"Conventional" trains make noises ranging from low rumbles (slower trains) to what resembles gigantic versions of the "fwooooooooosh" of a racecar passing you (Acela and other modern high-speed trains). But loud, high-pitched sounds coming from a piece of machinery (e.g. a train) could make people think the machine is out of control.
High-pitched mechanical sounds carry a connotation of machinery operating "out of control", or running faster than it should. I'll put it this way. If you walked into, say, a widget factory, and heard the machines cranking away with a low rumble, wouldn't you feel more comfortable than if they were generating a constant high-pitched whining? In which scenario would you fear, deep down in your gut, that one of those machines is about to go haywire, break down, and shoot a cog in your general direction? This is regardless of the actual speed of the machinery. Low sounds are just less unnerving in this case. (Or so I feel...)
Perhaps the sound of a maglev operating at 150mph would be more unnerving than that of an Acela train operating at 150mph since the nature of the maglev sounds would make it "sound like" it's more likely than the Acela to disrail (even though, as a maglev, it already is 'disrailed' in a sense;) ) and crush the hapless onlooker...
WagEd == Microsoft PR firm Waggener Edstrom
on
A Babe in Tuxland
·
· Score: 1, Informative
(For those of us who don't know these things by heart)
If they DON'T lose against IBM, we will have a lot to worry about.
Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
Re:The whole streaming audio/video field's gone cr
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Yes, dammit, the whole POINT of my rant was about archived content. As in, in 20 years, when I try to play my family movies, and find that I can't because of some past/present corporate fucknuttery.
Re:The whole streaming audio/video field's gone cr
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Why the fuck would I be trolling Mac people? I AM a Mac person. Apple is the only proprietary software vendor I actually admire any more. Sun's sold out to Microsoft, DEC's sold out to Compaq (*shudder*), SGI lost me when they came out with Windows workstations... Apple's the only proprietary software vendor I give a rat's ass about any more.
I do not object to Apple, or to Mac OS X, or to the Mac architecture. I do object to QuickTime, and in particular to the funky proprietary codecs that proliferate through QuickTime files (e.g. Sorenson...)
Re:The whole streaming audio/video field's gone cr
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
This is all very wonderful; so where can I download the QuickTime Player for Linux/SPARC, or NetBSD/StrongARM, or maybe BeOS/PPC or AtheOS/x86 which can play Sorenson-encoded QuickTime files? Oh, download MPlayer you say? That isn't "licenced" to do squat; it's a labour of love from some fine hackers in Hungary. Do you really think they have a licence from Sorenson? Sorry, that answer is incorrect.
Re:The whole streaming audio/video field's gone cr
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
"Multiple Platforms" == "Mac OS, Mac OS X, Windows."
"Other players" == potentially illegal things like MPlayer.
"Source freely available" == For QuickTime, yes. For many/most/all (?) of the codecs (kof kof SORENSON kof kof kof SORENSON kof kof kof!), no.
And who gives a flaming shit about the server? It's the ability to actually play the files once you have them that is important. Whoopteeshit, so in 10 years, we'll still be able to compile old open-sourced server source code and SERVE UP QuickTime streams, but what will we use to PLAY them? MPlayer? Which would have been declared illegal by a top-level state or Federal court in the US in 2005 or 2006? Maybe VLC, which would have died off eventually due to waning interest-- and which would also be, by implication, DMCA-illegal. Maybe we could play it with Xine, which will only be available in Lindows 2007 for $49.95 in an "officially MPAA/RIAA licenced version". (Lindows currently offers a legal Linux DVD player for Lindows, for instance-- the only one I know of. I believe it's based off of Xine... So my extrapolation isn't so far-fetched.)
You obviously missed the point of what I'm saying. My whole point is: We are locking up our cultural legacy in proprietary formats. WHY are we doing this? WHY are we allowing this to happen?
Re:The whole streaming audio/video field's gone cr
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it...
