The pride in his work is admirable. I always appreciate a developer who's concerned about his user experience. This characteristic is, to me, Steve Jobs' most admirable trait (though I think marketing geeks must appreciate his gift for generating interest in his products.) This guy is following Jobs' finest example here.
I'm left to wonder how he 'discovered' it in the first place...
A few months ago Dmitry Chestnykh, the founder of Coding Robots and copyright holder of Mémoires, discovered that his program – like many others – was being shared via The Pirate Bay.
So while he was looking for a cracked Photoshop, for example, he was amazed to see his own stuff up there? It's rather like a priest complaining about poor service from a prostitute, isn't it?
If you're making money you should be paying for the tools you use. This isn't some nefarious trick, it's honest business. I don't see how this is a problem at all, unless the royalties were absurd (which they aren't).
Except when those tools are 'open'. Then you can use them and not pay for them, provided you keep them 'open'. It's a mutual benefit scenario...
Ah, yes, I reversed the labels. Too bad I didn't notice. Further, too bad you didn't simply give me the benefit of the doubt and decided to rebut the point instead.
I'm trying to get past it to read the content of your post, but I'm stuck on this word 'skiffy'. You're going for a pejorative here, assuming that your readership would agree. I'm amused at the general arrogance of it...
the resulting movie always seems to push aside whatever cleverness made the source interesting in favor of eye candy
'Always' is too strong a word. Total Recall, for example, has scads of both cleverness and visual effects. It has a definite cheese factor, but still stands out as a good use of some entertainment time. It also defies the 'too many impossibilities' metric by virtue of possibly being a dream.
- Star Wars uses blaster weapons. These aren't simple lasers, and likely involve some form of heated matter, even if just gas. Likewise, a phaser is no more or less a laser than a blaster is. This is arbitrary to the point of being sad.
- Star Wars society is ancient, and technologically stagnant. It makes complete sense that urban sprawl in a galactic society would eventually claim every square inch of available surface. Further the Borg are depicted as doing exactly this in Star Trek.
- Need I mention Vulcan mind melds? Or ooze people that eat red shirts? I find it disingenuous to claim one is any more or less 'nonsensical' than the other...
The problem with 'connoisseurs' is that they use arbitrary criteria. Some of these stem from measurable things, and some do not.
Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy but not true SF, they have too many impossible things to qualify as true Science Fiction.
Have you ever seen a Rambo movie? It typically contains a great many impossible things. I'm not comfortable with classifying it as Science Fiction.
too cerebral for visual consumption
Do you read your books via braille, then? You could have gone a lot of different ways toward explaining why 'hard' SF doesn't do well on TV, but you went instead with 'visual'. Why?
Why do Republicans equate limited government with civil rights. Arguably the largest civil rights movements in the last century (sufferage, civil rights movement, gay rights, creation vs evolution in schoold, brown vs board of educaiton, etc) have ALL come to fruition from larger government involvement, not less.
I'm not sure I follow. Sufferage didn't necessarily mean more or less government. Nor did the civil rights movement. Nor gay rights. Creation vs evolution did not, as there wasn't even a Department of Education until the 70's. Vis-a-vi Brown.
The existence of a court does not in any way pertain to the size of government. Perhaps the reason you are confused is that you haven't stopped to consider the opposing point of view long enough to understand it?
If you read your inbox contents using https, then a censor eavesdropping on your connection can't see anything at all -- not the contents of messages that people send you, not the email addresses of people who are writing to you, not even the username that you use to sign in to read your Gmail messages.
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?
Well, in the absence of someone (who would know) presenting contrary information, I assume you'd have to base that sort of thing on some observations.
Why? You can conduct such a drill on old-ish hardware with existing staff. And further, you NEED to test your DR anyway, or you in essence simply do not have a working plan.
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Read the articles from time to time, you might be pleasantly surprised. In fact, in this one it says:
Avatar, on the other hand, is still comparatively fresh in its audiences' minds, and those returning to their local multiplex expecting to see a startling new side to Pandora are almost certain to be disappointed.
Instead, what we've been given is a second chance to see Avatar on the big screen, with the added bonus of a few more minutes of flora and fanciful creatures.
The 'extras' are just a handy excuse to get your wife to agree to the ticket price...
I would explain to the client the kind of security issues they face, how much it may cost at minimum and what future precautions they can take at mitigating being broadsided in the future by rogue IT staff. It's up to them internalize and make the risk assessment to cost.
