IBM has zero interest in being a media company, in selling PVRS, etc. Likely the patents would have sat on a shelf gathering dust until someone had the temerity to sue IBM for something related, at which point they would have been brought out like a rolled-up newspaper. OTOH, a Comcast or Microsoft could decide that they could be a strategic weapon to force competing PVRs off the market, or to expand their cable service because they could offer something the others couldn't.
So long as IBM held the patents, there was a good chance they'd stay out of the hands of Microsoft, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. I doubt Tivo has the cash to hold off a determined effort by any of those companies. Should those patents fall into the wrong hands, it could put a serious crimp not only on stand-alone PVRs, but even the PC boards that have equivalent functionality.
Not even all parts of the United States follow it uniformly. From webexhibits.org:
" is NOT observed in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, most of the Eastern Time Zone portion of the State of Indiana, and the state of Arizona (not the Navajo Indian Reservation, which does observe). Navajo Nation participates in the Daylight Saving Time policy, due to its large size and location in three states."
Most computers I'm aware of rely on the OS to provide date/time info to the applications. Older applications that queried the BIOS I would think are running on hardware so old that you would have to manually adjust for DST anyway.
I can think of dozens of applications I've written over the years that were at least potentially susceptible to Y2K issues (though fortunately, of the ones still in use by then, all were compliant). I can't think of any that involved code to calculate DST -- they just worked off the system time.
I'm sure there is a lot of real-time applications or other highly specialized stuff (ATC maybe) vulnerable, but I don't think it would have the potential for widespread effects that the date issue did.
Depends on where you are. In DC, the place to see it is the Uptown theater. Single huge screen, 1000+ seats, but a lot of them have crappy viewing angles. So, if you want a good seat for the opening show, you've got to camp a little bit. Although, usually no more than overnight.
The bigger nuisance, if you are determined to go with a group on opening night, is that the ticketing web sites have been notoriously unable to handle the load. Half of our group missed Episode II because the web servers kept timing out, and by the time they got it, that show was sold out.
Inevitable, I think. Back in the day, before the dark times, before the Empire, I mean, before the internet, Comdex was one of the few places IT professionals could go to see new hardware, software demonstrations, etc. Because it was so big, companies geared their release schedules so that their new gee-whiz stuff would come out right before or right after Fall Comdex (and to a lesser extent, Spring Comdex).
Then, along comes the internet, and companies had an easy way to disseminate new product information, software demos, etc., on a year round basis. Companies became less inclined to hold new releases for Comdex, and the show becames less important (and much less useful).
Of course, marketing it so that it appealed to the PHB's who looked at it as an excuse to spend a week in Vegas further diluted its appeal to the tech crowd.
Same thing happened to the auto industry -- it used to be that they focused all their energy on the new model year (starting in September, if I remember). Now, although most of the major manufacturers still release new models in the fall, it's become more of a year round effort.
You know, there might be a silver lining to this. I'm sure the argument will be made that cable needs to be regulated because it's largely a have it/don't have it proposition. Can't have my Learning Channel and Discover Channel and Cartoon Network for my kids without also having to have Comedy Central (where they will hear bad words) or Oxygen (where they might hear stuff that even I don't want to know about).
So, if this passes, this might be an incentive for the cable companies and content providers to provide a more a la carte experience. If you have to specifically seek out and pay for X, instead of having X forced down your throat because it only comes bundled with Y, it's a lot easier to argue that X should be exempt from decency regulation.
Quoth Lautenberg: "On any given day people across the country can turn on their TV news or read in their local paper the sad story of a child taking another child's life because they got their hands on a loaded gun."
In 2001, a total of 72 children (under 15) were accidentally killed by firearms. That includes self-inflicted wounds and those where someone else discharged the firearm. And the numbers declined quite convincingly on their own -- the 20-year average is over 200, and the 5-year average over 100. For comparison, in 2001, 11 children died in skateboard accidents.
Leaving aside your kneejerk criticism of the FBI and the judicial system, you are making a foolish statement that because there isn't a silver bullet that will provide %100 deterrence with a single technique, that nothing at all should be attempted.
As with network security, you don't rely on a single layer to stop an attack. The more hoops a potential criminal has to jump through, even obstacles that are relatively trivial to bypass, the less likely he is to succeed at, or even attempt, the crime.
In your example, the potential terrorist would have to make personal contact with another human being that could potentially identify him. Said homless person could also just pocket his $20 and dump the package in the trash. Or he might even walk into the post office, step up to the clerk, and say 'Hey, this stranger just paid me $20 to deliver this package.'
1. Everyone with a GMail account emails themself 1GB of usenet posts
2. Write new web interface to retreive posts from GMail accounts
3. ???
4. Profit!!
A) You're paying $50, but that's retail. The company has to get the game in the hands of the players, and electronic distriubtion isn't (quite) here yet (the install for EQII came on 2 DVDs and was 6-7GB). So it has to go through the retail chain, and everybody along the way has to make money off of the transaction.
B) First-month attrition is fairly large. This makes it non-cost-effective to distribute boxed copies for free in anticipation of recouping the expense in subscription fees.
