Rabid fans of the movies, vs "Peter Jackson is satan incarnate and must be stopped". The latter is left over from print-fan memes during the original run of LotR, who would hate the movie no matter what he did, not because it's a movie, but because it's not the book. Print fans come in all shapes and sizes, and have all sorts of justifications for their views. I find it interesting that, back in the day, of the print fans that believed Lord of the Rings should be made into a movie, it was generally believed that only a 20 hour miniseries would be enough, in order to capture every scene and every song and poem, and the elves should be CGI because people weren't beautiful enough, and today we have print fans that are saying that three movies was too long. What the hell make up your mind.
Then there are the print fans who would be absolutely against any film, generally justified as "it substitutes Jackson's imagery for the reader's own" or somesuch, and from there leads to a place of madness, where calendars, posters and even cover art are forbidden, and the only way to read the stories should be on loose leaf paper from Tolkien's own typewriter.
I digress. Anyway, for those who need a more faithful light hearted Hobbit, there's still the Rankin-Bass film from 1977. They even set some of Tolkien's poems to whiney music sung by people with terrible singing voices, so, like, cool. It made me want to gouge my eyeballs out and use them to plug my ears, but your mileage may vary.
As to whether any or all of the Hobbit films are the best films ever or a travesty that requires that the director be tarred and feathered and ridden out on a Grond, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, three movies were probably excessive. No, one movie would not have done it. This is because it's not a matter of just telling the story in The Hobbit's measly 300 pages, but also giving the backstory that was in the appendicies to LotR (to which Jackson had the rights) and maybe approaching what might be a full telling of The Quest of Erebor, the story Tolkien later started to write, essentially re-writing The Hobbit to better fit into the tone and pagentry of Lord of the Rings. (Published posthumously by his son Christopher in Unfinished Tales.) Unfortunately, Jackson did not have access to Tolkien's writings other than what was in the appendicies and The Hobbit, and Christopher Tolkien absolutely refused Jackson the rights to Tolkien's other notes. So in order to make it fit with Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to make some of it up in order to not be sued by the Tolkien estate.
So, did he make stuff up that Tolkien didn't write? Of course he did. Did he make up *too much* stuff? Maybe. Did he put in too much filler? Yeah, probably. Should he have kept it to one movie and only filmed what was in The Hobbit? Absolutely not. There is more story there, (Specifically, why Gandalf felt Erebor was so important to the coming war) and Jackson told as much of it as he was allowed to. Three films *was* excessive, but to say it shouldn't be filmed because it wasn't in The Hobbit is to show ignorance about all the backstory and detail surrounding the Quest of Erebor that wasn't in what was essentially a children's book. And besides, The Hobbit was already filmed, in 1977. (I didn't like it much. It made my teeth hurt.)
Footnote, after all these years, having read the novels multiple times, once to my daughter before the films first came out, I just recently had an in-story epiphany. It always seemed curious and whimsical that Gandalf was so adamant about Bilbo being included in the quest. But think -- that simple decision set in motion a chain of events that after many years leads to the destruction of the One Ring -- something that probably could not have happened otherwise. How did Gandalf know?
I meant what I said, although I understand it can easily be misunderstood. Inkjet printers generally use dye based inks. There are a few consumer models that use pigment based inks. The pigment based inks tend to have a longer life both as a photo and in the cartridge. But that runs contrary to most manufacturer's business model, where a "head cleaning" is required often which uses up to 25% of the cartridge, and the most expensive per-page use case is casual use, which is the category most consumers fall under.
Epson used to make printers that used pigment based inks, but I think they're all dye based now. It's possible the only manufacturer left that uses pigment inks is Kodak.
I sidestep the issue by not printing my photos at home.
We used to have an automated litter box. We called it "The Scatapult". Every so often it would launch the shit into the air rather than into the bag. Not recommended,
If Douglas Adams were alive, he'd put that in a book. That is so Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
The thing only costs $200, Their cartridges cost $25 for a 120 use cartridge. At 2 uses/day that's 6 cartridges/year -- so you're paying 75% of the cost of the unit in a year just for the cartridges.
