Imagine if I didn't have to use a developing base that sucked (both OS and tool),
Given that this was some years ago, Access was probably the best "RAD" database tool available (If you can consider a MDB as an app, that is). Regardless of where we are at with stuff like VB and the like today.
When it comes down to it, the time it takes for you to make a functional database system complete with reports and such in Access is a drop in the bucket from what it takes to do a stand alone system using a real programming language. Completely from the aspect of a n00b, that is.
And please, don't feel slighted by me saying this. I got my first IS job because I could work in Access. I was a self taught and my job allowed me to use Access as a front end to an Informix database that otherwise we had no access to as users. It was quick and dirty. It was clunky as hell. But if we wanted custom reports it was that we either delt with Access or went to a development group and let them write it in 4GL or 3GL or whatever and have it take weeks to complete in what I could do in under an hour in most cases. They simply had enough on their own plate without worrying about us. We also deal in time sensitive issues when fulfilling customers orders so we don't always have the time to wait for a report.
Now, isn't that more or less the situation with Open Source?
I'll be honest, I don't see any reason that work done in Access shouldn't be considered open source if you are allowed to release it to the public. Granted, it's not coding. At least by some people standards. And it doesn't have the wide transportability. But there are still tons of people who could potentially benefit from the release of the work.
Is there an emulator of this device out there or does the machine actually run a common distro of Linux? I don't know much about the project, obviously, but I'm wondering if this is more like a normal functioning laptop or more like a LeapFrog learning device.
While I commend your statement I wouldn't bother feeding the trolls.
But yeah, I work with over 600 Windows 2000 and XP machines everyday. This idea that you need to constantly reboot or that BSODs are common problems is just bullshit. I can't remember the last time I've seen a BSOD that wasn't due to hardware failure.
The Economist has an article summarizing the current state of distributed computing (think SETI@home and its ilk), which suggests that distributed-human projects are going to be the next big thing
After all, just look at BotNets. How much more insight do we need than that?
If only Joe Sixpack (who leaves his computer on 24/7 even tho he only uses it about a half hour per day) would understand that every clock cycle is sacred, every clock cycle is great...
If you really think they're the same, that just proves you're not paying attention. Just look at their positions on such things as abortion, health care, the war in Iraq, executive power, the basic question of whether government can effectively solve problems... they're quite different, and those issues matter.
Bullshit. They claim they're different in these cases but when the other party takes power nothing really changes. Hell, we had both Dems and Reps in majority control of the congress and the presidency and all the great scams that they've declared to having working for the American people still go nowhere. You've definitely been fooled.
That "two party politicking" isn't the media or The Man keeping you down; it's an unfortunate fact of our electoral system (see Duverger's law). We have a two party system, get used to it. The way to change it isn't to make up crap about both parties being the same. If you don't like the two party system, then direct that energy into pushing for voting reform, because the only way we're going to escape the two party system is to use proportional representation or another voting method like approval or ranked choice.
Who says that I don't support reform? In the mean time do you expect me to just sit on my hands and do nothing? What right do you have to question my sincerity? It seems trollish to me.
BTW: Duverger's law isn't a law at all. There are noted examples where his hypothesis hasn't held true. Thus it's not a law. You guys who run around quoting "laws" that aren't laws really give me a reason to chuckle and wonder where people have gone so wrong.
For all editions of the movie save the original theatrical release (which the director, one of the lead actors, and most fans have disavowed), this is a closed issue.
Well, as much as I really hate to reply to this since you're obviously someone who sees his OPINION as right and anyone else as wrong...
I frankly don't give a damn about what Scott, Ford or anyone else thinks. I'm free to enjoy any version of the film that I damn well please.
Given that and given the concept that Decker doesn't seem to know that he's a replicant and that it's unknown if Batty knows that Decker's a replicant I can (and will) interpret the scene as I wish as well. Just because Scott shot the film from the aspect of Decker being a replicant, it doesn't mean that everyone in the film knows it.
You're making just as many assumptions as I am and coming off like it's fact and clearly it's not.
The reality is that it comes down to interpretation. Again, as my previous post said, take from the film for what it is. That's your right but I'm allowed to see it differently regardless of what you think.