C) 'I shouldn't have to pay to buy it and then pay per month' is a specious argument against playing these games. Either you feel you get your money's worth in entertainment value, or not. How the expense is chunked is irrelevant. If you anticipate not liking the game enough to justify the initial expense, wait several months and most games have 7 or 14 day trials available for download.
D) From an accounting standpoint, you want the inital investment in development recovered as quickly as possible, and the monthly fees to cover overhead, future development, and profit.
No, it doesn't, necessarily. In this case, it's recognition that while you may have a good movie, it's based on a niche market that you hope to expand (in this case, fans of Firefly, who weren't significant enough to keep a TV show from being cancelled.) You move bad movies to October/November, or February/March.
Releasing two weeks before a movie that's bound to do $300 million domestic and appeals to the same broad demographic is bad. What's worse is the inevitable media coverage and advertising flood that will accompany Episode III, and that will be peaking right at the time you are trying to convince people to see your movie.
This sends a good message. Future defendants will be much more willing to plea bargain for a lesser sentence, fines, etc. if they know they might get serious jail time.
Obviously I'm not privvy to any negotiations between the defense and the prosecutors, but it's a fair bet they were offered a deal in exchange for a guilty plea. They probably figured a they'd get a fine and a suspended sentence and go back to business.
Fine. Allow me a rebuttal. Here's why I voted for George Bush.
* Allowing a moderate approach to stem cell research. Want to use federal funds to do stem cell research? Fine. Fill out the paperwork and the goverment will provide you with existing stem cell lines. Not good enough? Fine. Use your own money and pursue whatever research you want. People who are morally opposed to the harvesting of stem cells don't have to see their tax dollars being used for it, and people who are committed to stem cell research can pursue it on their own dime.
* Invading Iraq. We deposed a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, who committed acts of environmental terrorism on a grand scale, who invaded his neighbors, and who paid to support suicide bombers whose sole purpose was the killing of civilians. Not to mention the debt we owed the Iraqi civilians who had to suffer under his thumb because we used Saddam to counter the Iranians. Or the debt we owed them for showing unfortunate mercy during the first Gulf War and allowing him to exact his revenge on those that opposed him.
* For telling the U.N. to piss off. The only organization in the history of the world with a worse track record than the UN was its predecessor. The UN is riddled with corruption (Oil for Food, anyone), incompetence, military ineptness on a grand scale, and is so single-minded in its multiculturalism that it appointed Pre-invasion Iraq to head the global disarmament committee and Libya to chair human rights. The UN was unable to prevent ethnic conflict in Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Burundi, Rwanda, or any other place on the planet.
* Gay Marriage Amendment. Ignore for a second the opinion that a small minority of the population should not be allowed to appropriate and denigrate the cultural and religious beliefs of the majority. Instead, focus on the fact that, because of the 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution, that without a Consitutional amendment, you could very well end up with either a liberal judge in Vermont deciding what marriage was for the entire country, or having internicine fights and situations where people might become unmarried when they took a vacation or moved to take a new job.
* For appointing someone to be in charge of the Defense department that was capable of making a decision and promoting change. Clinton's SecDefs were a disgrace, and woefully unequipped to deal with a changing military and recalcitrant Joint Chiefs. Whether you agree with what Rumsfeld has done or not, at least the United States military isn't paralyzed by a complete lack of leadership at the top, and we won't be handicapped for decades to come by a military that is still equipped and training to fight the Cold War.
Disagree with me on any of these points. That's the beauty of a democracy, and something the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have a better chance to experience now than they did four years ago.
But do not presume that you are more educated or better informed than I, or that I am some religious zealot, homophobe, racist, or whatever label the left wishes to use in place of rational discourse.
There was a story published in Omni magazine in '79 called 'The Mickey Mouse Olympics' by Thomas Sullivan. The Soviet and USA Olympic teams consisted of genetically engineered freaks that the respective teams tried to sneak past the judges. There was a swimmer with a blowhole who didn't have to lift his head out of the water to breathe, a wrestler with alligator skin ('just a really bad case of eczema'), etc.
Another reason why the government shouldn't be involved in the arts. PBS subsidies this year were $380 million, not counting the free use of public airwaves. In exchange for this, they are expected to adhere to the same standards as broadcast network television. Where's the controversy? Would Dreyfus and the rest be out there whining if ABC told them to cut out the profanity? This isn't any different.
The fact is that anyone using public funds is (and should be) accountable to the government and held to stricter standards. If you find those standards unacceptable, don't accept the funding or the other freebies. And if you as an individual feel that the FCC is exceeding its bounds, feel free to express your displeasure in any of the many ways provided to you. Better yet, tell the government to stop wasting your money funding unwatched television stations and artists whose only visible talent is shock-mongering and obtaining NEA grants.
Remember that next time you are bitching about the slow boot times in Windows, because you are starting IE at the same time. Try putting Firefox or Opera in your 'Startup' folder (Not really, I'm joking) and compare that way.
