. That might or might not colour it. No big deal beyond what I said.
You said " At some point, China too will be an information economy (hosting the Olympics might help!), but if they don't fundamentally shift their take on this issue, they'll end up having their own internal, industrial civil war, and be shocked - shocked! - that every entity in China is stealing from every other entity in China."
Like I said, if China has any common sense, they'd sort that out when it began to be a problem. Of course, there would be nothing stopping them applying higher standards of protection within their own country than to works originating outside China (as the US did at one stage). On the other hand, other countries wouldn't like this, so it would probably be in their interest to apply IP protection more fairly.
And regarding the Nazis comment; it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though I'd hoped that would have been clear from the winking smiley at the end.
The biggest problem I had with the film was that it was wooden and boring. Sure, there were quite a lot of things (including the ones you mentioned) that got on my nerves, but the film was such a deadening experience that I couldn't be bothered expending much mental effort on them.
The APU was just a fairly obvious example of the stupidity and lack of thought in the movie; it was symptomatic. Not a big deal in itself, just the thing my brain seized on to sum up all that was wrong with the movie.
Personally, I think the film's smaller flaws are blinding you to its major flaws (to paraphrase Douglas Adams).
Didn't it really get on your tits that what should have been a scene of major importance (SPOILER...) Trinity's death, had absolutely no emotional impact? Thanks, in part to "Canoe" Reeves' lack of acting ability...
I've got the previous two films on DVD, the damn thing is in every sale going, and yet I still can't bring myself to fork out money for it.
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I noticed that The Blade Runner is conspicuously missing.
If they were rating the overall DVD package, and not just the film on its own merits, then damn right it shouldn't be in there.
The current transfer (at least the one available in the UK) is quite dark, and the quality is nothing special. If I remember correctly (and I haven't bought it, because I reckon they'll bring out a better transfer/set), it includes next-to-no extras.
Trust me; I am *no* Star Wars fanboy- I reckon the trilogy is in general way overrated. But I'll take "Return of the Jedi" over "Matrix Revolutions" anyday. At least Jedi was an entertaining film, M3 was just wooden, po-faced and *boring*.
I thought the APUs were damn stupid too. Especially the way they waved the mechanical arms in the air when they were massed together like that. Possibly the biggest display of brain-dead testosterone-stuffed macho bullshit war-movie posturing. Look, when you have an exoskeleton weighing, what?... 2 or 3 tons, you don't wave the damn thing around in front of your neighbour- who, of course, doesn't have any protection in front of himself. Complete fucking bullshit.
And this contrasts very badly indeed with the first film which was, as mainstream cinema, brilliant and innovative.
i wnat tr0n!!
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Tron was an interesting selection from the 'complete DVD' point of view. The 20th Anniversary set (*not* 25th; it came out in 1982) had some interesting stuff from it; notably, it provided insight into why the film was technically brilliant for the time, but horribly lacklustre when it came to the story and characters.
Basically, the actors didn't really "get" the concept. As they said on the DVD, this was almost 20 years before 'The Matrix', computers were new and mysterious to most people, and... they just didn't get it. You can see that they tried, but the characters just never come to life in the way that they should. Some of that is down to the wooden dialogue, but the inability of the leads to place themselves in that situation, reliant on "kludge" explanations (of the nature of the characters and their origins) for technophobes, is in my opinion, probably to blame just as much.
The other problem that came to light when viewing the DVD was that the film was *so* technically demanding, they didn't have the same freedom to rework and rearrange the material that a more conventional film might have.
Enough negatives; it's when watching the documentary (which was well worthwhile, despite excessive reliance on "talking heads" and little behind-the-scenes footage), that it becomes apparent how technically brilliant Tron was. Not so much as an innovative CGI movie (which, of course, it is), but for its original and demanding use of multilayered, back-lit animation. And here's the question; are the computer scenes in Tron live-action, or animation?
I'd still say live-action, but if you watch the documentary, and see how they had to filter, matte, break down, retouch and merge these basic live-action scenes to produce the fantasy world that they ended up with, you'll understand why I asked the question.
