Luckily, it doesn't. Be innovative and unique in the 1980s. Make an online service (what, are you crazy?!), license an OS, don't sell it, think of a graphical way to use computers. Make a web browser. Big Business doesn't expect indepenant thinkers. They just sort of sneek up on them and become their own big businesses.
Make that three:
While the processor's design is still under wraps, the companies say Cell's capabilities will allow it to deliver one trillion calculations per second (trillion floating point calculations per second) or more of floating-point calculations. It will have the ability to do north of 1 trillion mathematical calculations per second
The number of people who complained about how hard the PS2 was going to be to program sort of got on my nerves. Who cares? You will program for what the people want, geek peon, hard or easy does not enter into the equation. The people a cheap box that performs well. If that makes it hard to program, that's your problem.
But a good GUI should allow people to work in the way best for them. If they want a mess, let them have a mess. (I have a mess...but its all in my "documents" "music" and other OSX defaults...but beyond that...)
This is so true. I had, until recently, a screaming AMD system and a two year old 300mhz G4. I ended up using the G4 for all my "day to day" usage, email, surfing, mp3s, quicken, word, etc, and using the AMD system for Maya and photoshop, etc. The fact is win2k is such a pain in the ass its not worth it. OS X, even slow, is much more painless to use day to day.
Re:News for Nerds. Stuff that matters?
on
HighWLAN
·
· Score: 1
Those developing the red-laser compression algorithms say, 'We can get a pretty good picture with a bit rate of 5 MB.' Well, the question is, how good is 'pretty good?'"
Microsoft is claimng that their product is "Pretty Good". If Windows95 was earthshatteringly good....
Yeah. I don't think I want to buy a DVD with this algorithm.
Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. I would have to say that ALREADY its really just easier to rent, buy or subscribe to netflix than it is to download movies. And 95% of the DiVX you see on the net is of significantly lower quality than a DVD anyway. If they keep their product that much better than a download, and that much easier, net piracy will never be a major threat to revenue.
I think the real point here is that Hollywood COULD use this to make a product that is significantly more compelling than the shit I could download for free. If they were selling movies on 1080i DVDs I would need to download an 80gb file to get the same quality...and store said 80gb file...the fact is, I'd rather shell out $20 to buy it or $4 to rent it. Piracy solved through the free market. (of course, its cheaper to buy some congresspeople and legislate it all away instead)
Does it make you feel good to dish out ehe hate? Its really easy to criticise things. I want to see your cg...what does it look like? It must be pretty damn good.
I have to say that I am sort of irritated by those who think that films they didn't like are some sort of moral affront. Is it that serious that someone spent their money making a movie they wanted to? Other people spent a lot less money seeing it, and a lot of them got their money's worth.
It is easy to cast your judgment on this film, as if the fact that you didn't enjoy it means that it has violated some sort of holy commandment. Incompetence is also a very harsh word. Movies are VERY difficult to make, and the people who made this one are VERY competent. Maybe it didn't turn out right, but it isn't because the people (real, actual people, who really did actually work hard) are worthy of capital punishment for failing to please you.
If you want to make "indy" movies you can, but they are always going to be indy movies. Epics like LoTR, which I think 95% of geeks like to see, just cost too damn much and take WAY more than two weekends a month.
Someone mod this up! I am getting sort of irritated at the ignorance displayed around this article. People seem to think that since Zimbabwe is in africa it must be filled with poor farmers, growing just enough to feed their families. Until recently it was more like the american midwest, huge commercial farms growing grain for sale and export. The poor farmer was supporting his family on his wages, not his grain.
Zimbabwe is not Somalia. It was not long ago an agricultural powerhouse. The "family farms" were enormous plantations that made profits selling most of there grain. The point slashdot missed is that this has NOTHING to do with genetic modification. It has everything to do with the fact that Mugabe doesn't want any aid, because starving people do what he wants them to.
The ACTUAL ugly complex reality, as posted elsewhere: Rober Mugabe is using this as an excuse to justify starvation as a weapon. There is no reason for starvation in Zimbabwe, most fields are unplanted. The president has forbidden farmers on landed marked for "redistribution" to grow food, and is almost certainly preventing food from reaching opponents. Paranoid lunatics should not be allowed to run countries.
But prices of goods reflect not the cost, but how much people are willing to pay.
