*sigh* you missed the topic. It's not about the "letter or intent of modern copyright law" but what is morally right, and what is better for society as a whole, and even what is the most profitable. The current law is an interesting data point in that debate, but not particularly interesting as a conclusion.
I think that, while they have inherited some of the good security practices from *nix, they also seem to be making beginner mistakes in favour of making users lives easy - just like Microsoft did 10 years ago. Fortunately for them, they can afford to be lax as long as the deployment is small - if they started to get 10-20% of market share, things might be different.
There are other, lighter anti-virus packages, such as NOD32. Don't even notice it running, yet it detects things fine (it noticed an exploit on a website just now). Very small updates. Only downside is the user interface is a little bit technical, but it's not that hard.
The problem is of course, is there ANYTHING productive left for US and other western societies to do, that they can compete in? It increasingly appears not.
They say in the review "it won't cost $5400" because the displays will be smaller and some other things...
But it's a fair chance it will cost $1000. The prices per key aren't going to come down a huge amount. Maybe the 64x64 display is half the price of 96x96, and with larger numbers they halve the price again... it's still a heck of a lot of money.
Actually, I think that these guidelines DO say this; there is a mention of using named actions on dialog buttons. But there is also a "Yes no cancel" dialog above that, so they seem a bit undecided (probably because Windows and many Microsoft applications are full of such dialogs already).
Yes indeed. These guidelines are sensible for the most part (although a little slanted towards the Vista prettiness). Now Microsoft just needs to get their 100 other products to follow them. It doesn't set a very impressive example when every Microsoft team thinks they are special and know better than their core UI guys.
Certainly gives the impression that Microsoft is heavily split into separate teams these days, each of whom thinks themselves much better than the rest.
Something I have been thinking about lately, as I see technically capable people held back by certain styles of doing business.
China, like several Asian countries, strongly drives relationships based on the idea of 'face'. I'll admit I don't really understand it, but basically it seems to me that it leads to things like:
- risk aversion (I don't want to be seen to be responsible) - not owning up to problems when they occur - not improving things (risk of causing problems) - doing obviously silly things because authority told me too - pursuing goals that are counter to real interests
This makes it very difficult to found an open, scientific, innovative, risk-taking style of economy. Instead, everyone tries to find a big organisation to hide inside and form very cautious, conservative ventures.
Also it somehow seems to prevent the development of good, usable software. There is very little of such applications coming out of China, or Korea, etc. Such software as does come out is overly stylised, sometimes almost user-hostile, and rarely improved - maybe because a good UI requires a lot of iteration and admitting mistakes and trying new risky ideas.
These aren't ideas that are set in stone, just some observations from working with some Chinese people.
Exactly, and I'm personally betting that it is NOT as bad as some people think. There is certainly a section of the population (ie. teens) who download most of their music, but I'm thinking there is probably a large percentage who mostly bought their music on CD. So I would say that assuming the majority of music on ipods is illegal, is not at all certain.
The poster was saying that most users of iPods are copyright infringers. Since this is quite the accusation it would be nice to see some evidence for that.
Is there really? Or is there still just a few half-decent scenes?
I think that people get caught up in the (rather clumsy) tie-in to number 4, and that influences how they feel about the movie. When you look at it independently, it has most of the same weaknesses as the other prequels.
Consensus at originaltrilogy.com is that the new release is noticeably better than any of the rips, although still a fair way from any other modern DVD release.
And this is how you would expect, after all they are skipping the analog modulation and demodulation in LaserDisc.
Running multiple OSes in parallel will saturate all your processing power nicely.
Only if you're actually DOING something CPU intensive in each OS. Virtualisation doesn't change the picture: you still have to be doing parallelisable tasks.
The look and feel would be consistent - but is that a good thing? Hobbit is a childrens' book with a rather twee feel, until the end when it develops into a serious battle. Perhaps someone with a different touch could be helpful - like Tim Burton? OK, it's sacrilege:)
Splitting it into two parts would be astonishingly stupid. That's just obvious greed from MGM. The writers would have to thoroughly mangle the story to make it happen. On the other hand, they are welcome to make another LOTR movie from one of the other books:)
Once again, it's not polite to post into a discussion saying "you're all ignorant and should just take my word for it". If you don't want to discuss, then don't post.
I DID do research and spent several hours reading, and all the evidence I found suggests you're off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the situation being discussed. Namely that it is relatively straightforward to regenerate 1080p24 when it was cleanly converted to 1080i60 by an HD-DVD player.