One thing stuck with me from that documentary; they said that Tron was the first, and likely to be the last film that was produced in that manner.
As a complete film, Tron may be sorely flawed, but it's for the reasons given above that it should be in every geek's DVD collection.
(Before I proceed, I should point out that I'm not American, which will obviously give me a different viewpoint).
A lot of what you said was valid, and insightful. However, it had to be pointed out that your country's economy was founded, in part, on what might be considered 'theft' of other countries' IP. This changed, not because someone woke up one morning and saw that it was 'wrong', but because the situation had changed such that it was in the US's interest to have stronger mutual IP agreements.
You say that you didn't take part in this; of course you didn't, but you enjoy the benefits of an economy built on such behaviour- right, or wrong. To criticise other countries for doing roughly the same thing at an early stage in their economic development seems distinctly unfair.
You may be right to say that this is not good for China; I suspect that, like the US before it, China would recognise this in its own good time and change its behaviour accordingly without outside forces. (Or you could argue that the situation China is now in is the one the US was in 100 or so years ago).
Personally, I'm not an "information wants to be free" idealist; I plan on creating a lot of stuff in my lifetime, and I want it to be protected under appropriate laws.
However, I am strongly opposed to the Disney-style extension of copyright for longer and longer periods. I don't see anyone from Disney lining up to pay the descendants of the original authors of the stories that they based much of *their* IP on, so it seems it has little to do with principle, and everything to do with protecting their own interest ("Well, duh!").
With reference to "playing by the same rules". Whose rules? Rules that suit those in a mature economy (built on rather *less* stringent IP protection) that now stands to benefit from strict IP? Or mutually agreed rules that would benefit everyone? (Nah... I'm not really naive enough to believe that that would happen, even if everyone could happily agree, which they couldn't).
As I said above, regargless of your personal behaviour, recognise that the economy you benefit from is built on freer attitudes towards IP; attitudes that have now matured. Ultimately, I think IP is a good thing if used wisely, but it can equally be a blunt tool to stifle rival economies.
Oh, and I think you brought the Nazis into your argument at some stage. By all rights, this means I get to win the argument, but I'll let you off the hook on that one;)
The whole point is that, to Chinese industry (and Korea, too), every bit of hard intellectual work that the the western world does is simply considered free for the taking. They are building their economy on theft, and figuring that they can build up a culture of actual innovation some other day when they no longer have people smarter than them to steal from.
Also, bear in mind that in the UK (for undergraduate courses at least; I don't have experience of taught-Masters), the courses generally don't rely on specific textbooks to the same extent as the US (although this varies; I've done some courses which *did* follow a single textbook closely- some others didn't at all).
This is a double-edged sword. It means you're more likely to get away with not buying the books in many cases (if the book *is* essential, it'll be obvious soon enough), but some of the "recommendations" I've had made weren't particularly useful, nor applicable to the course (Somerville's "Software Engineering" and the Tanenbaum co-authored "Distributed Systems" being the two worst offenders IMHO).
Give the programmers some rest. They produce better products that way.
The premise of your argument is wrong; you assume that the #1 priority of the people in power is to produce the best product possible.
The #1 priority of people in power is to sell as many units as possible for as high a price as possible, and if that means shipping a lousy product for Christmas, then so be it.
BTW, a large proportion of real models are *not* the stereotypical 'eyes popping out, tongue drooling' well-endowed types that men like; if anything, most of them have small to medium breasts and seem to be chosen for symmetry of facial features and flawlessness of complexion.
To put it bluntly, big tits might sell to men, but they aren't necessarily what designers are looking for to show off their work.
Now maybe the moral problem comes in when you get paid by people stuffing dollar bills down your underwear...but who am I to decide what peoples' morals are?
By the way, in such cases, stick to dollar bills and higher; I paid them in pennies and assorted small change once, and for some reason they did *not* like that at all.
I don't know why; it's not like I'm stingey. There must have been at *least* $9.50 worth in there.
And I'm sure the charity really appreciated the incomplete version of Hexen.