The whole streaming audio/video field's gone crazy
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is RIDICULOUS! In one corner, we have Microsoft. 'Nuff said. In another, we have Apple-- QuickTime players for Mac OS/Mac OS X and Windows, and "grey market" potentially-DMCA-illegal playing via MPlayer. In another corner, we have Real, who SUCK in every way possible.
And then, in the virtually ignored fourth corner, we have the stuff that isn't totally assraped by big (or not so big, in Real's case) corporations. MP3. Ogg. Freaking gzipped.AU for all I care. AND NO ONE USES ANY OF THIS STUFF.
No, we have two choices: (1) Run Windows and/or Mac OS X and download some spyware-riddled bloatware from Apple, Real (ugh) or Microsoft (DOUBLE ugh), or (2) run any other OS and use a probably-illegal tool like MPlayer. (Oh, MPlayer isn't illegal, you say? Who the hell are you kidding? At the first nastygram from any big patent-wielding corporation, MPlayer's going bye-bye. As far as I'm concerned, thanks to our pal the DMCA, it's just another DeCSS waiting to happen.)
This is FREAKING RIDICULOUS. Who benefits from any of this? It doesn't even seem as if MS and Apple benefit. Certainly, the "consumer" slash "end-user" slash "listener" doesn't.
This is fucking asinine. I am getting truly disgusted by all of this ridiculous pushing of proprietary standards. SCREW THIS. What will happen in 20 years when someone needs to open a.wma file, but.wma has been extinct for a dozen years, and the only program that will open it will be Foobleblatz(R) AudioMasher Pro(TM), a pro-level audio editing tool "with support for over 500 current and previous codecs and encoding formats", for the equivalent of $999.95 2004 dollars?
Audiovisual works are our cultural legacy. And we're blindly allowing corporations to seal up the standards used to encode these works to digital form. What the fuck is our problem? "Consumer groups" and publications like Consumer Reports should be screaming for open standards... but they don't even know or care what the problem is... Nor will they until around 2010 or so, when they try to play their old files and find that they can't...
Imagine if Gutenberg's printing press was available only on license from Gutenberg Ltd., and that everything it printed used a special ink completely invisible unless you wear the patented Gutenberg Glasses(R), available for a MERE sum of 10 shillings. Think that sounds ridiculous? We're doing the very same thing today. Eventually, "dead tree" media will die, and the media used to replace it will be completely corporate-controlled, proprietary, and... god, it's going to be a nightmare. The nightmare is already beginning, in fact...
...we had a port of Doom that let you kill processes. I think it was called psdoom or processdoom or something. A friend and I wanted to modify it to do a portscan and represent all visible Windows machines as enemies. Shooting one would send a brief pingflood to one. Killing it would send it the Ping-Of-Death...:) (This was back in those days...)to
Instructions for 2.4 to 2.6 upgrades for Luddites?
on
Linux 2.6.5 is Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Luddites like me might like to try 2.6, if only we had some guidance. I still run Debian Stable (yes, Stable) since I don't trust Unstable or Testing not to muck up my system.
Anyone got upgrade instructions for Debian 3.0, or other 'old' distros? Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be on the 'bleeding edge' in all areas. Nevertheless, to be able to try new kernels would be nice.
I tend to use a lot of odd/eclectic combinations of hardware. Once, I had an old Apple II RGB monitor (with an RCA-style plug in the back) which I used to display DVD video output from an old Creative Labs DxR2 decoder. Until I disabled Macrovision, I could not watch the movies I legally paid for (<sarcasm>from Wal-Mart, like a Good American(TM)</sarcasm>). So I had to break the law to watch what I legally paid for. (For the record, I was also using a Linux box to play the DVD, so <sarcasm>obviously I'm some sort of evil hacker criminal</sarcasm>).
