Not to mention that even the courts hold a much different standard for infringement based on whether or not the end goal was financial gain. Your average music piracy is not-for-profit.
Since when doesn't killing terrorists and evil rebels count as improving society? If robots can be advanced to the stage whereby they can replace human soldiers, then it will improve society as allied troops can sit at home in safety whilst the robots go out and do the peacekeeping. Our enemies wouldn't stand much chance against opponents that are immune to bullets. This invention could save our soldiers lives at the expense of murderers and terrorists.
Dude, you're taking yourself way too seriously. These guys knew the shit they were talking was just bullshit......this whole story is. So what? It's supposed to be funny. And, for some of us, it is.
It's actually pretty close to the right number if you take out blacks, who are overwhelmingly both baptist and Democrat. If you don't, then yes, it's an exaggeration.
Jeez, I've never seen so many plain fools in all my life. Hardware RAID controllers! How quaint.
Here's what you do with those 8 fine drives of yours.
You'll need 9 486's. Get some sort of *nix on each one, preferably several different Linux variants and at least 2 BSD machines (I'd say more, but you know, netcraft confirms and all....) and get them all networked together. Put one drive each in 8 of the machines, format with the filesystem that's most convenient for the system on each box, and get an NFS server going serving that partition.
Then, on the ninth box, mount all the NFS shares and software RAID them.
Trust me. This is exactly what you want to do, and anybody who says different is a dumbass. People who point out what they will invariably say are "obvious shortcomings" of this setup are merely trolls, and not worth your time reading.
Security is as always a function of its weakest link. In these cases, that link's going to be the election workers.
Right. Except, not at all. Because in this instance, the weakest link isn't the workers. It's the machines that marginalize their role and are vastly less reliable.
If we could get computerized voting that did manage to make the workers the weakest link, it would be fabulous! It would be like having..........wait for it...........paper ballots again!
Seriously, the fact that we, collectively, haven't produced an electronic replacement for the ballot box is downright silly. Our attempts are unreliable, insecure, and most of all lack trustworthiness, because the companies that make them are strongly associated with one party. And the sad thing is, we use them anyway.
They market it as a single person GAME. Not a single person engine or a single person technical-exerise-in-what-a-game-could-be.
WRONG.
You didn't even read my post, did you? You might buy it as a single person game...but that's not how they market it. And they don't market it to you either. They market it to people like Valve, who built Half-Life on the Q2 engine, who want to market single person games to you. And they make way, way more money doing it that way.
So cut the crap; Doom3 is a demo for what is likely to be the highest-grossing engine of the next few years.
Last count I had Soros spending 19M. Not 40. Anyway, in an election where there will probably be near (if not over) 1 billion spent....he's just one of the bagmen. It's not like Bush doesn't have plenty like him.
id has never been heavy on innovations in storyline or gameplay or anything like that. It's all about the engine to them. How much money did they make selling Quake3? How much did they make selling the Quake3 engine?
(I'll give you a hint. You'll need to move your decimal point.)
I predict they won't make nearly as much off Doom3 as they will off the Doom3 engine. It doesn't require any kind of storyline to do that. So why would they put one in?
That said, I've not yet played an id game that wasn't a helluvalot of fun, for what it was.
To claim that I advocate fraud is jumping to conclusions.
I didn't say you advocated it. Just dismissed it, and blamed the results on the victim of an actual crime and an ethical abomination. And you did.
Using the valet argument isn't valid, as the valet is an official employee of the establishment.
This organization is "officially" registered as a non-profit organization and is bound by that station just as the valet is. It isn't just some guy who got a bunch of voter registration cards to hand out, like your "volunteer" valet. No, these people are required to uphold their end of this.
I would never trust my voter registration in a non-official channel...
And I've never found it to be an issue...people who read the "Politics" page on/. are likely to have been registered for months or years, and probably directly. But we aren't the targets of these organizations either. They are looking to get people voting who wouldn't otherwise.
Sorry, didn't know this would strike such a nerve... was just trying to make a point.
Well, that's fine....but the point was ass-backwards. Someone who gets handed a registration card by someone claiming to be involved in a not-for-profit registration drive, and then gets their card torn up because that not-for-profit was actually a paid-600k-by-the-RNC registration drive, is being defrauded, in the eyes of both the law and any reasonable observer. Few of them, being the types who registered because someone approached them, will make a big fuss. But the rest of us should ensure that these slimey sons-of-bitches get locked down someplace.