I think if Rolls Royce dealers charged $150K each year for required maintenance on a $200K Rolls Royce, there'd be few people getting service at the dealer.
I assume you gave up your ink-jet printer for a color lasar?
I can't speak for him, but *I* did. And when I need prints on real photo paper, I take it to one 'a' them there Kodak kiosks. Dye based printers are scams, pure and simple.
I just don't understand. Sony is a Japanese company! Why do they care about US
I think the issue is, Japan is, geographically, significantly closer to NK than is the US. And is a smaller target. They don't care about us, they care about their own country. Although NK's threats of attacking the entire US are fluff, they could reasonably be expected to have enough firepower to damage Japan.
Assuming the premise is true, perhaps the real reason we don't see signs of civilization is that communication is happening at a level we don't appreciate. For instance, hidden in signals we are looking at all the time. Stellar steganography.
You shouldn't start with a product and try to find a place for it in your life, you should start with a problem and if a tech solves it great.
The Op specifically stated he had an issue to resolve - he works in a cleanroom and doesn't want to go out everytime he needs to use an app on his phone.
But is that really the case, or is it as implied by the workflow in TFA that this is just a workaround for him forgetting to take the phone out of his pocket when he suits up? In other words, is this a solution to a real problem, or just an excuse to be an alpha geek?
> Since this is open-sourcing of their own software, please elaborate on how the final E in EEE is even theoretically possible.
In fact, the open sourcing of their own software is a necessary first step. Open source a version, encourage adoption, then create proprietary but attractive features in a future version which remain closed source, use these features to leverage their own products at the expense of others. The "embrace" part is a strategy to get competitors to use a Microsoft standard, the Extend is to create proprietary extensions to that standard, and the Extinguish is when competitors can no longer compete because users have come to rely on those proprietary features.
This is not exactly a secret.
The question becomes, does Microsoft have enough clout to do it again.
> right and if you read that wiki page (actually the bit you quoted that i bolded is sufficient) how does that apply to releasing their existing non-standard software as open source?
By making a future proprietary version of the software, backwards compatible with the open source version, include new and attractive proprietary features. The "Extend" part of the process.
> 1994 called, it wants its ridiculous MSFT paranoia back.
I'd like to point out that "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is Microsoft's own words. Perhaps our reaction is less about our paranoia and more about Microsoft's baggage.
> It used to be that people wanted companies to release their software as open source but now the community has proved so fickle that they don't want companies to release their software as open source lest that company discontinue support and support be left to an incapable community and end up another abandoned open source project.
I don't think that's it at all. It's nothing to do with some random company open sourcing their software. Companies do it all the time, for drivers and such, and it's a good thing.
We're talking about Microsoft here, who has, in the past, used "Embrace" more than once as a road to extinguishing competitors. With varying success.
For fudd's sake, there's a wiki about it: "Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] and was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
(Emphasis mine.)
So yeah, companies do this all the time, but this is microsoft. We have a right, I think, to be a tad suspicious of their motives.
Check out the rotten tomatoes score. Not missing much...
I have to reluctantly say, that's not the point. To not show it because it stinks is fine. (I've seen the reviews, and it has all the characteristics of a true stinker.) But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.
> If you want to look at it more cynically, you could say that Microsoft is attempting to keep Windows relevant in a post-PC world by ensuring it can more easily interop with other platforms like Linux, Android, and iOS. The best way for them to do this is to allow Windows PC developers to use their existing tools and technologies to target those platforms
With Linux I sort-of agree, as Microsoft has done timid foreys into this kind of interoperability in the past, but I don't see them trying to interact with Android and IOS. Windows... I was about to say "Mobile" but it's all Windows now, I guess -- Windows on portable devices (there you go...) is the major new up and coming platform (according to marketing) and Microsoft typically fights to the death (often their death) in the initial stages of the introduction of a new platform. I'm not sure that parses, but you get what I mean. Microsoft would not be seeking interoperability with the iPad at a time they're trying to sink it by showing the Surface on Hawaii five-oh at every opportunity. (Or whatever.)