At another point, I had a set-top DVD player, and was trying to use it with an old TV player which had only a coaxial RF input. So at first I passed the signal through a VCR, which of course made Macrovision wreck the signal (image fading in and out, just like in the previous example). Until I scrapped an old Nintendo RF adaptor (which is probably DMCA-illegal for some convoluted reason also-- I mean, hell,<sarcasm>'Consumers' have no right to open up products they paid for</sarcasm>) and rebuilt it into a generalized RCA-to-coax adaptor suitable for use on the DVD player, I couldn't play my (again legally paid for at a Good American Retail Outlet(TM)) DVDs.
So, let's review. Macrovision has made it more difficult for me to play legally-owned DVDs. And it's pissed me off even more at the MPAA for getting in bed with those fucktards. So... what, again, does Macrovision do to decrease piracy? I can testify that it makes me more interested in disobeying the MPAA cartel's stupid rules, since all it seems to do is annoy people and force them to buy (or build) more equipment...
Of all the interesting moons in this solar system
on
Titanic Saturn
·
· Score: 3, Funny
...i.e. *kof kof* EUROPA... why Titan?
Hydrocarbon seas. Could there be interest here by the oil industry? Makes you wonder...;)
The availability of a free-as-in-beer compiler for Windows doesn't have as much of an impact on Windows programmers as you might think. In the free-software world, the good coders tend to work on the Linux kernel and such things. In the Windows world, the good coders tend to want money for their work. Which means that the people left to develop freeware (i.e. free-as-in-beer, not-usually-free-as-in-speech software) are...
The not-so-good coders. The coders who would just look at you funny if you suggested that they use a command-line tool.
Sure, there are exceptions, like the excellent IrfanView and of course the wonderful (and also free-as-in-speech!) utility CDEX, and of course many "cross-platform" projects like Audacity and The GIMP (many of which originated in the Linux/Unix world anyhow)... buuuut... the majority of the freeware coders in the Windows world tend to be those who couldn't easily make a living off of their code.
You have to remember that the CULTURE in the Windows world is not like that of the Linux world...
While we're on the topic of comparative culture (drifting rapidly off-topic here, but...), please note that in Windows-land, money is a much stronger motivator. Additionally, in Windows-land, conformity is a lot more prevalent. You still see Unix coders who prefer some obscure clone of EMACS or vi, or an even more obscure editor no one's heard of, or one they wrote themselves. Windows people tend to write their papers in MS Word, and only MS Word... because that's what everyone else uses. It is a more conformist culture (this isn't a judgment, it's simply a fact!)
I am, at this very moment, editing a letter using GNU nano and a CGI I scripted in Perl to format it nicely for printing and/or PDFing. I'm not using MS Office, or even OpenOffice. And there are gajillions of people using "weird" or otherwise obscure solutions like that throughout the Unix world. In Windows-land, a weird approach like that would just get you funny looks. Like I said-- differences in culture...
The author is probably one of those new-school, semi-computer-literate thinkers who has been slowly coaxed into believing that large corporations are wholly benign entities which have the public's best interests in mind. Many people nowadays seem to honestly believe that. They seem to believe the snazzy corporate slogans like "GE: We Bring Good Things to Life", and honestly believe that the megacorps are out to help humanity. (Ever been to EPCOT Center in Disneyworld? It's all about that "benevolent corporate sponsor" mindset-- "Ooh, look at all of these wonderful exhibits created by all of these wonderful corporations, who are working tirelessly to improve our world...") When, in reality, the big corps are pretty much out for their own interests, and (to a much lesser extent) the interests of the wealthy upper-class in general.
The general population allows corporations to do as they will precisely because they are under the impression that the corps are doing what's best for the general population!
Remember, a lot of people nowadays honestly believe that Microsoft invented the personal computer. Most Americans see Bill Gates (and any other wealthy and successful businessperson who they've heard of) as a hero. There is a lot of factual distortion (and bona-fide historical revisionism) and hero-worship going on in and around the computer field. Anyone who makes a lot of money is considered a role model, and is kinda just 'assumed' to be doing Good Things(TM) for all of humanity. Their good deeds are hailed forever, and their bad deeds are ignored or quickly forgotten.