And have you ever stopped to think that the kinship ideal had more to do with Batty showing that he wasn't a machine but rather a conscious being? I think the question about Decker being a replicant as having value but I'm one of the camp that doesn't think that the answer is clear.
Stop the money from reaching their banks, dont buy their products, dont listen to their music, dont see their movies
I recall saying this years ago when this question first arose and people kept on using the old "but it's not worth the price" argument to justify their theft. Are people so naive that they really think that this is a downhill battle?
If it's not worth paying for than it's not worth owning. For the most part it's piracy from the "but it's not worth the price" crowd that has allowed things to sink to this new low. The industry is convinced that these are lost sales, and some of them are. If you honestly believe it's not worth the price it's better to truely stick it to the industry by not bothering with the product at all regardless of how low the price goes.
Yeah, because only Republicans are backing this up.
When are you people going to wake up and see that the two party politicking that is so prominent in the media is just another way to keep you obeying? If you really think that Democrats and Republicans are so different it just proves that you've been fooled.
Is this new or interesting to anyone who has spent anytime watching generation after generation of technology go by?
This reminds me of a commercial that Best Buy was running a few years ago about a guy who was looking to something for his brother for Christmas. The Best Buy Guy(tm) was asking what kind of person his brother was and there was this cheesy flashback of a guy with a mullet in a Camero who was all stoked about buying "the latest technology" (a VCR with a tethered remote). The Best Buy Guy and the brother kind of laughed about it as if to say "he thought that was cool?". But we all know damn well that if this was 1982 again Best Buy would be pushing these things off on the consumer as the latest "must have" tech. anyway...
It's the same here. Companies and stores dick on yesteryear's models/version to make the new stuff seem more of a bargain. How else do you think that EA keeps selling the same sports games to the same gimps year after year? It's certainly not like they're changing the game play that much and as we all know the story line isn't changing.
Arrrgh where were you when Roy Batty uttered his last words as his biological clock killed him right before that in the same scene?
Yeah, Roy's line did help the scene along and is certainly worth noting but I found Decker's lines more meaningful.
Were you in the theater bathroom taking a piss?
So people don't see the movie you you do and now we're shit for it?
OK granted "C-beams" and the Tannhauser Gate whatever that is sounds like total bullshit but that was way better than the graceless and forgettable voiceover from Harrison Ford that followed.
The idea that Decker's voice over was graceless is what makes it more moving to me. Decker is drained from his experience but is still left to *LIVE* with it. As far as I'm concerned Batty had it easy in comparison to what Decker had to deal with. A man's dying words aren't as important as what he says when he thinks he'll have to own up to them in the future.
I can't tell whether the movie would hang together well without the voice overs because I can't get them out of my head.
IMHO, "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die." is the best line in just about any film ever.
This one line makes anything else in the film worth enduring (not that the film isn't good without the line) and is the crux of the entire film. I guess other people see it in other lights but it's hard for me not to see the entire film leading up to this one line. I just can not accept that this film is about anything outside of the questions that artificial life will dwell on in the future when we produce it. I think it's great that science fiction discusses these questions. All of the robot/alien junk is just crap in comparison to the hard questions that will arise from our journey from natural human beings into a synthetic society where anything goes. With the stem cell debate being what it is we are kinda starting to ask these questions today in a round about way.
Still, see the film for what it is but it's still fantastic that all of the crap about cops and killing skin jobs and the Tyrell corporation comes down to one beautifully made point about our inevitable future. These questions are neat to address in fiction but warns us of the moral puzzles we will have to solve in the future.
I'm left wondering everytime after the movie; what will we decide and who will we answer to when the question becomes more than hypothetical.
That's science fiction to me. Again, just my humble opinion.
Given your fucked up nick I'm not surprised by your flippant attitude. Also, note the non-bold section as it applies as well. It does give the artist control of their work. Exclusive control. ("by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings")
And the real bottomline is that copyright still exists. This law grants them even more of this exclusive right to their own work for a limited time (what does that sound exactly like?). Until you displace the protection of copyright it certainly is their protection under the law. The constitution does not fly in the face of this fact. It actually supports it! That makes it as good as anything else written into the constitution.
And the distribution of copyrighted works is certainly illegal under copyright law. That sums it up. There is no loophole. And if you think you're so friggin brilliant and insightful into the matter why don't you take it to court and find out how much your twisted logic holds up by the ruling of the ultimate interpreters of the constitution?