Its not exploitation if AT&T charges more than their cost. Its exploitation if AT&T is abusing their monopoly power to artificially infate the price of a good. Which they aren't (yet... they probably could)...they are just trying to make the service more profitable, and provide a service level that is a better fit to the consumer. People have argued, like the poster here, that a bandwidth cap makes more sense to AT&T. Sure, but its a pain in the ass for the consumer, and very likely to piss them off. I think AT&T is smart here. The bandwidth hog-type will almost certainly opt for the highger bandwidth. The people who also opt for the higher speed but don't use much bandwidth will pay for the low speed users that hog the hell out of the bandwidth they have. It may not seem totally fair, but its a system that works without people having to think about bandwidth limits.
It seems strange to me how many slashdotter seems to deeply distrust the free market (it must be Microsoft that did it...). If there is a demand for this sort of service there will be a supply, I promise. As long as you have some money and something you want to spend it on, someone will find a way make a profit providing it.
This is something that bothers me more and more about film. Our eyes and ears have been wired into our brains since we had them. We are programmed to interpret and respond to this kind of stimulus at a very basic level, the ancient core of our brains. Visual and aural stimulation and response in a human kernal module.
Sitting in the middle row in a theater watching fiction is not like reading a book. For most low-level purposes it is real. The information in the film hasn't been processed by the concious mind at all. It is entertainment beemed broadband into the brainstem. Its a lot more like dreaming than reading, you very rarely need to think at all, even when watching fairly "heady" cinema. I don't know if there is research on this, but I think watching a film is very like dreaming. Notice also that the experience is designed to exclude any non-film stimuli, other sounds, images, etc. While in a cinema your entire world becomes that film. (I first noticed this was after seeing Event Horizonthe second time at home. On a small screen, where the film doesn't take over your mind its really just stupid crap. In the cinema it was a terrifying experience that left me emotionaly scarred for weeks)
What sort of long term effect on us and on society does film have? How often should we allow Hollywood to have root access to our brains?
Disclosure: I have a BA in cinema production from an accredited university. This means I have an seen way to many movies, know too much about them, and have a keenly developed ability to spout pages and pages of complete, total BS film theory nonsense....so what I say here should definetly be taken with a grain of salt
Its clear that the RIAA and MPIAA types see the writing on the wall: Their revenue stream is going to die as the market changes to adapt to new technology. Of course, instead of trying to adjust, they are atempting to legislate away the competition.
Luckily are multiple big guns, and plenty of lawyers. I think the poster is right, this will either come down in a market collapse, a hailstorm of litigation, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily, it doesn't. Be innovative and unique in the 1980s. Make an online service (what, are you crazy?!), license an OS, don't sell it, think of a graphical way to use computers. Make a web browser. Big Business doesn't expect indepenant thinkers. They just sort of sneek up on them and become their own big businesses.
Make that three: While the processor's design is still under wraps, the companies say Cell's capabilities will allow it to deliver one trillion calculations per second (trillion floating point calculations per second) or more of floating-point calculations. It will have the ability to do north of 1 trillion mathematical calculations per second
The number of people who complained about how hard the PS2 was going to be to program sort of got on my nerves. Who cares? You will program for what the people want, geek peon, hard or easy does not enter into the equation. The people a cheap box that performs well. If that makes it hard to program, that's your problem.
But a good GUI should allow people to work in the way best for them. If they want a mess, let them have a mess. (I have a mess...but its all in my "documents" "music" and other OSX defaults...but beyond that...)
This is so true. I had, until recently, a screaming AMD system and a two year old 300mhz G4. I ended up using the G4 for all my "day to day" usage, email, surfing, mp3s, quicken, word, etc, and using the AMD system for Maya and photoshop, etc. The fact is win2k is such a pain in the ass its not worth it. OS X, even slow, is much more painless to use day to day.
As far as I know, its the ORIGINAL geek blog.
Yeah. I don't think I want to buy a DVD with this algorithm.
Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. I would have to say that ALREADY its really just easier to rent, buy or subscribe to netflix than it is to download movies. And 95% of the DiVX you see on the net is of significantly lower quality than a DVD anyway. If they keep their product that much better than a download, and that much easier, net piracy will never be a major threat to revenue.
(Famous last words...)
I think the real point here is that Hollywood COULD use this to make a product that is significantly more compelling than the shit I could download for free. If they were selling movies on 1080i DVDs I would need to download an 80gb file to get the same quality...and store said 80gb file...the fact is, I'd rather shell out $20 to buy it or $4 to rent it. Piracy solved through the free market. (of course, its cheaper to buy some congresspeople and legislate it all away instead)
Apologies for above flame. It was a moment of passion, it won't happen again.
Does it make you feel good to dish out ehe hate? Its really easy to criticise things. I want to see your cg...what does it look like? It must be pretty damn good.
I have to say that I am sort of irritated by those who think that films they didn't like are some sort of moral affront. Is it that serious that someone spent their money making a movie they wanted to? Other people spent a lot less money seeing it, and a lot of them got their money's worth.
