Ah, understatement. The article states, "Among other things, the field's collapse, scientists say, could let in bursts of radiation, causing a variety of disruptions." I suppose cancer could be considered a disruption...
Thank you for pointing this out. I noticed the same thing. It's not the editor's fault (because I don't consider the slashdot worker bees to be "editors")but rather the submitter's ("TolkiEinstein" - an ironic name considering the error). I was shocked at how much the field had decreased and wondered how I missed such a thing when I was studying a related field in grad school. Sure, I'm not the best of students but I figured I'd remember something like that!
No one is being oppressed, suppressed, whatever. The standards that dictate the bleeps have been in place for years. Dreyfuss knew this going into the project. What changed is the cost of breaking the standards, so he's complaining it's now too expensive for PBS to allow him to violate the standards. Perhaps he should have chosen a more appropriate venue for his work.
Also, the article linked to was a columnist's take on it. I don't know if I'd consider it "reporting" as columnists tend to skew things according to their opinions.
Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.
Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:
Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59 source
Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39 source
It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.
If a company or industry is successful it's ok to pirate their products and potentially deprive them of revenue? What happened to right and wrong? Following the law? The justifications only make it easier on your conscience; they don't make it any more right. Even if you feel the industry makes plenty of money and won't miss your $8 admission it is still wrong to pirate movies.
This is not about rights, making a statement, acting out in protest. The studios make a product apparently very much in demand. Some people don't want to pay for that product so they demonize the industry or the companies. The amount of revenue that industry takes in is irrelevant to its enforcement of copyright laws. If you don't like the laws then work to have them changed. Piracy is not a form of civil disobedience. If you want to protest then carry a sign in front of the theater or arrange a movie/DVD boycott.
Usually I'm very good about punctuation - I can't believe I wrote "peril's". I always preview my posts too. I attribute it to the fact that I'm at work trying to quickly type comments in a tiny window while dealing with people walking up to talk to me. Were there other mistakes or just the one? Are you a grammar nazi or just a Dr. Who fanboy? Next time, please, stand behind your words and don't post anonymously.
...at this site and I can see Dr. Who's problem. Without the Daleks, what new peril's will Dr. Who face if he's matched against a villian that could chase him up a ladder or through a narrow passage? If I ran the estate of Terry Nation I'd come to terms with the BBC before the BBC realizes "TV's most evil villians" are a cross between a shuttlecock and a salt shaker.
Re:Depends on the kind of graffiti
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
The images on that site are certainly interesting and some of them were obviously done by people with real talent.
Let's say you put your work on a building and somehow the owner finds out who did it. If it turned out he liked it and wanted you to do more on his buildings, would you?
I hate "mod parent up" posts but I'm in a self-loathing mood I guess. Mods, give the parent some love. It is the funniest post of the day...maybe even the week. No, even longer...it's the funniest post I've seen in a fortnight!
The original poster said the driving factor was money - by using Trillian instead of the YIM client Yahoo is deprived of ad revenue. If Yahoo's decision is about money then yes, they are charging for the network. You get the network for free and they get to show ads. It's like broadcast televison.
Even if that was exclusively the case (which I doubt it is), so what? Yahoo has bills to pay. They run the servers, maintain the infrastructure. You think you should be able to use it for free? Perhaps you should discuss this theory with the phone company...
First, build the logic. Take an RC car and use it as a lawnmower simulator. Connect your steering/avoidance circuitry to the car and see if the car acts like you want a lawnmower to.
Microsoft supports groups who produce papers that support Microsoft's position. This doesn't mean the papers were written for MS. If I send Ralph Nader a check and he comes out in favor of stricter emissions standards, I haven't bought him. We just have similar interests, which is why I sent him a check in the first place.
Sure, MS supports these organizations at a level higher than I would support Nader but I believe the principle still applies. MS sends money to organizations with congruent interests. Those organizations need to produce something to benefit their benefactors so they lobby or write white papers. Of course the papers support Microsoft's positions - that's why MS sent the money in the first place, because the group already held those views to start.
MS sent $380,000 to one group. If RedHat came along and donated $1,380,000 to the same group that group wouldn't suddenly start favoring open source software.
The author might not be paid by anyone but he's clearly a crusader. As he rambled on about Philip Morris and Exxon he posted a graph linking anti-open source with anti-global warming. He posted it at stopexxon.unfortu.net.
In writing about the response of one of the think tanks when it was accused of being a Microsoft shill, the author wrote
This is your basic non-denial denial. IPI is upset that their integrity was questioned, but they did not actually deny the charge. I pointed this out in my email to them, but they did not reply.
So they didn't actually deny the charge. That makes them guilty? And why would the respond to some blogger with an axe to grind? Oh, they didn't respond to my accusation that they're in Microsoft's pocket - that means they really are in Microsoft's pocket!
The one that says that an average Malaysian worker has to work 1,100 (yes, eleven hundred) hours to buy a licensed copy of Windows XP.
Nice sound bite. How many hours does the average Malaysian work to buy a computer, or to pay the rent and utilities on a place to put the computer, or to pay for the Internet connection required to get the software? How many hours for a cell phone? For a Linux-powered PDA? For OS X?