Oh, so the the author's exclusive right to their own creation (as said in the constitution) isn't really a right? What?
Copyright does give the creator control of the work. Period. Your quote of the constitution supports this and people trading these works removes the author's right to control of their own works.
If you're willing to pay 40 bucks a flight for simple internet access you'd think you'd be willing to spend a bit more and buy an extra battery for the laptop.
What if more than 50% of the people illegally download music, shouldn't the law then be repealed?
We still have speed limits, don't we?
Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
What did happen to it? What happened to the rights of artists to control their own works? How is it that your "illegally downloading" (you said it yourself, don't point the finger at me) of music is to take over the rights of those who produce it?
The idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you get to trample the rights of others just so you can enjoy the latest top 40 hit. How is it that we, as a people, have lost sight of this? Why is it that we feel that if something has the potential to make us happy that we suddenly have some God given right to it? This idea of using something that you are not licensed to use simply because you feel you have the right to it is a skewed vision of how the system does and should work. I simply can't understand why people feel that if they want something and they don't feel like paying for it that stealing it is ok. And to top it off we now have people acting like it's their right to do so!
Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity?
This certainly isn't limited to the US. While the contrasts of these sex and violence is easy to see on US TV, this is probably more common than most people think.
Part of what is at issue is the business aspect of TV. Why challenge the FCC and community standards when what is being produced today is selling just fine? The only time most businesses rock the boat is when profits are in question. If the audience would turn their back on TV you might see action but, IMHO, I have to wonder the value that would be gained from being washed in violence to being washed in sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if I didn't have to use a developing base that sucked (both OS and tool),
Given that this was some years ago, Access was probably the best "RAD" database tool available (If you can consider a MDB as an app, that is). Regardless of where we are at with stuff like VB and the like today.
When it comes down to it, the time it takes for you to make a functional database system complete with reports and such in Access is a drop in the bucket from what it takes to do a stand alone system using a real programming language. Completely from the aspect of a n00b, that is.
And please, don't feel slighted by me saying this. I got my first IS job because I could work in Access. I was a self taught and my job allowed me to use Access as a front end to an Informix database that otherwise we had no access to as users. It was quick and dirty. It was clunky as hell. But if we wanted custom reports it was that we either delt with Access or went to a development group and let them write it in 4GL or 3GL or whatever and have it take weeks to complete in what I could do in under an hour in most cases. They simply had enough on their own plate without worrying about us. We also deal in time sensitive issues when fulfilling customers orders so we don't always have the time to wait for a report.
Now, isn't that more or less the situation with Open Source?
I'll be honest, I don't see any reason that work done in Access shouldn't be considered open source if you are allowed to release it to the public. Granted, it's not coding. At least by some people standards. And it doesn't have the wide transportability. But there are still tons of people who could potentially benefit from the release of the work.
Is there an emulator of this device out there or does the machine actually run a common distro of Linux? I don't know much about the project, obviously, but I'm wondering if this is more like a normal functioning laptop or more like a LeapFrog learning device.
Just curious.
Left!
Word of the year in 2012? Über.
2013: Slashvertisement
2014: fucktard
2015:1337
While I commend your statement I wouldn't bother feeding the trolls.
But yeah, I work with over 600 Windows 2000 and XP machines everyday. This idea that you need to constantly reboot or that BSODs are common problems is just bullshit. I can't remember the last time I've seen a BSOD that wasn't due to hardware failure.
Two words Soy Bomb
The Economist has an article summarizing the current state of distributed computing (think SETI@home and its ilk), which suggests that distributed-human projects are going to be the next big thing
After all, just look at BotNets. How much more insight do we need than that?
If only Joe Sixpack (who leaves his computer on 24/7 even tho he only uses it about a half hour per day) would understand that every clock cycle is sacred, every clock cycle is great...
If only.
If you really think they're the same, that just proves you're not paying attention. Just look at their positions on such things as abortion, health care, the war in Iraq, executive power, the basic question of whether government can effectively solve problems... they're quite different, and those issues matter.
Bullshit. They claim they're different in these cases but when the other party takes power nothing really changes. Hell, we had both Dems and Reps in majority control of the congress and the presidency and all the great scams that they've declared to having working for the American people still go nowhere. You've definitely been fooled.