Amen; what on *earth* were Amazon thinking when they suggested donating an incomplete game to a charity shop?! (*)
I've had stuff like a scanner, which I spent ages trying to get to work, couldn't even figure out if the hardware or drivers were faulty, and... someone might have got use out of it if they had infinite patience and intelligence. But I didn't want to risk some poor sod getting it in a charity shop and having as many headaches as I did with it; so the fscker got trashed.
(*) Unless it was playable without the missing disc (e.g. I have a version of The Sims which came with optional add-on packs on separate disks). But I doubt that...
Dynamically-reprogrammable Processor HARDWARE?
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
How about CPUs that can modify their own hardware-functionality on the fly, and very fast?
I know that programmable-hardware devices are already well-established, but what I am considering is something that can do this on the fly, and repeatedly.
Question is, how much performance improvement would this give?
For goshssakes, people, the computers we have now are already insanely over-powered. How many more gigahertz do we need my life already?
Amen; I've been thinking for a few years now that
it might be interesting, and *possibly* beneficial, to stop all processor development, and see how much more speed we could get out of our x MHz CPUs. I suspect that if CPU development stopped tommorow, optimisation would improve vastly, and promote many interesting new developments in computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend who's father is a professional photographer. He has gigabytes and gigabytes of images stored for his customers, should they want to order re-prints. They're thinking about setting up raid terabyte file server. I can certainyl say that this is good news for them!
Is he really going to convert that many JPGs into some obscure format that isn't widely-supported just to save some space? I wouldn't.
It reminds me of people saying we should use Ogg Vorbis instead of MP3 because the sound quality is better for a given bitrate. True, but given that I could fit my entire CD collection and P2Ped MP3s (*cough* I meant *legally* downloaded MP3s) onto the 20Gb iPod at what I would consider an acceptable level of compression (192Kbps, notlame-encoded (*)), the hassle of switching to a relatively poorly-supported format just isn't worth it.
BTW, I'm definitely interested to hear how your father's friend stores his images; as another reply said, does he really store them as JPEGs, or are they uncompressed?
If the latter, I'd guess that he'll need incredible amounts of storage space, and a terabyte might not be *that* big.
(*) I find it incredible that I can get listenable MP3s at 128Kbps- though I prefer 192- and yet I download some at the same bitrate and there is very obvious artefacting. No wonder 128Kbps has a bad reputation; people out there are either using lousy encoders, or they are converting files that have already been previously compressed at least once.
>> I just installed an 800Gb hard disk in my system.
> I always wondered how much space it took to keep track of who's been naughty and who's been nice...
800 marketing gigabytes = 800 * 10^9 bytes.
6 billion people on earth = 6 * 10^9.
Therefore, each person gets allocated 800/6 = 133 bytes each. Enough for a brief note, and no more.
Incidentally, I expected there would be *plenty* of space before I did the calculation.
As far as I know, its Arabic origins favour the soft-'j' pronounciation.
My copy of Akira was excessive because it was just a vanilla two-disc set spread across two boxes for no good reason. It wasn't even a nice looking box.
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, some films still haven't been released properly. Blade Runner, for example. I haven't seen the DVD all the way through (to be honest, I'm not that big a fan of the film), but even at a glance, I wasn't really impressed with the picture-quality. Having read reviews of it, it's apparently quite a poor transfer (not anamorphic AFAIK, so it has the *same damn problem* as my letterbox VHS), and there are quite a few other problems listed.
Plus, the film comes with no extras IIRC. Ideally, Blade Runner should come with a sparkling print, and a copy of *both* versions (two-disc set) at a reasonable price. Personally, I think they'll definitely do that at some stage (it'll be overpriced at first, then appear in a sale), so I'm sticking with my VHS for now.
On a less prestigious level, the current DVD transfer of Top Gun (done in the late 90s IIRC) is poor; apparently Paramount were against DVDs in the early stages, and their transfers aren't that great. So there are a number of films out there, either on DVD or not, that still need a decent DVD release.
And, frankly, Hollywood toss is Hollywood toss and I wouldn't waste time with third-rate Blockbusters regardless of the extras.
Can you give me a link to that oversized tin-box version of Akira, BTW?