It is easy to cast your judgment on this film, as if the fact that you didn't enjoy it means that it has violated some sort of holy commandment. Incompetence is also a very harsh word. Movies are VERY difficult to make, and the people who made this one are VERY competent. Maybe it didn't turn out right, but it isn't because the people (real, actual people, who really did actually work hard) are worthy of capital punishment for failing to please you.
If you want to make "indy" movies you can, but they are always going to be indy movies. Epics like LoTR, which I think 95% of geeks like to see, just cost too damn much and take WAY more than two weekends a month.
Finaly I can watch it as it was meant to be seen...in two parts. That movie is just too long for one sitting.
Is it possible that this is EU protectionism? Naah....they'd never do that. And America would neve retaliate. We all believe in free trade these days/
Someone mod this up! I am getting sort of irritated at the ignorance displayed around this article. People seem to think that since Zimbabwe is in africa it must be filled with poor farmers, growing just enough to feed their families. Until recently it was more like the american midwest, huge commercial farms growing grain for sale and export. The poor farmer was supporting his family on his wages, not his grain.
Zimbabwe is not Somalia. It was not long ago an agricultural powerhouse. The "family farms" were enormous plantations that made profits selling most of there grain. The point slashdot missed is that this has NOTHING to do with genetic modification. It has everything to do with the fact that Mugabe doesn't want any aid, because starving people do what he wants them to.
The ACTUAL ugly complex reality, as posted elsewhere: Rober Mugabe is using this as an excuse to justify starvation as a weapon. There is no reason for starvation in Zimbabwe, most fields are unplanted. The president has forbidden farmers on landed marked for "redistribution" to grow food, and is almost certainly preventing food from reaching opponents. Paranoid lunatics should not be allowed to run countries.
But if you are like me you would always go over, and be stuck with a "holy shit, I did what?" bill at the end of the month.
But prices of goods reflect not the cost, but how much people are willing to pay.
Its not exploitation if AT&T charges more than their cost. Its exploitation if AT&T is abusing their monopoly power to artificially infate the price of a good. Which they aren't (yet... they probably could)...they are just trying to make the service more profitable, and provide a service level that is a better fit to the consumer. People have argued, like the poster here, that a bandwidth cap makes more sense to AT&T. Sure, but its a pain in the ass for the consumer, and very likely to piss them off. I think AT&T is smart here. The bandwidth hog-type will almost certainly opt for the highger bandwidth. The people who also opt for the higher speed but don't use much bandwidth will pay for the low speed users that hog the hell out of the bandwidth they have. It may not seem totally fair, but its a system that works without people having to think about bandwidth limits.
It seems strange to me how many slashdotter seems to deeply distrust the free market (it must be Microsoft that did it...). If there is a demand for this sort of service there will be a supply, I promise. As long as you have some money and something you want to spend it on, someone will find a way make a profit providing it.
This is something that bothers me more and more about film. Our eyes and ears have been wired into our brains since we had them. We are programmed to interpret and respond to this kind of stimulus at a very basic level, the ancient core of our brains. Visual and aural stimulation and response in a human kernal module.
Sitting in the middle row in a theater watching fiction is not like reading a book. For most low-level purposes it is real. The information in the film hasn't been processed by the concious mind at all. It is entertainment beemed broadband into the brainstem. Its a lot more like dreaming than reading, you very rarely need to think at all, even when watching fairly "heady" cinema. I don't know if there is research on this, but I think watching a film is very like dreaming. Notice also that the experience is designed to exclude any non-film stimuli, other sounds, images, etc. While in a cinema your entire world becomes that film. (I first noticed this was after seeing Event Horizonthe second time at home. On a small screen, where the film doesn't take over your mind its really just stupid crap. In the cinema it was a terrifying experience that left me emotionaly scarred for weeks)
What sort of long term effect on us and on society does film have? How often should we allow Hollywood to have root access to our brains?
Disclosure: I have a BA in cinema production from an accredited university. This means I have an seen way to many movies, know too much about them, and have a keenly developed ability to spout pages and pages of complete, total BS film theory nonsense....so what I say here should definetly be taken with a grain of salt
Does it have to be a republican?
Its clear that the RIAA and MPIAA types see the writing on the wall: Their revenue stream is going to die as the market changes to adapt to new technology. Of course, instead of trying to adjust, they are atempting to legislate away the competition.
Luckily are multiple big guns, and plenty of lawyers. I think the poster is right, this will either come down in a market collapse, a hailstorm of litigation, or both.
Region encoding: fight globalization from the top down!