Hell, I read one little rant online once whose thesis was basically "Without Microsoft, the Internet would only be used by the Military, and the only computers out there would be giant mainframes, also used by the Military and maybe Universities". The factual distortion inherent in such naive and fawning behaviour towards megacorps is extreme...
This seems to be the sort of mindset that would lead to the megacorps being able to do a land-grab on entire TLDs without anyone even giving a crud. If the megacorps are benign, and out to help humanity and improve the world, and if the big CEOs are heroes to all humankind-- why should anyone care?
Why should a single corporate entity control an entire TLD?
I can 'kinda' understand if Microsoft wanted.microsoft or Nokia wanted.nokia, but even then-- why waste the resources of the top-level DNS servers for something which will only serve to benefit one company?
This is absolutely disgusting. It's bad enough that Verisign/NetworkSolutions/whatever has such control over.COM/.NET and over the DNS system in general (kof kof SITEFINDER kof kof), but now they want to start giving entire freaking TLDs over to companies wholesale?
(On a more serious note-- hey, if Microsoft can define 'repackaging old Apple, Xerox and Unix tech for the masses' as 'innovation', then sure, a downgrade can be an 'upgrade'. Businesses lying is nothing new.)
It seems to me like a system such as this would be rather inappropriate for watching movies. For one thing, making a device any much larger than a normal-sized tube TV would start to get really impractical, as the spinny elements would start to generate a lot of noise (and you WOULD NOT want to be there if a large, high-speed spinning element broke off of its axis and started ricocheting about the room...).
Also, unlike conventional holograms, you would not be able to "touch" the image. Reach out to touch these images, and the rotate-o-thingy will lop your hand off.
I shudder to think of the safety (and power consumption, and noise) issues that would be involved in making a movie-screen-sized version of one of these...
Something like this is probably more useful for scientific and military visualization. I know it's corny, but think of the Star Wars-like 3D display in South Park, in the scene where Bill Gates gets shot by the army guy. Something like that display machine...
Slashdot Mirror
...Why did I just think of Groundskeeper Willie talking about genetically engineered grass?
"Conventional" trains make noises ranging from low rumbles (slower trains) to what resembles gigantic versions of the "fwooooooooosh" of a racecar passing you (Acela and other modern high-speed trains). But loud, high-pitched sounds coming from a piece of machinery (e.g. a train) could make people think the machine is out of control.
;) ) and crush the hapless onlooker...
High-pitched mechanical sounds carry a connotation of machinery operating "out of control", or running faster than it should. I'll put it this way. If you walked into, say, a widget factory, and heard the machines cranking away with a low rumble, wouldn't you feel more comfortable than if they were generating a constant high-pitched whining? In which scenario would you fear, deep down in your gut, that one of those machines is about to go haywire, break down, and shoot a cog in your general direction? This is regardless of the actual speed of the machinery. Low sounds are just less unnerving in this case. (Or so I feel...)
Perhaps the sound of a maglev operating at 150mph would be more unnerving than that of an Acela train operating at 150mph since the nature of the maglev sounds would make it "sound like" it's more likely than the Acela to disrail (even though, as a maglev, it already is 'disrailed' in a sense
(For those of us who don't know these things by heart)
If they DON'T lose against IBM, we will have a lot to worry about.
Let's hope and pray to $DEITY_NAME that SCO will lose. As I'm now 100% sure that SCO is just Microsoft's puppet, realize that this isn't just SCO (a piddly little company) versus IBM (a behemoth). It's Microsoft versus IBM. I'm pretty scared... how 'bout you?
Yes, dammit, the whole POINT of my rant was about archived content. As in, in 20 years, when I try to play my family movies, and find that I can't because of some past/present corporate fucknuttery.
Why the fuck would I be trolling Mac people? I AM a Mac person. Apple is the only proprietary software vendor I actually admire any more. Sun's sold out to Microsoft, DEC's sold out to Compaq (*shudder*), SGI lost me when they came out with Windows workstations... Apple's the only proprietary software vendor I give a rat's ass about any more.