I did watch the video, and I simply feel it took its point too far. Funding a Mosque is significantly different than owning stock in a company. And I reiterate, it isn't as if owning stock in Citi was somehow more or less significant than in Fox, except to make a somewhat limited joke.
He's as connected to Viacom as he is to anything else, probably because he's a goddamn Saudi Prince.
I'd give you ironic, but not nearly so far as the satire took it.
And, for the record, I do very much hate Fox news. I'd just like to see people treat them fairly, if such a thing is possible on slashdot.
We named the sun 'sol' and could thusly name other things that as well. It isn't as if the thing was labeled by God himself before we got around to thinking about it.
I'm sad to think you may have switched to AC, Enry. People can mod me Troll as much as they see fit. You could even do so with sock puppet accounts. I've got 'karma to burn' as they say...
I stand by what I said, and enjoyed saying it.
I can say for certain that while we entered into a tet-a-tet, which always results in negative mods for the least-popular opinion, the first troll mod is certainly just anti-Fox/pro-Stewart bias. Again, I don't find the fact that he owns Fox any less significant than his holdings in Citibank or Viacom's partners.
And I'm still willing to use my real account to say so...
Well, if the C's won't support it, then you're off the hook. But it still needs to be on the table.
If you can't see the reason, then you've never rooted a system... A proper back door can get you the resources you need to do just about anything at all. And even complex systems need a mechanism by which they can be restored. Maybe you don't do it all in a day, sure, but you ought to spend time knocking them out one-by-one at the very least.
Slashdot Mirror
The pride in his work is admirable. I always appreciate a developer who's concerned about his user experience. This characteristic is, to me, Steve Jobs' most admirable trait (though I think marketing geeks must appreciate his gift for generating interest in his products.) This guy is following Jobs' finest example here.
I'm left to wonder how he 'discovered' it in the first place...
A few months ago Dmitry Chestnykh, the founder of Coding Robots and copyright holder of Mémoires, discovered that his program – like many others – was being shared via The Pirate Bay.
So while he was looking for a cracked Photoshop, for example, he was amazed to see his own stuff up there? It's rather like a priest complaining about poor service from a prostitute, isn't it?
If you're making money you should be paying for the tools you use. This isn't some nefarious trick, it's honest business. I don't see how this is a problem at all, unless the royalties were absurd (which they aren't).
Except when those tools are 'open'. Then you can use them and not pay for them, provided you keep them 'open'. It's a mutual benefit scenario...
I'm actually familiar with those, and if you dig a tiny bit deeper, you'd see that they're STILL the same thing.
Ah, yes, I reversed the labels. Too bad I didn't notice. Further, too bad you didn't simply give me the benefit of the doubt and decided to rebut the point instead.
I'm trying to get past it to read the content of your post, but I'm stuck on this word 'skiffy'. You're going for a pejorative here, assuming that your readership would agree. I'm amused at the general arrogance of it...
the resulting movie always seems to push aside whatever cleverness made the source interesting in favor of eye candy
'Always' is too strong a word. Total Recall, for example, has scads of both cleverness and visual effects. It has a definite cheese factor, but still stands out as a good use of some entertainment time. It also defies the 'too many impossibilities' metric by virtue of possibly being a dream.
- Star Wars uses blaster weapons. These aren't simple lasers, and likely involve some form of heated matter, even if just gas. Likewise, a phaser is no more or less a laser than a blaster is. This is arbitrary to the point of being sad.
- Star Wars society is ancient, and technologically stagnant. It makes complete sense that urban sprawl in a galactic society would eventually claim every square inch of available surface. Further the Borg are depicted as doing exactly this in Star Trek.
- Need I mention Vulcan mind melds? Or ooze people that eat red shirts? I find it disingenuous to claim one is any more or less 'nonsensical' than the other...
I think the word you were actually looking for is scoundrel, not rogue.
Um...
scoundrel/skoundrl/
Noun: A dishonest or unscrupulous person; a rogue.
...
rogue...
An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
Some pendantry knows no bounds...
The problem with 'connoisseurs' is that they use arbitrary criteria. Some of these stem from measurable things, and some do not.
Star Trek and Star Wars are fantasy but not true SF, they have too many impossible things to qualify as true Science Fiction.
Have you ever seen a Rambo movie? It typically contains a great many impossible things. I'm not comfortable with classifying it as Science Fiction.
too cerebral for visual consumption
Do you read your books via braille, then? You could have gone a lot of different ways toward explaining why 'hard' SF doesn't do well on TV, but you went instead with 'visual'. Why?