I don't like Rogan or Franco, don't like that kind of film, but was planning to go anyway just because I was pissed off at a bunch of script kiddies pretending to be a tinpot dictator's henchmen. Sony should have acquired some 'nads and shown it anyway. At least in the theaters courageous enough to put it on the marquee.
The more they try the more money they spend. The more they take away from their primary product development. The more money they loose when they fail.
Eventually they will run out of money and go out of business.
My understanding is that Microsoft has a *lot* of cash. But the sun isn't due to go out for awhile yet, so I guess there's time for Microsoft to run out of money.
Which will be followed by "The year of the Linux Desktop":P
...is followed by Extend, which is followed by Extinguish. Do we even have to ask the question?
I think it's getting more and more difficult for Microsoft to successfully implement the three-E strategy in this day and age, but it doesn't stop them from trying.
How should Comcast objectors living in Comcast territory cope with the 10 GB/mo cap of non-Comcast home Internet through the sat or cell company?
I dunno. Perhaps complain to your municipality about the granting what is essentially a monopoly to a company with such a bad customer service record. Make correcting the situation a factor in getting re-elected.
Where I am, we have a choice of cable or fiber, before you have to consider lower tier like DSL wifi, satellite. (I consider satellite lower tier because of the terrible upload speeds.) I understand that other areas, especially older municipalities, don't have the choices we have in my area. That fight is with local government, I think.
> 1) Yet another reason why it should be illegal for cities/municipalities to award a monopoly cable contract
Copy that. This is the root cause of this whole morass. If we had reasonable competition (1 Mb/s DSL is not reasonable) the issue would be at best an irritation. Your second point is also right on target.
Slashdot Mirror
Rabid fans of the movies, vs "Peter Jackson is satan incarnate and must be stopped". The latter is left over from print-fan memes during the original run of LotR, who would hate the movie no matter what he did, not because it's a movie, but because it's not the book. Print fans come in all shapes and sizes, and have all sorts of justifications for their views. I find it interesting that, back in the day, of the print fans that believed Lord of the Rings should be made into a movie, it was generally believed that only a 20 hour miniseries would be enough, in order to capture every scene and every song and poem, and the elves should be CGI because people weren't beautiful enough, and today we have print fans that are saying that three movies was too long. What the hell make up your mind.
Then there are the print fans who would be absolutely against any film, generally justified as "it substitutes Jackson's imagery for the reader's own" or somesuch, and from there leads to a place of madness, where calendars, posters and even cover art are forbidden, and the only way to read the stories should be on loose leaf paper from Tolkien's own typewriter.
I digress. Anyway, for those who need a more faithful light hearted Hobbit, there's still the Rankin-Bass film from 1977. They even set some of Tolkien's poems to whiney music sung by people with terrible singing voices, so, like, cool. It made me want to gouge my eyeballs out and use them to plug my ears, but your mileage may vary.
As to whether any or all of the Hobbit films are the best films ever or a travesty that requires that the director be tarred and feathered and ridden out on a Grond, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, three movies were probably excessive. No, one movie would not have done it. This is because it's not a matter of just telling the story in The Hobbit's measly 300 pages, but also giving the backstory that was in the appendicies to LotR (to which Jackson had the rights) and maybe approaching what might be a full telling of The Quest of Erebor, the story Tolkien later started to write, essentially re-writing The Hobbit to better fit into the tone and pagentry of Lord of the Rings. (Published posthumously by his son Christopher in Unfinished Tales.) Unfortunately, Jackson did not have access to Tolkien's writings other than what was in the appendicies and The Hobbit, and Christopher Tolkien absolutely refused Jackson the rights to Tolkien's other notes. So in order to make it fit with Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to make some of it up in order to not be sued by the Tolkien estate.
So, did he make stuff up that Tolkien didn't write? Of course he did. Did he make up *too much* stuff? Maybe. Did he put in too much filler? Yeah, probably. Should he have kept it to one movie and only filmed what was in The Hobbit? Absolutely not. There is more story there, (Specifically, why Gandalf felt Erebor was so important to the coming war) and Jackson told as much of it as he was allowed to. Three films *was* excessive, but to say it shouldn't be filmed because it wasn't in The Hobbit is to show ignorance about all the backstory and detail surrounding the Quest of Erebor that wasn't in what was essentially a children's book. And besides, The Hobbit was already filmed, in 1977. (I didn't like it much. It made my teeth hurt.)