Anyone who registers to vote through "non-official channels" deserves to have something like this happen, no matter what party you're affiliated with.
You are a fucking idiot.
While I'm not sure it even warrants more explanation than the above, I've got free time. This is a legitimate and reasonable way to register that is sanctioned by the governments of all 50 states and has been used for many years. It is done both by simple voting activists (non-partisan folks who just think the system will work better if more of us are involved) and party-affiliated groups that want to get more of their people to the polls. But the latter is expected to reach their goals by choosing who they approach to register...once they take a registration from someone, they are both legally and ethically bound to actually process the registration to the best of their ability. Intentionally doing anything else is pure and simple fraud. End of story.
And to say that fraud is just ok, and that anyone who is defrauded deserved it because they were so stupid as to believe the legally bound claims of a not-for-profit organization....well, that's just lunacy. You might as well say that someone who got his car stolen by a valet deserved it, because he was stupid enough to turn over his keys. It completely ignores that it's the valet's job to take your car and give it back....just as it's these peoples job to actually register you to vote.
Well, I've been using OO for a long, long time. Actually, since before it was OpenOffice, back in the StarOffice 5 days. It used to be almost entirely unusable. Now it's good enough to limp on. It keeps getting better...
I completely defenestrated over 2 years ago at both home and work, and this is one of the pillars holding that up. I use it almost every day; mostly on documents I created, but also a good chunk of time on.doc and.xls files. I have occasional problems...either someone's.doc file gets misformatted (or, very rarely, won't open) or I hear that a document I sent doesn't look right. It doesn't happen often, and when it does I typically just save to.rtf or something to get around it. I also send out all contracts and things that the recipient won't need to edit (and shouldn't!) in.pdf instead. That solves a lot of the display issues. Only maybe once or twice in the last year have I been forced to get a document over to one of my co-workers Windows machines...highly embarrassing, that. But then, I've been asked to untar something more often than that;-)
But compatibility isn't my main OpenOffice gripe. Editing is a pain in the ass. Autocomplete will fight you to the death, the onscrean display of text frequently just goes "all weird" so my cursor is away from where the text is appearing and there are blank spots and lines sometimes get crunched together (but these problems don't appear in the printed document). And what's with the text just randomly changing font size while I'm not looking? I can usually force it back to what I want...but man, what a pain in the ass.
So, in summation, I hate OpenOffice. But I absolutely can't live without it. Which makes it pretty much exactly like every single other Office suite I've ever had to use regularly. Somebody mentioned at some point that a piece of software doesn't need to be the best thing out there to be successful...just good enough and cheap. Well, OpenOffice fits the bill for me.
Will that do the resolutions and framerates we're talking about in realtime? Are you not reading the parents, or did the parent have low ideas of "beafy[sic] machine"? To tell you the truth, I don't know, I was just posing the theoretical in response to the stated problem. But either way, even if reasonable hardware will do the resolutions we're discussing right now, there would certainly be other, if very exotic, uses.
Well, yeah, deinterlacing. That's entirely different. We're talking about trying to overcome an inability to decode in realtime (due to processor limitations) by decoding in halftime on two machines at once.
Atleast with the linux drivers it's possible to capture and decode them with a software player. (just not at full framerate, unless you have a really beafy machine
I wonder, could you get two boxes, set each to half framerate, and sync them so that between the two of them they get all the frames? If you could, could you reconstruct the video when you were done?
Perhaps it's a bit over-the-top....but that's kind of the point.
Interesting; I've heard nothing of this sort until now. Naturally, I haven't asked them whether they will force that on me. Do you know where I can go to get some more information on that? Sure would be a shame to lose the HD....I'm not upgrading that projector any time soon. I've only got it because I bought it broken at an auction for next to nothing and then fixed it.
I've got a Motorolla digital cable hdtv receiver from Mediacom Cable, attached to an HD-capable LCD projector. It works flawlessly. I had to get a component->VGA cable (not a scan or color converter though, the projector does YPbPr and all the HD scan modes), but other than that, no worries. So, looking at all this guy's troubles, I guess I'd have to say your mileage may vary dramatically.