That "two party politicking" isn't the media or The Man keeping you down; it's an unfortunate fact of our electoral system (see Duverger's law). We have a two party system, get used to it. The way to change it isn't to make up crap about both parties being the same. If you don't like the two party system, then direct that energy into pushing for voting reform, because the only way we're going to escape the two party system is to use proportional representation or another voting method like approval or ranked choice.
Who says that I don't support reform? In the mean time do you expect me to just sit on my hands and do nothing? What right do you have to question my sincerity? It seems trollish to me.
BTW: Duverger's law isn't a law at all. There are noted examples where his hypothesis hasn't held true. Thus it's not a law. You guys who run around quoting "laws" that aren't laws really give me a reason to chuckle and wonder where people have gone so wrong.
For all editions of the movie save the original theatrical release (which the director, one of the lead actors, and most fans have disavowed), this is a closed issue.
Well, as much as I really hate to reply to this since you're obviously someone who sees his OPINION as right and anyone else as wrong...
I frankly don't give a damn about what Scott, Ford or anyone else thinks. I'm free to enjoy any version of the film that I damn well please.
Given that and given the concept that Decker doesn't seem to know that he's a replicant and that it's unknown if Batty knows that Decker's a replicant I can (and will) interpret the scene as I wish as well. Just because Scott shot the film from the aspect of Decker being a replicant, it doesn't mean that everyone in the film knows it.
You're making just as many assumptions as I am and coming off like it's fact and clearly it's not.
If nothing less, you need to see the picture: it's awesome.
If you're one of the four people who got to see the picture before it became Slashdotted....
The reality is that it comes down to interpretation. Again, as my previous post said, take from the film for what it is. That's your right but I'm allowed to see it differently regardless of what you think.
And have you ever stopped to think that the kinship ideal had more to do with Batty showing that he wasn't a machine but rather a conscious being? I think the question about Decker being a replicant as having value but I'm one of the camp that doesn't think that the answer is clear.
Stop the money from reaching their banks, dont buy their products, dont listen to their music, dont see their movies
I recall saying this years ago when this question first arose and people kept on using the old "but it's not worth the price" argument to justify their theft. Are people so naive that they really think that this is a downhill battle?
If it's not worth paying for than it's not worth owning. For the most part it's piracy from the "but it's not worth the price" crowd that has allowed things to sink to this new low. The industry is convinced that these are lost sales, and some of them are. If you honestly believe it's not worth the price it's better to truely stick it to the industry by not bothering with the product at all regardless of how low the price goes.
Yeah, because only Republicans are backing this up.
When are you people going to wake up and see that the two party politicking that is so prominent in the media is just another way to keep you obeying? If you really think that Democrats and Republicans are so different it just proves that you've been fooled.
Stay asleep. They like you better that way.
Is this new or interesting to anyone who has spent anytime watching generation after generation of technology go by?
This reminds me of a commercial that Best Buy was running a few years ago about a guy who was looking to something for his brother for Christmas. The Best Buy Guy(tm) was asking what kind of person his brother was and there was this cheesy flashback of a guy with a mullet in a Camero who was all stoked about buying "the latest technology" (a VCR with a tethered remote). The Best Buy Guy and the brother kind of laughed about it as if to say "he thought that was cool?". But we all know damn well that if this was 1982 again Best Buy would be pushing these things off on the consumer as the latest "must have" tech. anyway...
It's the same here. Companies and stores dick on yesteryear's models/version to make the new stuff seem more of a bargain. How else do you think that EA keeps selling the same sports games to the same gimps year after year? It's certainly not like they're changing the game play that much and as we all know the story line isn't changing.
Damn, you're right. I forgot all about that. My bad.
You cannot hurry a wonder.
I'm sure they also accept Mastercard and Visa.
Arrrgh where were you when Roy Batty uttered his last words as his biological clock killed him right before that in the same scene?
Yeah, Roy's line did help the scene along and is certainly worth noting but I found Decker's lines more meaningful.
Were you in the theater bathroom taking a piss?
So people don't see the movie you you do and now we're shit for it?