I do not object to Apple, or to Mac OS X, or to the Mac architecture. I do object to QuickTime, and in particular to the funky proprietary codecs that proliferate through QuickTime files (e.g. Sorenson...)
This is all very wonderful; so where can I download the QuickTime Player for Linux/SPARC, or NetBSD/StrongARM, or maybe BeOS/PPC or AtheOS/x86 which can play Sorenson-encoded QuickTime files? Oh, download MPlayer you say? That isn't "licenced" to do squat; it's a labour of love from some fine hackers in Hungary. Do you really think they have a licence from Sorenson? Sorry, that answer is incorrect.
"Multiple Platforms" == "Mac OS, Mac OS X, Windows."
"Other players" == potentially illegal things like MPlayer.
"Source freely available" == For QuickTime, yes. For many/most/all (?) of the codecs (kof kof SORENSON kof kof kof SORENSON kof kof kof!), no.
And who gives a flaming shit about the server? It's the ability to actually play the files once you have them that is important. Whoopteeshit, so in 10 years, we'll still be able to compile old open-sourced server source code and SERVE UP QuickTime streams, but what will we use to PLAY them? MPlayer? Which would have been declared illegal by a top-level state or Federal court in the US in 2005 or 2006? Maybe VLC, which would have died off eventually due to waning interest-- and which would also be, by implication, DMCA-illegal. Maybe we could play it with Xine, which will only be available in Lindows 2007 for $49.95 in an "officially MPAA/RIAA licenced version". (Lindows currently offers a legal Linux DVD player for Lindows, for instance-- the only one I know of. I believe it's based off of Xine... So my extrapolation isn't so far-fetched.)
You obviously missed the point of what I'm saying. My whole point is: We are locking up our cultural legacy in proprietary formats. WHY are we doing this? WHY are we allowing this to happen?
Sister, actually.
...wasn't developed in the US.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it...
This is RIDICULOUS! In one corner, we have Microsoft. 'Nuff said. In another, we have Apple-- QuickTime players for Mac OS/Mac OS X and Windows, and "grey market" potentially-DMCA-illegal playing via MPlayer. In another corner, we have Real, who SUCK in every way possible.
.AU for all I care. AND NO ONE USES ANY OF THIS STUFF.
.wma file, but .wma has been extinct for a dozen years, and the only program that will open it will be Foobleblatz(R) AudioMasher Pro(TM), a pro-level audio editing tool "with support for over 500 current and previous codecs and encoding formats", for the equivalent of $999.95 2004 dollars?
... god, it's going to be a nightmare. The nightmare is already beginning, in fact...
And then, in the virtually ignored fourth corner, we have the stuff that isn't totally assraped by big (or not so big, in Real's case) corporations. MP3. Ogg. Freaking gzipped
No, we have two choices: (1) Run Windows and/or Mac OS X and download some spyware-riddled bloatware from Apple, Real (ugh) or Microsoft (DOUBLE ugh), or (2) run any other OS and use a probably-illegal tool like MPlayer. (Oh, MPlayer isn't illegal, you say? Who the hell are you kidding? At the first nastygram from any big patent-wielding corporation, MPlayer's going bye-bye. As far as I'm concerned, thanks to our pal the DMCA, it's just another DeCSS waiting to happen.)
This is FREAKING RIDICULOUS. Who benefits from any of this? It doesn't even seem as if MS and Apple benefit. Certainly, the "consumer" slash "end-user" slash "listener" doesn't.
This is fucking asinine. I am getting truly disgusted by all of this ridiculous pushing of proprietary standards. SCREW THIS. What will happen in 20 years when someone needs to open a
Audiovisual works are our cultural legacy. And we're blindly allowing corporations to seal up the standards used to encode these works to digital form. What the fuck is our problem? "Consumer groups" and publications like Consumer Reports should be screaming for open standards... but they don't even know or care what the problem is... Nor will they until around 2010 or so, when they try to play their old files and find that they can't...