That said, I'm a bit annoyed with the limited channels. I get about 8 HDTV channels that come in at 760p. That's ESPN, Discovery (fucking awesome), Bravo, Encore, Showtime, HBO, and a couple of others just thrown together by Mediacom. The rest of everything comes in at the normal digital cable rate; I tell the cable box to send it in 540p.
The HDTV channels just blow the others away. Switching back and forth is really like night and day...you need to see it to appreciate it at all. But I'm paying about an extra $25 a month, just to get those 8 really clear channels. I'm starting to wonder whether it's really worth it.
Oh well...c'est la vie, I guess. But what I wouldn't give to have Comedy Central, and maybe Fox, in HD.
Thanks for the answers to several of these. I would like to mention a couple of things:
A CRT computer monitor is a TV without a tuner, so, yes.
A computer monitor is much more than a TV, as far as scanning modes go, and typically don't have very appropiate inputs. I know they sell monitors over there...and I know that lots of HDTV monitors and such would fit the discription I gave as well. But I was really directing this at kind of el-cheapo regular ol' TV's, with like a SCART on them.
Yes, I suppose so, but the feed into a television from a non-terrestrial broadcast feed (satellite, or cable) is in the form of an RF jack that is then interpretted by the tuner (thought sometimes this is by SCART or component in, instead).
Well, it could be different there of course, but around here I've never seen a satallite box that didn't have RCA outputs (as well as coax RF). Standalone cable boxes same story.
As above, yes, part of the tuner. Legally, no, because the detecting of the tuner is the mechanism, not the law (otherwise someone would just make a tuner that used a different frequency). However, they would not automatically detect one's watching of TV, so...
Well, right. I was pretty sure it wouldn't be legal, was just wondering about the detection. Also, I'm interested in this tuner that uses a different frequency......wouldn't that pretty much take it out of the broadcast TV band? Not much point in that...
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that even the courts hold a much different standard for infringement based on whether or not the end goal was financial gain. Your average music piracy is not-for-profit.
Cocksucker.
(Parent's links dick up your browser)
Since when doesn't killing terrorists and evil rebels count as improving society? If robots can be advanced to the stage whereby they can replace human soldiers, then it will improve society as allied troops can sit at home in safety whilst the robots go out and do the peacekeeping. Our enemies wouldn't stand much chance against opponents that are immune to bullets. This invention could save our soldiers lives at the expense of murderers and terrorists.
Yeah. Works great....as long as we're right.
Good point. Hadn't thought of that.
You cheesedicks. It's a joke...
...maybe he shouldn't be running his webserver on Minix.
Dude, you're taking yourself way too seriously. These guys knew the shit they were talking was just bullshit......this whole story is. So what? It's supposed to be funny. And, for some of us, it is.
It's actually pretty close to the right number if you take out blacks, who are overwhelmingly both baptist and Democrat. If you don't, then yes, it's an exaggeration.
Jeez, I've never seen so many plain fools in all my life. Hardware RAID controllers! How quaint.
Here's what you do with those 8 fine drives of yours.
You'll need 9 486's. Get some sort of *nix on each one, preferably several different Linux variants and at least 2 BSD machines (I'd say more, but you know, netcraft confirms and all....) and get them all networked together. Put one drive each in 8 of the machines, format with the filesystem that's most convenient for the system on each box, and get an NFS server going serving that partition.
Then, on the ninth box, mount all the NFS shares and software RAID them.
Trust me. This is exactly what you want to do, and anybody who says different is a dumbass. People who point out what they will invariably say are "obvious shortcomings" of this setup are merely trolls, and not worth your time reading.
Well, I don't very seriously subscribe to a religion, but my father does have a bumper sticker on his car that reads, "Southern Baptist Democrat"
Security is as always a function of its weakest link. In these cases, that link's going to be the election workers.
Right. Except, not at all. Because in this instance, the weakest link isn't the workers. It's the machines that marginalize their role and are vastly less reliable.
If we could get computerized voting that did manage to make the workers the weakest link, it would be fabulous! It would be like having..........wait for it...........paper ballots again!
Seriously, the fact that we, collectively, haven't produced an electronic replacement for the ballot box is downright silly. Our attempts are unreliable, insecure, and most of all lack trustworthiness, because the companies that make them are strongly associated with one party. And the sad thing is, we use them anyway.