OK granted "C-beams" and the Tannhauser Gate whatever that is sounds like total bullshit but that was way better than the graceless and forgettable voiceover from Harrison Ford that followed.
The idea that Decker's voice over was graceless is what makes it more moving to me. Decker is drained from his experience but is still left to *LIVE* with it. As far as I'm concerned Batty had it easy in comparison to what Decker had to deal with. A man's dying words aren't as important as what he says when he thinks he'll have to own up to them in the future.
I can't tell whether the movie would hang together well without the voice overs because I can't get them out of my head.
IMHO, "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die." is the best line in just about any film ever.
This one line makes anything else in the film worth enduring (not that the film isn't good without the line) and is the crux of the entire film. I guess other people see it in other lights but it's hard for me not to see the entire film leading up to this one line. I just can not accept that this film is about anything outside of the questions that artificial life will dwell on in the future when we produce it. I think it's great that science fiction discusses these questions. All of the robot/alien junk is just crap in comparison to the hard questions that will arise from our journey from natural human beings into a synthetic society where anything goes. With the stem cell debate being what it is we are kinda starting to ask these questions today in a round about way.
Still, see the film for what it is but it's still fantastic that all of the crap about cops and killing skin jobs and the Tyrell corporation comes down to one beautifully made point about our inevitable future. These questions are neat to address in fiction but warns us of the moral puzzles we will have to solve in the future.
I'm left wondering everytime after the movie; what will we decide and who will we answer to when the question becomes more than hypothetical.
That's science fiction to me. Again, just my humble opinion.
Given your fucked up nick I'm not surprised by your flippant attitude. Also, note the non-bold section as it applies as well. It does give the artist control of their work. Exclusive control. ("by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings")
And the real bottomline is that copyright still exists. This law grants them even more of this exclusive right to their own work for a limited time (what does that sound exactly like?). Until you displace the protection of copyright it certainly is their protection under the law. The constitution does not fly in the face of this fact. It actually supports it! That makes it as good as anything else written into the constitution.
And the distribution of copyrighted works is certainly illegal under copyright law. That sums it up. There is no loophole. And if you think you're so friggin brilliant and insightful into the matter why don't you take it to court and find out how much your twisted logic holds up by the ruling of the ultimate interpreters of the constitution?
Oh, so the the author's exclusive right to their own creation (as said in the constitution) isn't really a right? What?
Copyright does give the creator control of the work. Period. Your quote of the constitution supports this and people trading these works removes the author's right to control of their own works.
An e-book is just another plastic appliance, lacking in craft.
That's exactly what the slide rule and abacus devotees used to say about the computer. Fancy that.
If you're willing to pay 40 bucks a flight for simple internet access you'd think you'd be willing to spend a bit more and buy an extra battery for the laptop.
So at what point does public will tip the scales and cause these laws to become moot and oppressive?
Moot and oppressive? What? I do not think it means what you think it means.
How legal is it to make a law that will actually cause the majority of law-abiding citizens to become criminals?
You mean like this one?
What if more than 50% of the people illegally download music, shouldn't the law then be repealed?
We still have speed limits, don't we?
Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
What did happen to it? What happened to the rights of artists to control their own works? How is it that your "illegally downloading" (you said it yourself, don't point the finger at me) of music is to take over the rights of those who produce it?
The idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you get to trample the rights of others just so you can enjoy the latest top 40 hit. How is it that we, as a people, have lost sight of this? Why is it that we feel that if something has the potential to make us happy that we suddenly have some God given right to it? This idea of using something that you are not licensed to use simply because you feel you have the right to it is a skewed vision of how the system does and should work. I simply can't understand why people feel that if they want something and they don't feel like paying for it that stealing it is ok. And to top it off we now have people acting like it's their right to do so!
Also, did you ever notice that in the US its ok for prime time tv to show someone's bullet riddled corpse, but its not ok for two people to be shown having sex, or even showing nudity?
This certainly isn't limited to the US. While the contrasts of these sex and violence is easy to see on US TV, this is probably more common than most people think.
Part of what is at issue is the business aspect of TV. Why challenge the FCC and community standards when what is being produced today is selling just fine? The only time most businesses rock the boat is when profits are in question. If the audience would turn their back on TV you might see action but, IMHO, I have to wonder the value that would be gained from being washed in violence to being washed in sex.