I'm sure XP is out of the range of affordability for much of the world's population. Is that a bad thing? Some things are more expensive. MS has costs associated with selling and supporting software that open source doesn't have. Pricing to meet those costs is a sound business practice, and as a Microsoft shareholder I'm glad they're not giving the stuff away.
Hoyle games aren't restricted just to casual players. I have Hoyle Casino 2004 (Costco, $15 or so) and love it. While it is unlikely I will have to personally hunt terrorists (or become one myself - CS), re-fight WWII (Day of Defeat), or take on other colorful tanks (bzflag) I do gamble in casinos. Hoyle Casino helps me improve my play though its tutorial mode, where a player is warned before making an incorrect play. It also allowed me to bypass the most boring table game known to man, Let It Ride (Shockwave version here). Once I played that in software I knew there was no way I'd play it at a table, where the action is even slower.
I don't think he missed the point; he's just going for a laugh. I think we all understand how the field has changed or at least that it has changed. His jokes were more annoying than funny.
But you know, he may be on to something. This could be the next wave of comedy, so let's take a look at a Model T owner's manual...
It is a significant fact that nearly all Ford cars ard driven by laymen - by owners, who in the great majority of cases have little or no practical experience with things mechanical.
Boy, how short sighted was this author to not use the word "laypeople"? Didn't he expect women to read the manual? Of course, if women in his day are anything like my wife the manual would never see the light of day!
How do the Foot Pedals operate? The first one toward the left operates the clutch. When pressed forward the clutch pedal engages the low speed. When half-way forward the clutch is in neutral (i.e., disconnected from the driving mechanism of the rear wheels), and the releasing of this pedal engages the high-speed clutch. The center pedal operates the reverse. The right-hand pedal operates the transmission brake.
What kind of car has 3 pedals and not one of them is the gas pedal? And rear-wheel drive? I'm surprised the manual doesn't just tell owners to put their feet through the floor of the car and start running!
On a side note, the manual is an interesting read. It tells how to disassemble the engine and how to grind the valves to remove carbon build-up.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, understatement. The article states, "Among other things, the field's collapse, scientists say, could let in bursts of radiation, causing a variety of disruptions." I suppose cancer could be considered a disruption...
Thank you for pointing this out. I noticed the same thing. It's not the editor's fault (because I don't consider the slashdot worker bees to be "editors")but rather the submitter's ("TolkiEinstein" - an ironic name considering the error). I was shocked at how much the field had decreased and wondered how I missed such a thing when I was studying a related field in grad school. Sure, I'm not the best of students but I figured I'd remember something like that!
No one is being oppressed, suppressed, whatever. The standards that dictate the bleeps have been in place for years. Dreyfuss knew this going into the project. What changed is the cost of breaking the standards, so he's complaining it's now too expensive for PBS to allow him to violate the standards. Perhaps he should have chosen a more appropriate venue for his work.
Also, the article linked to was a columnist's take on it. I don't know if I'd consider it "reporting" as columnists tend to skew things according to their opinions.
Hooligans? I suppose your car also gets 40 rods to the hogshead...
Considering the price of movie tickets has doubled in the last 6 years. They aren't selling more tickets, they're extorting money from those willing to pay.
Where did you get your numbers from? Here's what I was able to dig up:
Average ticket price 2003: $6.03
Average ticket price 1997: $4.59
source
Number of admissions (billions):
2003: 1.57
2002: 1.63
2001: 1.49
2000: 1.42
1999: 1.47
1998: 1.48
1997: 1.39
source
It seems the price has not doubled and ticket sales are generally rising.
If a company or industry is successful it's ok to pirate their products and potentially deprive them of revenue? What happened to right and wrong? Following the law? The justifications only make it easier on your conscience; they don't make it any more right. Even if you feel the industry makes plenty of money and won't miss your $8 admission it is still wrong to pirate movies.
This is not about rights, making a statement, acting out in protest. The studios make a product apparently very much in demand. Some people don't want to pay for that product so they demonize the industry or the companies. The amount of revenue that industry takes in is irrelevant to its enforcement of copyright laws. If you don't like the laws then work to have them changed. Piracy is not a form of civil disobedience. If you want to protest then carry a sign in front of the theater or arrange a movie/DVD boycott.
Usually I'm very good about punctuation - I can't believe I wrote "peril's". I always preview my posts too. I attribute it to the fact that I'm at work trying to quickly type comments in a tiny window while dealing with people walking up to talk to me. Were there other mistakes or just the one? Are you a grammar nazi or just a Dr. Who fanboy? Next time, please, stand behind your words and don't post anonymously.
...at this site and I can see Dr. Who's problem. Without the Daleks, what new peril's will Dr. Who face if he's matched against a villian that could chase him up a ladder or through a narrow passage? If I ran the estate of Terry Nation I'd come to terms with the BBC before the BBC realizes "TV's most evil villians" are a cross between a shuttlecock and a salt shaker.
I guess you didn't try to download the video then. They have some serious bandwidth - it's downloading at full speed.
Yes, you are.
The images on that site are certainly interesting and some of them were obviously done by people with real talent.