Awesome. Get your emotional instrument all tuned up. Saw it on your bumper sticker.
But couldn't you see that God was pro-death, too?
They market it as a single person GAME. Not a single person engine or a single person technical-exerise-in-what-a-game-could-be.
WRONG.
You didn't even read my post, did you? You might buy it as a single person game...but that's not how they market it. And they don't market it to you either. They market it to people like Valve, who built Half-Life on the Q2 engine, who want to market single person games to you. And they make way, way more money doing it that way.
So cut the crap; Doom3 is a demo for what is likely to be the highest-grossing engine of the next few years.
Last count I had Soros spending 19M. Not 40. Anyway, in an election where there will probably be near (if not over) 1 billion spent....he's just one of the bagmen. It's not like Bush doesn't have plenty like him.
Horseshit.
id has never been heavy on innovations in storyline or gameplay or anything like that. It's all about the engine to them. How much money did they make selling Quake3? How much did they make selling the Quake3 engine?
(I'll give you a hint. You'll need to move your decimal point.)
I predict they won't make nearly as much off Doom3 as they will off the Doom3 engine. It doesn't require any kind of storyline to do that. So why would they put one in?
That said, I've not yet played an id game that wasn't a helluvalot of fun, for what it was.
To claim that I advocate fraud is jumping to conclusions.
I didn't say you advocated it. Just dismissed it, and blamed the results on the victim of an actual crime and an ethical abomination. And you did.
Using the valet argument isn't valid, as the valet is an official employee of the establishment.
This organization is "officially" registered as a non-profit organization and is bound by that station just as the valet is. It isn't just some guy who got a bunch of voter registration cards to hand out, like your "volunteer" valet. No, these people are required to uphold their end of this.
I would never trust my voter registration in a non-official channel...
And I've never found it to be an issue...people who read the "Politics" page on /. are likely to have been registered for months or years, and probably directly. But we aren't the targets of these organizations either. They are looking to get people voting who wouldn't otherwise.
Sorry, didn't know this would strike such a nerve... was just trying to make a point.
Well, that's fine....but the point was ass-backwards. Someone who gets handed a registration card by someone claiming to be involved in a not-for-profit registration drive, and then gets their card torn up because that not-for-profit was actually a paid-600k-by-the-RNC registration drive, is being defrauded, in the eyes of both the law and any reasonable observer. Few of them, being the types who registered because someone approached them, will make a big fuss. But the rest of us should ensure that these slimey sons-of-bitches get locked down someplace.
Anyone who registers to vote through "non-official channels" deserves to have something like this happen, no matter what party you're affiliated with.
You are a fucking idiot.
While I'm not sure it even warrants more explanation than the above, I've got free time. This is a legitimate and reasonable way to register that is sanctioned by the governments of all 50 states and has been used for many years. It is done both by simple voting activists (non-partisan folks who just think the system will work better if more of us are involved) and party-affiliated groups that want to get more of their people to the polls. But the latter is expected to reach their goals by choosing who they approach to register...once they take a registration from someone, they are both legally and ethically bound to actually process the registration to the best of their ability. Intentionally doing anything else is pure and simple fraud. End of story.
And to say that fraud is just ok, and that anyone who is defrauded deserved it because they were so stupid as to believe the legally bound claims of a not-for-profit organization....well, that's just lunacy. You might as well say that someone who got his car stolen by a valet deserved it, because he was stupid enough to turn over his keys. It completely ignores that it's the valet's job to take your car and give it back....just as it's these peoples job to actually register you to vote.
Well, I've been using OO for a long, long time. Actually, since before it was OpenOffice, back in the StarOffice 5 days. It used to be almost entirely unusable. Now it's good enough to limp on. It keeps getting better...
I completely defenestrated over 2 years ago at both home and work, and this is one of the pillars holding that up. I use it almost every day; mostly on documents I created, but also a good chunk of time on .doc and .xls files. I have occasional problems...either someone's .doc file gets misformatted (or, very rarely, won't open) or I hear that a document I sent doesn't look right. It doesn't happen often, and when it does I typically just save to .rtf or something to get around it. I also send out all contracts and things that the recipient won't need to edit (and shouldn't!) in .pdf instead. That solves a lot of the display issues. Only maybe once or twice in the last year have I been forced to get a document over to one of my co-workers Windows machines...highly embarrassing, that. But then, I've been asked to untar something more often than that ;-)
But compatibility isn't my main OpenOffice gripe. Editing is a pain in the ass. Autocomplete will fight you to the death, the onscrean display of text frequently just goes "all weird" so my cursor is away from where the text is appearing and there are blank spots and lines sometimes get crunched together (but these problems don't appear in the printed document). And what's with the text just randomly changing font size while I'm not looking? I can usually force it back to what I want...but man, what a pain in the ass.