Footnote, after all these years, having read the novels multiple times, once to my daughter before the films first came out, I just recently had an in-story epiphany. It always seemed curious and whimsical that Gandalf was so adamant about Bilbo being included in the quest. But think -- that simple decision set in motion a chain of events that after many years leads to the destruction of the One Ring -- something that probably could not have happened otherwise. How did Gandalf know?
I meant what I said, although I understand it can easily be misunderstood. Inkjet printers generally use dye based inks. There are a few consumer models that use pigment based inks. The pigment based inks tend to have a longer life both as a photo and in the cartridge. But that runs contrary to most manufacturer's business model, where a "head cleaning" is required often which uses up to 25% of the cartridge, and the most expensive per-page use case is casual use, which is the category most consumers fall under.
Epson used to make printers that used pigment based inks, but I think they're all dye based now. It's possible the only manufacturer left that uses pigment inks is Kodak.
I sidestep the issue by not printing my photos at home.
We used to have an automated litter box. We called it "The Scatapult". Every so often it would launch the shit into the air rather than into the bag. Not recommended,
If Douglas Adams were alive, he'd put that in a book. That is so Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
The thing only costs $200, Their cartridges cost $25 for a 120 use cartridge. At 2 uses/day that's 6 cartridges/year -- so you're paying 75% of the cost of the unit in a year just for the cartridges.
I think if Rolls Royce dealers charged $150K each year for required maintenance on a $200K Rolls Royce, there'd be few people getting service at the dealer.
I assume you gave up your ink-jet printer for a color lasar?
I can't speak for him, but *I* did. And when I need prints on real photo paper, I take it to one 'a' them there Kodak kiosks. Dye based printers are scams, pure and simple.
I just don't understand. Sony is a Japanese company! Why do they care about US
I think the issue is, Japan is, geographically, significantly closer to NK than is the US. And is a smaller target. They don't care about us, they care about their own country. Although NK's threats of attacking the entire US are fluff, they could reasonably be expected to have enough firepower to damage Japan.
> What's he going to get to do in 120 years that he - with all his money - can't do in 80?
I'm thinking, prove that it can be done. That would be a good thing. And what techniques were used, of course.
There have only been three episodes since, like, forever. They're ok, but is that all there's going to be?
> The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it
That's very astute. So is this:
> What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?
My first thought, on reading this, was his earlier statement. The juxtaposition is very interesting. I wonder if it was intentional.
Assuming the premise is true, perhaps the real reason we don't see signs of civilization is that communication is happening at a level we don't appreciate. For instance, hidden in signals we are looking at all the time. Stellar steganography.
Terry Bisson was right.
The Op specifically stated he had an issue to resolve - he works in a cleanroom and doesn't want to go out everytime he needs to use an app on his phone.
But is that really the case, or is it as implied by the workflow in TFA that this is just a workaround for him forgetting to take the phone out of his pocket when he suits up? In other words, is this a solution to a real problem, or just an excuse to be an alpha geek?
Yeah, I've come to realize that slashdot really is just a place for old curmudgeony tech people who automatically hate all new tech...
"Hate" sure is overused this day and age. The word has lost all meaning.
It's more like bored, disinterested, and maybe a little annoyed.
My answer to "what can I really do with a smart watch?" is "Probably not get dates."
And of course, there's no downside to wearing multiple personal gadgets. It's really hip. Really. You'll be the talk of the Starbucks.
> Since this is open-sourcing of their own software, please elaborate on how the final E in EEE is even theoretically possible.
In fact, the open sourcing of their own software is a necessary first step. Open source a version, encourage adoption, then create proprietary but attractive features in a future version which remain closed source, use these features to leverage their own products at the expense of others. The "embrace" part is a strategy to get competitors to use a Microsoft standard, the Extend is to create proprietary extensions to that standard, and the Extinguish is when competitors can no longer compete because users have come to rely on those proprietary features.