Conversely, I'd argue that buying a DVD because the packaging is nice, the extras are long or the image quality is impressive is just _so_ 1999.
What? The fashionable mags have told you that it's passe, so you don't do that now, but you would have in 1999?
What does 1999 have to do with it anyway?
I *would* buy a disc of a crap film if I liked the box enough on its own to merit buying it. I've never been in that situation though, and generally I hate box-sets as overpriced crap bought by people with (a) too much money, or (b) *way* too much interest in a particular film(s). In the latter case, the box-set having a single gimmick that gives rabid fans an excuse to buy yet another copy of their favourite movie.
I mean, the new Matrix boxset came in a version with a bust of Neo's head, and though the transparent plastic containing the stacked discs was nice, it struck me as being... well, see above. I don't like gratuitous bloat in packaging and stuff like that anyway.
I mean, it pissed me off that my copy of Akira came on two discs in *two separate cases*. Why?! Did they think it would look better than putting the two discs in one case?
The most expensive DVD I have cost approx UKP 16.00 (roughly US$29.00); most of them were under a tenner. I was never that much into films, and still amn't really (if nothing else, I lack the patience to watch most films in one sitting; strikes me as ironic that since the dawn of attention-sapping MTV, most films have gone from just over 90 minutes to at least two hours, and frequently 135 minutes). But DVD *is* way more watchable than VHS.
I'm not going to dis VHS or video cassettes in general; they're great for something that was basically designed in the early 1970s, and for time-shifting TV, they're great. But they *always* felt vaguely trashy for watching anything of quality (and I realise that I felt this way *before* DVD arrived).
Yeah; my comments about China did not take into account the 'Communist' party's self-preservation instinct.
Of course, when those in power have to choose between the good of the country and their retaining power, they will choose to remain power.
The Chinese government is, regardless of what they claim, no more 'socialist' or 'communist' than they are 'democratic' (which is in the name of the country, just like it was with East Germany). They are a self-serving dictatorship which came to power using that as its basis, but the ideology is now long-gone.
Regarding the "not American" comment. It was context for the rest of my comment. Nothing more.
Since Slashdot is (like it or not) US-based and US-biased, I didn't want to hide behind the implicit assumption of American-ness, since I felt this would be lying by omission and possibly confuse the argument. My basis of argument is not the same as yours. That might or might not colour it. No big deal beyond what I said.
You said " At some point, China too will be an information economy (hosting the Olympics might help!), but if they don't fundamentally shift their take on this issue, they'll end up having their own internal, industrial civil war, and be shocked - shocked! - that every entity in China is stealing from every other entity in China."
Like I said, if China has any common sense, they'd sort that out when it began to be a problem. Of course, there would be nothing stopping them applying higher standards of protection within their own country than to works originating outside China (as the US did at one stage). On the other hand, other countries wouldn't like this, so it would probably be in their interest to apply IP protection more fairly.
And regarding the Nazis comment; it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though I'd hoped that would have been clear from the winking smiley at the end.
The biggest problem I had with the film was that it was wooden and boring. Sure, there were quite a lot of things (including the ones you mentioned) that got on my nerves, but the film was such a deadening experience that I couldn't be bothered expending much mental effort on them.
The APU was just a fairly obvious example of the stupidity and lack of thought in the movie; it was symptomatic. Not a big deal in itself, just the thing my brain seized on to sum up all that was wrong with the movie.
Personally, I think the film's smaller flaws are blinding you to its major flaws (to paraphrase Douglas Adams).
Didn't it really get on your tits that what should have been a scene of major importance (SPOILER...) Trinity's death, had absolutely no emotional impact? Thanks, in part to "Canoe" Reeves' lack of acting ability...
I've got the previous two films on DVD, the damn thing is in every sale going, and yet I still can't bring myself to fork out money for it.
I noticed that The Blade Runner is conspicuously missing.
If they were rating the overall DVD package, and not just the film on its own merits, then damn right it shouldn't be in there.
The current transfer (at least the one available in the UK) is quite dark, and the quality is nothing special. If I remember correctly (and I haven't bought it, because I reckon they'll bring out a better transfer/set), it includes next-to-no extras.