Imagine if Gutenberg's printing press was available only on license from Gutenberg Ltd., and that everything it printed used a special ink completely invisible unless you wear the patented Gutenberg Glasses(R), available for a MERE sum of 10 shillings. Think that sounds ridiculous? We're doing the very same thing today. Eventually, "dead tree" media will die, and the media used to replace it will be completely corporate-controlled, proprietary, and
I think they meant 'SMB share'. If not... DAMN I wanna work where that person works!
...we had a port of Doom that let you kill processes. I think it was called psdoom or processdoom or something. A friend and I wanted to modify it to do a portscan and represent all visible Windows machines as enemies. Shooting one would send a brief pingflood to one. Killing it would send it the Ping-Of-Death... :) (This was back in those days...)to
Luddites like me might like to try 2.6, if only we had some guidance. I still run Debian Stable (yes, Stable) since I don't trust Unstable or Testing not to muck up my system.
Anyone got upgrade instructions for Debian 3.0, or other 'old' distros? Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be on the 'bleeding edge' in all areas. Nevertheless, to be able to try new kernels would be nice.
I tend to use a lot of odd/eclectic combinations of hardware. Once, I had an old Apple II RGB monitor (with an RCA-style plug in the back) which I used to display DVD video output from an old Creative Labs DxR2 decoder. Until I disabled Macrovision, I could not watch the movies I legally paid for (<sarcasm>from Wal-Mart, like a Good American(TM)</sarcasm>). So I had to break the law to watch what I legally paid for. (For the record, I was also using a Linux box to play the DVD, so <sarcasm>obviously I'm some sort of evil hacker criminal</sarcasm>).
,<sarcasm>'Consumers' have no right to open up products they paid for</sarcasm>) and rebuilt it into a generalized RCA-to-coax adaptor suitable for use on the DVD player, I couldn't play my (again legally paid for at a Good American Retail Outlet(TM)) DVDs.
At another point, I had a set-top DVD player, and was trying to use it with an old TV player which had only a coaxial RF input. So at first I passed the signal through a VCR, which of course made Macrovision wreck the signal (image fading in and out, just like in the previous example). Until I scrapped an old Nintendo RF adaptor (which is probably DMCA-illegal for some convoluted reason also-- I mean, hell
So, let's review. Macrovision has made it more difficult for me to play legally-owned DVDs. And it's pissed me off even more at the MPAA for getting in bed with those fucktards. So... what, again, does Macrovision do to decrease piracy? I can testify that it makes me more interested in disobeying the MPAA cartel's stupid rules, since all it seems to do is annoy people and force them to buy (or build) more equipment...
...i.e. *kof kof* EUROPA... why Titan?
;)
Hydrocarbon seas. Could there be interest here by the oil industry? Makes you wonder...
The availability of a free-as-in-beer compiler for Windows doesn't have as much of an impact on Windows programmers as you might think. In the free-software world, the good coders tend to work on the Linux kernel and such things. In the Windows world, the good coders tend to want money for their work. Which means that the people left to develop freeware (i.e. free-as-in-beer, not-usually-free-as-in-speech software) are...
The not-so-good coders. The coders who would just look at you funny if you suggested that they use a command-line tool.
Sure, there are exceptions, like the excellent IrfanView and of course the wonderful (and also free-as-in-speech!) utility CDEX, and of course many "cross-platform" projects like Audacity and The GIMP (many of which originated in the Linux/Unix world anyhow)... buuuut... the majority of the freeware coders in the Windows world tend to be those who couldn't easily make a living off of their code.
You have to remember that the CULTURE in the Windows world is not like that of the Linux world...
While we're on the topic of comparative culture (drifting rapidly off-topic here, but...), please note that in Windows-land, money is a much stronger motivator. Additionally, in Windows-land, conformity is a lot more prevalent. You still see Unix coders who prefer some obscure clone of EMACS or vi, or an even more obscure editor no one's heard of, or one they wrote themselves. Windows people tend to write their papers in MS Word, and only MS Word... because that's what everyone else uses. It is a more conformist culture (this isn't a judgment, it's simply a fact!)