I suggest you locate a mirror. Gazing within will reveal to you the first part of the problem that you can address.
He had to tie a movie to it to get Hollywood to fund it. (Watching the video usually helps when rebutting the points within it...)
Expansion of powers, yes, but not necessarily one of size. The act meant that existing cops and courts had more power.
'Small government' does NOT mean anarchy, and such a description of the concept is a blatant lie.
Why do Republicans equate limited government with civil rights. Arguably the largest civil rights movements in the last century (sufferage, civil rights movement, gay rights, creation vs evolution in schoold, brown vs board of educaiton, etc) have ALL come to fruition from larger government involvement, not less.
I'm not sure I follow. Sufferage didn't necessarily mean more or less government. Nor did the civil rights movement. Nor gay rights. Creation vs evolution did not, as there wasn't even a Department of Education until the 70's. Vis-a-vi Brown.
The existence of a court does not in any way pertain to the size of government. Perhaps the reason you are confused is that you haven't stopped to consider the opposing point of view long enough to understand it?
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010204
If you read your inbox contents using https, then a censor eavesdropping on your connection can't see anything at all -- not the contents of messages that people send you, not the email addresses of people who are writing to you, not even the username that you use to sign in to read your Gmail messages.
Oh really? Are you sure?
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?
Well, in the absence of someone (who would know) presenting contrary information, I assume you'd have to base that sort of thing on some observations.
Got any?
Why? You can conduct such a drill on old-ish hardware with existing staff. And further, you NEED to test your DR anyway, or you in essence simply do not have a working plan.
3) He sought to make more *science* films
Special edition or regular edition it will still never get anywhere near "Aliens." Sorry, Cameron, but the thirty years of experience you have gained and the extra production budget have actually made you worse. Go back to your roots.
Check out his TED talk...
1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
I bring this up because you seem to be taking Cameron as some sort of artist who'd be interested in your critique. In reality, he's met all of his goals, and now has further funding for his true passion - exploration.
Rather interesting, don't you think?
So, adding to an already long, mostly pointless movie... doesn't add anything? SHOCKER.
Read the articles from time to time, you might be pleasantly surprised. In fact, in this one it says:
Avatar, on the other hand, is still comparatively fresh in its audiences' minds, and those returning to their local multiplex expecting to see a startling new side to Pandora are almost certain to be disappointed.
Instead, what we've been given is a second chance to see Avatar on the big screen, with the added bonus of a few more minutes of flora and fanciful creatures.
The 'extras' are just a handy excuse to get your wife to agree to the ticket price...
I would explain to the client the kind of security issues they face, how much it may cost at minimum and what future precautions they can take at mitigating being broadsided in the future by rogue IT staff. It's up to them internalize and make the risk assessment to cost.
This...
I did watch the video, and I simply feel it took its point too far. Funding a Mosque is significantly different than owning stock in a company. And I reiterate, it isn't as if owning stock in Citi was somehow more or less significant than in Fox, except to make a somewhat limited joke.
He's as connected to Viacom as he is to anything else, probably because he's a goddamn Saudi Prince.
I'd give you ironic, but not nearly so far as the satire took it.
And, for the record, I do very much hate Fox news. I'd just like to see people treat them fairly, if such a thing is possible on slashdot.
My point was more along these lines:
All names are arbitrary.
We named the sun 'sol' and could thusly name other things that as well. It isn't as if the thing was labeled by God himself before we got around to thinking about it.
I'm sad to think you may have switched to AC, Enry. People can mod me Troll as much as they see fit. You could even do so with sock puppet accounts. I've got 'karma to burn' as they say...
I stand by what I said, and enjoyed saying it.
I can say for certain that while we entered into a tet-a-tet, which always results in negative mods for the least-popular opinion, the first troll mod is certainly just anti-Fox/pro-Stewart bias. Again, I don't find the fact that he owns Fox any less significant than his holdings in Citibank or Viacom's partners.
And I'm still willing to use my real account to say so...
Well, if the C's won't support it, then you're off the hook. But it still needs to be on the table.
If you can't see the reason, then you've never rooted a system... A proper back door can get you the resources you need to do just about anything at all. And even complex systems need a mechanism by which they can be restored. Maybe you don't do it all in a day, sure, but you ought to spend time knocking them out one-by-one at the very least.
Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. What if it he or she tripped a zero-tolerance?