Trust me; I am *no* Star Wars fanboy- I reckon the trilogy is in general way overrated. But I'll take "Return of the Jedi" over "Matrix Revolutions" anyday. At least Jedi was an entertaining film, M3 was just wooden, po-faced and *boring*.
I thought the APUs were damn stupid too. Especially the way they waved the mechanical arms in the air when they were massed together like that. Possibly the biggest display of brain-dead testosterone-stuffed macho bullshit war-movie posturing. Look, when you have an exoskeleton weighing, what?... 2 or 3 tons, you don't wave the damn thing around in front of your neighbour- who, of course, doesn't have any protection in front of himself. Complete fucking bullshit.
And this contrasts very badly indeed with the first film which was, as mainstream cinema, brilliant and innovative.
Tron was an interesting selection from the 'complete DVD' point of view. The 20th Anniversary set (*not* 25th; it came out in 1982) had some interesting stuff from it; notably, it provided insight into why the film was technically brilliant for the time, but horribly lacklustre when it came to the story and characters.
Basically, the actors didn't really "get" the concept. As they said on the DVD, this was almost 20 years before 'The Matrix', computers were new and mysterious to most people, and... they just didn't get it. You can see that they tried, but the characters just never come to life in the way that they should. Some of that is down to the wooden dialogue, but the inability of the leads to place themselves in that situation, reliant on "kludge" explanations (of the nature of the characters and their origins) for technophobes, is in my opinion, probably to blame just as much.
The other problem that came to light when viewing the DVD was that the film was *so* technically demanding, they didn't have the same freedom to rework and rearrange the material that a more conventional film might have.
Enough negatives; it's when watching the documentary (which was well worthwhile, despite excessive reliance on "talking heads" and little behind-the-scenes footage), that it becomes apparent how technically brilliant Tron was. Not so much as an innovative CGI movie (which, of course, it is), but for its original and demanding use of multilayered, back-lit animation. And here's the question; are the computer scenes in Tron live-action, or animation?
I'd still say live-action, but if you watch the documentary, and see how they had to filter, matte, break down, retouch and merge these basic live-action scenes to produce the fantasy world that they ended up with, you'll understand why I asked the question.
One thing stuck with me from that documentary; they said that Tron was the first, and likely to be the last film that was produced in that manner.
As a complete film, Tron may be sorely flawed, but it's for the reasons given above that it should be in every geek's DVD collection.
(Before I proceed, I should point out that I'm not American, which will obviously give me a different viewpoint).
;)
A lot of what you said was valid, and insightful. However, it had to be pointed out that your country's economy was founded, in part, on what might be considered 'theft' of other countries' IP. This changed, not because someone woke up one morning and saw that it was 'wrong', but because the situation had changed such that it was in the US's interest to have stronger mutual IP agreements.
You say that you didn't take part in this; of course you didn't, but you enjoy the benefits of an economy built on such behaviour- right, or wrong. To criticise other countries for doing roughly the same thing at an early stage in their economic development seems distinctly unfair.
You may be right to say that this is not good for China; I suspect that, like the US before it, China would recognise this in its own good time and change its behaviour accordingly without outside forces. (Or you could argue that the situation China is now in is the one the US was in 100 or so years ago).
Personally, I'm not an "information wants to be free" idealist; I plan on creating a lot of stuff in my lifetime, and I want it to be protected under appropriate laws.
However, I am strongly opposed to the Disney-style extension of copyright for longer and longer periods. I don't see anyone from Disney lining up to pay the descendants of the original authors of the stories that they based much of *their* IP on, so it seems it has little to do with principle, and everything to do with protecting their own interest ("Well, duh!").
With reference to "playing by the same rules". Whose rules? Rules that suit those in a mature economy (built on rather *less* stringent IP protection) that now stands to benefit from strict IP? Or mutually agreed rules that would benefit everyone? (Nah... I'm not really naive enough to believe that that would happen, even if everyone could happily agree, which they couldn't).
As I said above, regargless of your personal behaviour, recognise that the economy you benefit from is built on freer attitudes towards IP; attitudes that have now matured. Ultimately, I think IP is a good thing if used wisely, but it can equally be a blunt tool to stifle rival economies.