I am, at this very moment, editing a letter using GNU nano and a CGI I scripted in Perl to format it nicely for printing and/or PDFing. I'm not using MS Office, or even OpenOffice. And there are gajillions of people using "weird" or otherwise obscure solutions like that throughout the Unix world. In Windows-land, a weird approach like that would just get you funny looks. Like I said-- differences in culture...
I opened the case one day, and this guy popped out!
The author is probably one of those new-school, semi-computer-literate thinkers who has been slowly coaxed into believing that large corporations are wholly benign entities which have the public's best interests in mind. Many people nowadays seem to honestly believe that. They seem to believe the snazzy corporate slogans like "GE: We Bring Good Things to Life", and honestly believe that the megacorps are out to help humanity. (Ever been to EPCOT Center in Disneyworld? It's all about that "benevolent corporate sponsor" mindset-- "Ooh, look at all of these wonderful exhibits created by all of these wonderful corporations, who are working tirelessly to improve our world...") When, in reality, the big corps are pretty much out for their own interests, and (to a much lesser extent) the interests of the wealthy upper-class in general.
The general population allows corporations to do as they will precisely because they are under the impression that the corps are doing what's best for the general population!
Remember, a lot of people nowadays honestly believe that Microsoft invented the personal computer. Most Americans see Bill Gates (and any other wealthy and successful businessperson who they've heard of) as a hero. There is a lot of factual distortion (and bona-fide historical revisionism) and hero-worship going on in and around the computer field. Anyone who makes a lot of money is considered a role model, and is kinda just 'assumed' to be doing Good Things(TM) for all of humanity. Their good deeds are hailed forever, and their bad deeds are ignored or quickly forgotten.
Hell, I read one little rant online once whose thesis was basically "Without Microsoft, the Internet would only be used by the Military, and the only computers out there would be giant mainframes, also used by the Military and maybe Universities". The factual distortion inherent in such naive and fawning behaviour towards megacorps is extreme...
This seems to be the sort of mindset that would lead to the megacorps being able to do a land-grab on entire TLDs without anyone even giving a crud. If the megacorps are benign, and out to help humanity and improve the world, and if the big CEOs are heroes to all humankind-- why should anyone care?
Why should a single corporate entity control an entire TLD?
.microsoft or Nokia wanted .nokia, but even then-- why waste the resources of the top-level DNS servers for something which will only serve to benefit one company?
.COM/.NET and over the DNS system in general (kof kof SITEFINDER kof kof), but now they want to start giving entire freaking TLDs over to companies wholesale?
I can 'kinda' understand if Microsoft wanted
This is absolutely disgusting. It's bad enough that Verisign/NetworkSolutions/whatever has such control over
This is bullshit!
When they mentioned "Manhunt", I thought they meant Manhunter: New York...
The public will believe that the new phones are indeed 'upgrades'... since, you know, a Big Reputable Company told them so...
Downgrades are upgrades.
(On a more serious note-- hey, if Microsoft can define 'repackaging old Apple, Xerox and Unix tech for the masses' as 'innovation', then sure, a downgrade can be an 'upgrade'. Businesses lying is nothing new.)
It seems to me like a system such as this would be rather inappropriate for watching movies. For one thing, making a device any much larger than a normal-sized tube TV would start to get really impractical, as the spinny elements would start to generate a lot of noise (and you WOULD NOT want to be there if a large, high-speed spinning element broke off of its axis and started ricocheting about the room...).
Also, unlike conventional holograms, you would not be able to "touch" the image. Reach out to touch these images, and the rotate-o-thingy will lop your hand off.
I shudder to think of the safety (and power consumption, and noise) issues that would be involved in making a movie-screen-sized version of one of these...
Something like this is probably more useful for scientific and military visualization. I know it's corny, but think of the Star Wars-like 3D display in South Park, in the scene where Bill Gates gets shot by the army guy. Something like that display machine...
I like how you post as Anonymous Coward to attack me. Very powerful.