This is not exactly a secret.
The question becomes, does Microsoft have enough clout to do it again.
> right and if you read that wiki page (actually the bit you quoted that i bolded is sufficient) how does that apply to releasing their existing non-standard software as open source?
By making a future proprietary version of the software, backwards compatible with the open source version, include new and attractive proprietary features. The "Extend" part of the process.
> 1994 called, it wants its ridiculous MSFT paranoia back.
I'd like to point out that "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is Microsoft's own words. Perhaps our reaction is less about our paranoia and more about Microsoft's baggage.
> It used to be that people wanted companies to release their software as open source but now the community has proved so fickle that they don't want companies to release their software as open source lest that company discontinue support and support be left to an incapable community and end up another abandoned open source project.
I don't think that's it at all. It's nothing to do with some random company open sourcing their software. Companies do it all the time, for drivers and such, and it's a good thing.
We're talking about Microsoft here, who has, in the past, used "Embrace" more than once as a road to extinguishing competitors. With varying success.
For fudd's sake, there's a wiki about it: "Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] and was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
(Emphasis mine.)
So yeah, companies do this all the time, but this is microsoft. We have a right, I think, to be a tad suspicious of their motives.
Check out the rotten tomatoes score. Not missing much...
I have to reluctantly say, that's not the point. To not show it because it stinks is fine. (I've seen the reviews, and it has all the characteristics of a true stinker.) But to not show it because some third-world dictator pitched a fit is a different thing. That truly offends me. We should be showing it precisely because it pisses him off.
> If you want to look at it more cynically, you could say that Microsoft is attempting to keep Windows relevant in a post-PC world by ensuring it can more easily interop with other platforms like Linux, Android, and iOS. The best way for them to do this is to allow Windows PC developers to use their existing tools and technologies to target those platforms
With Linux I sort-of agree, as Microsoft has done timid foreys into this kind of interoperability in the past, but I don't see them trying to interact with Android and IOS. Windows ... I was about to say "Mobile" but it's all Windows now, I guess -- Windows on portable devices (there you go...) is the major new up and coming platform (according to marketing) and Microsoft typically fights to the death (often their death) in the initial stages of the introduction of a new platform. I'm not sure that parses, but you get what I mean. Microsoft would not be seeking interoperability with the iPad at a time they're trying to sink it by showing the Surface on Hawaii five-oh at every opportunity. (Or whatever.)
I don't like Rogan or Franco, don't like that kind of film, but was planning to go anyway just because I was pissed off at a bunch of script kiddies pretending to be a tinpot dictator's henchmen. Sony should have acquired some 'nads and shown it anyway. At least in the theaters courageous enough to put it on the marquee.
The more they try the more money they spend. The more they take away from their primary product development. The more money they loose when they fail.
Eventually they will run out of money and go out of business.
My understanding is that Microsoft has a *lot* of cash. But the sun isn't due to go out for awhile yet, so I guess there's time for Microsoft to run out of money.
Which will be followed by "The year of the Linux Desktop" :P
Oh, now you're just being silly...
I think it's getting more and more difficult for Microsoft to successfully implement the three-E strategy in this day and age, but it doesn't stop them from trying.
How should Comcast objectors living in Comcast territory cope with the 10 GB/mo cap of non-Comcast home Internet through the sat or cell company?
I dunno. Perhaps complain to your municipality about the granting what is essentially a monopoly to a company with such a bad customer service record. Make correcting the situation a factor in getting re-elected.
Where I am, we have a choice of cable or fiber, before you have to consider lower tier like DSL wifi, satellite. (I consider satellite lower tier because of the terrible upload speeds.) I understand that other areas, especially older municipalities, don't have the choices we have in my area. That fight is with local government, I think.
> 1) Yet another reason why it should be illegal for cities/municipalities to award a monopoly cable contract
Copy that. This is the root cause of this whole morass. If we had reasonable competition (1 Mb/s DSL is not reasonable) the issue would be at best an irritation. Your second point is also right on target.
> and working with ISPs like Comcast to examine how a system might work technically
Yet another reason not to do business... well, you know.