So, in summation, I hate OpenOffice. But I absolutely can't live without it. Which makes it pretty much exactly like every single other Office suite I've ever had to use regularly. Somebody mentioned at some point that a piece of software doesn't need to be the best thing out there to be successful...just good enough and cheap. Well, OpenOffice fits the bill for me.
Will that do the resolutions and framerates we're talking about in realtime? Are you not reading the parents, or did the parent have low ideas of "beafy[sic] machine"? To tell you the truth, I don't know, I was just posing the theoretical in response to the stated problem. But either way, even if reasonable hardware will do the resolutions we're discussing right now, there would certainly be other, if very exotic, uses.
Well, yeah, deinterlacing. That's entirely different. We're talking about trying to overcome an inability to decode in realtime (due to processor limitations) by decoding in halftime on two machines at once.
Atleast with the linux drivers it's possible to capture and decode them with a software player. (just not at full framerate, unless you have a really beafy machine
I wonder, could you get two boxes, set each to half framerate, and sync them so that between the two of them they get all the frames? If you could, could you reconstruct the video when you were done?
Perhaps it's a bit over-the-top....but that's kind of the point.
Interesting; I've heard nothing of this sort until now. Naturally, I haven't asked them whether they will force that on me. Do you know where I can go to get some more information on that? Sure would be a shame to lose the HD....I'm not upgrading that projector any time soon. I've only got it because I bought it broken at an auction for next to nothing and then fixed it.
I've got a Motorolla digital cable hdtv receiver from Mediacom Cable, attached to an HD-capable LCD projector. It works flawlessly. I had to get a component->VGA cable (not a scan or color converter though, the projector does YPbPr and all the HD scan modes), but other than that, no worries. So, looking at all this guy's troubles, I guess I'd have to say your mileage may vary dramatically.
That said, I'm a bit annoyed with the limited channels. I get about 8 HDTV channels that come in at 760p. That's ESPN, Discovery (fucking awesome), Bravo, Encore, Showtime, HBO, and a couple of others just thrown together by Mediacom. The rest of everything comes in at the normal digital cable rate; I tell the cable box to send it in 540p.
The HDTV channels just blow the others away. Switching back and forth is really like night and day...you need to see it to appreciate it at all. But I'm paying about an extra $25 a month, just to get those 8 really clear channels. I'm starting to wonder whether it's really worth it.
Oh well...c'est la vie, I guess. But what I wouldn't give to have Comedy Central, and maybe Fox, in HD.
Thanks for the answers to several of these. I would like to mention a couple of things:
A CRT computer monitor is a TV without a tuner, so, yes.
A computer monitor is much more than a TV, as far as scanning modes go, and typically don't have very appropiate inputs. I know they sell monitors over there...and I know that lots of HDTV monitors and such would fit the discription I gave as well. But I was really directing this at kind of el-cheapo regular ol' TV's, with like a SCART on them.
Yes, I suppose so, but the feed into a television from a non-terrestrial broadcast feed (satellite, or cable) is in the form of an RF jack that is then interpretted by the tuner (thought sometimes this is by SCART or component in, instead).
Well, it could be different there of course, but around here I've never seen a satallite box that didn't have RCA outputs (as well as coax RF). Standalone cable boxes same story.
As above, yes, part of the tuner. Legally, no, because the detecting of the tuner is the mechanism, not the law (otherwise someone would just make a tuner that used a different frequency). However, they would not automatically detect one's watching of TV, so...
Well, right. I was pretty sure it wouldn't be legal, was just wondering about the detection. Also, I'm interested in this tuner that uses a different frequency......wouldn't that pretty much take it out of the broadcast TV band? Not much point in that...
Which practice? Physics? Museum exhibits in public libraries? Because those cats are already pretty much out of the bag...
Oh, and the exhibit's in New York, not Germany.
(did you mean to go here?)