Let's say you put your work on a building and somehow the owner finds out who did it. If it turned out he liked it and wanted you to do more on his buildings, would you?
Thank you for getting the joke.
Do you have pictures of your graffiti so we can see if what you're shoving into our faces could be considered art?
Yahoo! IM client does not use ads for revenue.
I use YIM for Windows from time to time. How are the ads not for revenue?
I hate "mod parent up" posts but I'm in a self-loathing mood I guess. Mods, give the parent some love. It is the funniest post of the day...maybe even the week. No, even longer...it's the funniest post I've seen in a fortnight!
You just have to send them a picture of somewhere on Earth that deserves to be spared from the Vogons by 25 June
...and the goatse pictures start rolling in...
The original poster said the driving factor was money - by using Trillian instead of the YIM client Yahoo is deprived of ad revenue. If Yahoo's decision is about money then yes, they are charging for the network. You get the network for free and they get to show ads. It's like broadcast televison.
Even if that was exclusively the case (which I doubt it is), so what? Yahoo has bills to pay. They run the servers, maintain the infrastructure. You think you should be able to use it for free? Perhaps you should discuss this theory with the phone company...
Pah. Go start your own conference. You can advertise it on your own country-specific slashdot.
First, build the logic. Take an RC car and use it as a lawnmower simulator. Connect your steering/avoidance circuitry to the car and see if the car acts like you want a lawnmower to.
Microsoft supports groups who produce papers that support Microsoft's position. This doesn't mean the papers were written for MS. If I send Ralph Nader a check and he comes out in favor of stricter emissions standards, I haven't bought him. We just have similar interests, which is why I sent him a check in the first place.
Sure, MS supports these organizations at a level higher than I would support Nader but I believe the principle still applies. MS sends money to organizations with congruent interests. Those organizations need to produce something to benefit their benefactors so they lobby or write white papers. Of course the papers support Microsoft's positions - that's why MS sent the money in the first place, because the group already held those views to start.
MS sent $380,000 to one group. If RedHat came along and donated $1,380,000 to the same group that group wouldn't suddenly start favoring open source software.
The author might not be paid by anyone but he's clearly a crusader. As he rambled on about Philip Morris and Exxon he posted a graph linking anti-open source with anti-global warming. He posted it at stopexxon.unfortu.net.
In writing about the response of one of the think tanks when it was accused of being a Microsoft shill, the author wrote
This is your basic non-denial denial. IPI is upset that their integrity was questioned, but they did not actually deny the charge. I pointed this out in my email to them, but they did not reply.
So they didn't actually deny the charge. That makes them guilty? And why would the respond to some blogger with an axe to grind? Oh, they didn't respond to my accusation that they're in Microsoft's pocket - that means they really are in Microsoft's pocket!
The one that says that an average Malaysian worker has to work 1,100 (yes, eleven hundred) hours to buy a licensed copy of Windows XP.
Nice sound bite. How many hours does the average Malaysian work to buy a computer, or to pay the rent and utilities on a place to put the computer, or to pay for the Internet connection required to get the software? How many hours for a cell phone? For a Linux-powered PDA? For OS X?
I'm sure XP is out of the range of affordability for much of the world's population. Is that a bad thing? Some things are more expensive. MS has costs associated with selling and supporting software that open source doesn't have. Pricing to meet those costs is a sound business practice, and as a Microsoft shareholder I'm glad they're not giving the stuff away.
Hoyle games aren't restricted just to casual players. I have Hoyle Casino 2004 (Costco, $15 or so) and love it. While it is unlikely I will have to personally hunt terrorists (or become one myself - CS), re-fight WWII (Day of Defeat), or take on other colorful tanks (bzflag) I do gamble in casinos. Hoyle Casino helps me improve my play though its tutorial mode, where a player is warned before making an incorrect play. It also allowed me to bypass the most boring table game known to man, Let It Ride (Shockwave version here). Once I played that in software I knew there was no way I'd play it at a table, where the action is even slower.
I don't think he missed the point; he's just going for a laugh. I think we all understand how the field has changed or at least that it has changed. His jokes were more annoying than funny.
But you know, he may be on to something. This could be the next wave of comedy, so let's take a look at a Model T owner's manual...
It is a significant fact that nearly all Ford cars ard driven by laymen - by owners, who in the great majority of cases have little or no practical experience with things mechanical.
Boy, how short sighted was this author to not use the word "laypeople"? Didn't he expect women to read the manual? Of course, if women in his day are anything like my wife the manual would never see the light of day!
How do the Foot Pedals operate?
The first one toward the left operates the clutch. When pressed forward the clutch pedal engages the low speed. When half-way forward the clutch is in neutral (i.e., disconnected from the driving mechanism of the rear wheels), and the releasing of this pedal engages the high-speed clutch. The center pedal operates the reverse. The right-hand pedal operates the transmission brake.
What kind of car has 3 pedals and not one of them is the gas pedal? And rear-wheel drive? I'm surprised the manual doesn't just tell owners to put their feet through the floor of the car and start running!
On a side note, the manual is an interesting read. It tells how to disassemble the engine and how to grind the valves to remove carbon build-up.