Oh, and I think you brought the Nazis into your argument at some stage. By all rights, this means I get to win the argument, but I'll let you off the hook on that one
If China doesn't comply, are the US government going to threaten them with banning imports of Chinese-made goods?
Ha ha ha ha ha. No.
Can you imagine the riots in the streets if the price of a DVD player went up from $30 to $100?
Plus, Wal-Mart would be forced to stage a coup-d'etat to ensure their own survival.
The whole point is that, to Chinese industry (and Korea, too), every bit of hard intellectual work that the the western world does is simply considered free for the taking. They are building their economy on theft, and figuring that they can build up a culture of actual innovation some other day when they no longer have people smarter than them to steal from.
Oh, the irony.
Also, bear in mind that in the UK (for undergraduate courses at least; I don't have experience of taught-Masters), the courses generally don't rely on specific textbooks to the same extent as the US (although this varies; I've done some courses which *did* follow a single textbook closely- some others didn't at all).
This is a double-edged sword. It means you're more likely to get away with not buying the books in many cases (if the book *is* essential, it'll be obvious soon enough), but some of the "recommendations" I've had made weren't particularly useful, nor applicable to the course (Somerville's "Software Engineering" and the Tanenbaum co-authored "Distributed Systems" being the two worst offenders IMHO).
C'mon. You know you're glad the McRib is back.
Classic one-line response. Why did you AC this?...
Give the programmers some rest. They produce better products that way.
The premise of your argument is wrong; you assume that the #1 priority of the people in power is to produce the best product possible.
The #1 priority of people in power is to sell as many units as possible for as high a price as possible, and if that means shipping a lousy product for Christmas, then so be it.
Fashion: homosexual men, designing clothes for pre-pubescent girls.
The version I heard was homosexual men designing clothes for teenage boys...
BTW, a large proportion of real models are *not* the stereotypical 'eyes popping out, tongue drooling' well-endowed types that men like; if anything, most of them have small to medium breasts and seem to be chosen for symmetry of facial features and flawlessness of complexion.
To put it bluntly, big tits might sell to men, but they aren't necessarily what designers are looking for to show off their work.
They really, really don't like it when you pay them in pennys in those rolls you get from the bank.
There's always the risk of them getting mistaken for ladyboys when you do that...
The screens on the first page look nifty. It would be even cooler if they joined better (i.e. no thick dark bars).
Am I supposed to be impressed by that?
It looks like one of those TV-walls that were last cool twenty years ago.
Now maybe the moral problem comes in when you get paid by people stuffing dollar bills down your underwear...but who am I to decide what peoples' morals are?
By the way, in such cases, stick to dollar bills and higher; I paid them in pennies and assorted small change once, and for some reason they did *not* like that at all.
I don't know why; it's not like I'm stingey. There must have been at *least* $9.50 worth in there.
And I'm sure the charity really appreciated the incomplete version of Hexen.
Amen; what on *earth* were Amazon thinking when they suggested donating an incomplete game to a charity shop?! (*)
I've had stuff like a scanner, which I spent ages trying to get to work, couldn't even figure out if the hardware or drivers were faulty, and... someone might have got use out of it if they had infinite patience and intelligence. But I didn't want to risk some poor sod getting it in a charity shop and having as many headaches as I did with it; so the fscker got trashed.
(*) Unless it was playable without the missing disc (e.g. I have a version of The Sims which came with optional add-on packs on separate disks). But I doubt that...
How about CPUs that can modify their own hardware-functionality on the fly, and very fast?
I know that programmable-hardware devices are already well-established, but what I am considering is something that can do this on the fly, and repeatedly.
Question is, how much performance improvement would this give?
For goshssakes, people, the computers we have now are already insanely over-powered. How many more gigahertz do we need my life already?
Amen; I've been thinking for a few years now that it might be interesting, and *possibly* beneficial, to stop all processor development, and see how much more speed we could get out of our x MHz CPUs. I suspect that if CPU development stopped tommorow, optimisation would improve vastly, and promote many interesting new developments in computer science.