You could be the world's greatest expert on IVTC, but to me you're just another poster on slashdot, and I am trying to figure out if what you say is true or not. The "preponderance of the evidence" is that it is not. Sorry.
1. Yes, but you said it had "already been done". Well kind of, but only in a trial sense with little damage. If we're talking about all the things that might have happened, we'll be here all night:)
2. Again, yes, but the Register was pointing out one fundamental absurdity in the plot, as explained by officials. Your explanation is different, it might be true, but it isn't what was presented as the official plot.
Zero empathy = the main definition of a sociopath. At first I was thinking he was just a stupid asshole, but it's worse than that, he's actually quite seriously unbalanced. Ungh, I think he needs to get some help. Wonder if he has family?
Using copyright to sue someone who tricked you into posing nude
Hm, this statement doesn't make any sense either. I don't think anyone would use copyright in their action, it would be about privacy and infliction of emotional distress.
I think you're stretching this beyond sensibility.
You should also try to bear in mind that Slashdot has several different people on it.
Well, a couple of points from that article: - the bomb only killed one person and didn't damage the fuselage. Although with different placement it might have ignited the fuel (the article doesn't really say though). A big part of the Register article was that you could probably make SOME explosive, and cause a small explosion, but not enough to do significant damage. - it wasn't made out of binary ingredients, but just regular nitroglycerin. So, not really relevant to the topic of whether binary explosives are a risk.
Definitely, we have and are still going backwards in quality. This is only going to get worse as the studios want to make more money and find the sweet spot where most moviegoers don't notice.
I agree about the framerate. Many movies look choppy to me during action, because there is simply too much movement between frames. Actually nobody ever said that we can't perceive a difference between 24 and 60 fps; it's rather that 24 is the minimum rate to give a perception of smooth motion rather than individual frames. Higher framerates are obviously smoothy and more pleasant.
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* you missed the topic. It's not about the "letter or intent of modern copyright law" but what is morally right, and what is better for society as a whole, and even what is the most profitable. The current law is an interesting data point in that debate, but not particularly interesting as a conclusion.
I think that, while they have inherited some of the good security practices from *nix, they also seem to be making beginner mistakes in favour of making users lives easy - just like Microsoft did 10 years ago.
Fortunately for them, they can afford to be lax as long as the deployment is small - if they started to get 10-20% of market share, things might be different.
There are other, lighter anti-virus packages, such as NOD32. Don't even notice it running, yet it detects things fine (it noticed an exploit on a website just now). Very small updates. Only downside is the user interface is a little bit technical, but it's not that hard.
The problem is of course, is there ANYTHING productive left for US and other western societies to do, that they can compete in? It increasingly appears not.
They say in the review "it won't cost $5400" because the displays will be smaller and some other things...
But it's a fair chance it will cost $1000. The prices per key aren't going to come down a huge amount. Maybe the 64x64 display is half the price of 96x96, and with larger numbers they halve the price again... it's still a heck of a lot of money.
Actually, I think that these guidelines DO say this; there is a mention of using named actions on dialog buttons. But there is also a "Yes no cancel" dialog above that, so they seem a bit undecided (probably because Windows and many Microsoft applications are full of such dialogs already).
Yes indeed. These guidelines are sensible for the most part (although a little slanted towards the Vista prettiness). Now Microsoft just needs to get their 100 other products to follow them. It doesn't set a very impressive example when every Microsoft team thinks they are special and know better than their core UI guys.
Certainly gives the impression that Microsoft is heavily split into separate teams these days, each of whom thinks themselves much better than the rest.
Something I have been thinking about lately, as I see technically capable people held back by certain styles of doing business.
China, like several Asian countries, strongly drives relationships based on the idea of 'face'. I'll admit I don't really understand it, but basically it seems to me that it leads to things like:
- risk aversion (I don't want to be seen to be responsible)
- not owning up to problems when they occur
- not improving things (risk of causing problems)
- doing obviously silly things because authority told me too
- pursuing goals that are counter to real interests
This makes it very difficult to found an open, scientific, innovative, risk-taking style of economy. Instead, everyone tries to find a big organisation to hide inside and form very cautious, conservative ventures.
Also it somehow seems to prevent the development of good, usable software. There is very little of such applications coming out of China, or Korea, etc. Such software as does come out is overly stylised, sometimes almost user-hostile, and rarely improved - maybe because a good UI requires a lot of iteration and admitting mistakes and trying new risky ideas.
These aren't ideas that are set in stone, just some observations from working with some Chinese people.
...just go up and keep going
It can't. It falls straight back down again. There's a small matter of mach 25 horizontal speed to achieve before it's an orbit.
Slashdot allows you to use
Exactly, and I'm personally betting that it is NOT as bad as some people think. There is certainly a section of the population (ie. teens) who download most of their music, but I'm thinking there is probably a large percentage who mostly bought their music on CD.
So I would say that assuming the majority of music on ipods is illegal, is not at all certain.
Cool, can you give us an example (ie. links to your edits and the subsequent messing up?)... that would be interesting.
Cheers.
The majority of power outlets I've seen on international flights are 120VAC outlets.
The poster was saying that most users of iPods are copyright infringers. Since this is quite the accusation it would be nice to see some evidence for that.
Is there really? Or is there still just a few half-decent scenes?
I think that people get caught up in the (rather clumsy) tie-in to number 4, and that influences how they feel about the movie. When you look at it independently, it has most of the same weaknesses as the other prequels.
Consensus at originaltrilogy.com is that the new release is noticeably better than any of the rips, although still a fair way from any other modern DVD release.
c atid=2&threadid=6537
And this is how you would expect, after all they are skipping the analog modulation and demodulation in LaserDisc.
Impressions:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?
Running multiple OSes in parallel will saturate all your processing power nicely.
Only if you're actually DOING something CPU intensive in each OS. Virtualisation doesn't change the picture: you still have to be doing parallelisable tasks.
The look and feel would be consistent - but is that a good thing? Hobbit is a childrens' book with a rather twee feel, until the end when it develops into a serious battle. Perhaps someone with a different touch could be helpful - like Tim Burton? OK, it's sacrilege :)
:)
Splitting it into two parts would be astonishingly stupid. That's just obvious greed from MGM. The writers would have to thoroughly mangle the story to make it happen. On the other hand, they are welcome to make another LOTR movie from one of the other books
So, the Register et al leapt to wrong conclusions. Thanks for clearing it up! :)
You're not debating, just trying to put me down.
Once again, it's not polite to post into a discussion saying "you're all ignorant and should just take my word for it". If you don't want to discuss, then don't post.
I DID do research and spent several hours reading, and all the evidence I found suggests you're off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the situation being discussed. Namely that it is relatively straightforward to regenerate 1080p24 when it was cleanly converted to 1080i60 by an HD-DVD player.
You could be the world's greatest expert on IVTC, but to me you're just another poster on slashdot, and I am trying to figure out if what you say is true or not. The "preponderance of the evidence" is that it is not. Sorry.
1. Yes, but you said it had "already been done". Well kind of, but only in a trial sense with little damage. If we're talking about all the things that might have happened, we'll be here all night :)
2. Again, yes, but the Register was pointing out one fundamental absurdity in the plot, as explained by officials. Your explanation is different, it might be true, but it isn't what was presented as the official plot.
Zero empathy = the main definition of a sociopath.
At first I was thinking he was just a stupid asshole, but it's worse than that, he's actually quite seriously unbalanced.
Ungh, I think he needs to get some help. Wonder if he has family?
Using copyright to apply DRM to media
This statement makes no sense.
Using copyright to sue someone who tricked you into posing nude
Hm, this statement doesn't make any sense either. I don't think anyone would use copyright in their action, it would be about privacy and infliction of emotional distress.
I think you're stretching this beyond sensibility.
You should also try to bear in mind that Slashdot has several different people on it.
Well, a couple of points from that article:
- the bomb only killed one person and didn't damage the fuselage. Although with different placement it might have ignited the fuel (the article doesn't really say though). A big part of the Register article was that you could probably make SOME explosive, and cause a small explosion, but not enough to do significant damage.
- it wasn't made out of binary ingredients, but just regular nitroglycerin. So, not really relevant to the topic of whether binary explosives are a risk.
Definitely, we have and are still going backwards in quality. This is only going to get worse as the studios want to make more money and find the sweet spot where most moviegoers don't notice.
I agree about the framerate. Many movies look choppy to me during action, because there is simply too much movement between frames. Actually nobody ever said that we can't perceive a difference between 24 and 60 fps; it's rather that 24 is the minimum rate to give a perception of smooth motion rather than individual frames. Higher framerates are obviously smoothy and more pleasant.