Kinda of a pointless complaint most of the time, though. Even on my slow laptop, Opera loads in under 30 seconds (and it has to read in the several hundred MB of email, too). Unless you are reboot constantly, load times for your browser shouldn't be much of a concern.
And I'd like to thank you on behalf of the rest of us for not running any anti-virus programs, because our primary concern is your computer.
If you have a computer connected to the internet that is capable of communicating to other computers, either directly, via email, whatever, you have an obligation to take basic precautions to not inadvertantly fuck someone else up. Security through obscurity doesn't work; neither does security through obliviousness.
IE is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them. I've started rolling out Firefox to my users' desktops, and while many of them may never wean themselves from IE's teat, *every* last one of them has said 'Wow, that's fast.' when I'm giving them the nickel tour.
BTW, if anyone can point me to a good 'How To' on deploying a customized 'default' install of Firefox to Windows desktops, I'd appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM has zero interest in being a media company, in selling PVRS, etc. Likely the patents would have sat on a shelf gathering dust until someone had the temerity to sue IBM for something related, at which point they would have been brought out like a rolled-up newspaper. OTOH, a Comcast or Microsoft could decide that they could be a strategic weapon to force competing PVRs off the market, or to expand their cable service because they could offer something the others couldn't.
So long as IBM held the patents, there was a good chance they'd stay out of the hands of Microsoft, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. I doubt Tivo has the cash to hold off a determined effort by any of those companies. Should those patents fall into the wrong hands, it could put a serious crimp not only on stand-alone PVRs, but even the PC boards that have equivalent functionality.
Most computers I'm aware of rely on the OS to provide date/time info to the applications. Older applications that queried the BIOS I would think are running on hardware so old that you would have to manually adjust for DST anyway.
I can think of dozens of applications I've written over the years that were at least potentially susceptible to Y2K issues (though fortunately, of the ones still in use by then, all were compliant). I can't think of any that involved code to calculate DST -- they just worked off the system time.
I'm sure there is a lot of real-time applications or other highly specialized stuff (ATC maybe) vulnerable, but I don't think it would have the potential for widespread effects that the date issue did.
My clock radio is probably boned, though.
Depends on where you are. In DC, the place to see it is the Uptown theater. Single huge screen, 1000+ seats, but a lot of them have crappy viewing angles. So, if you want a good seat for the opening show, you've got to camp a little bit. Although, usually no more than overnight.
The bigger nuisance, if you are determined to go with a group on opening night, is that the ticketing web sites have been notoriously unable to handle the load. Half of our group missed Episode II because the web servers kept timing out, and by the time they got it, that show was sold out.
Inevitable, I think. Back in the day, before the dark times, before the Empire, I mean, before the internet, Comdex was one of the few places IT professionals could go to see new hardware, software demonstrations, etc. Because it was so big, companies geared their release schedules so that their new gee-whiz stuff would come out right before or right after Fall Comdex (and to a lesser extent, Spring Comdex).
Then, along comes the internet, and companies had an easy way to disseminate new product information, software demos, etc., on a year round basis. Companies became less inclined to hold new releases for Comdex, and the show becames less important (and much less useful).
Of course, marketing it so that it appealed to the PHB's who looked at it as an excuse to spend a week in Vegas further diluted its appeal to the tech crowd.
Same thing happened to the auto industry -- it used to be that they focused all their energy on the new model year (starting in September, if I remember). Now, although most of the major manufacturers still release new models in the fall, it's become more of a year round effort.
You know, there might be a silver lining to this. I'm sure the argument will be made that cable needs to be regulated because it's largely a have it/don't have it proposition. Can't have my Learning Channel and Discover Channel and Cartoon Network for my kids without also having to have Comedy Central (where they will hear bad words) or Oxygen (where they might hear stuff that even I don't want to know about).
So, if this passes, this might be an incentive for the cable companies and content providers to provide a more a la carte experience. If you have to specifically seek out and pay for X, instead of having X forced down your throat because it only comes bundled with Y, it's a lot easier to argue that X should be exempt from decency regulation.
Never ascribe to intelligence what can be explained by mere randomness.
Quoth Lautenberg: "On any given day people across the country can turn on their TV news or read in their local paper the sad story of a child taking another child's life because they got their hands on a loaded gun."
In 2001, a total of 72 children (under 15) were accidentally killed by firearms. That includes self-inflicted wounds and those where someone else discharged the firearm. And the numbers declined quite convincingly on their own -- the 20-year average is over 200, and the 5-year average over 100. For comparison, in 2001, 11 children died in skateboard accidents.
Leaving aside your kneejerk criticism of the FBI and the judicial system, you are making a foolish statement that because there isn't a silver bullet that will provide %100 deterrence with a single technique, that nothing at all should be attempted.
As with network security, you don't rely on a single layer to stop an attack. The more hoops a potential criminal has to jump through, even obstacles that are relatively trivial to bypass, the less likely he is to succeed at, or even attempt, the crime.
In your example, the potential terrorist would have to make personal contact with another human being that could potentially identify him. Said homless person could also just pocket his $20 and dump the package in the trash. Or he might even walk into the post office, step up to the clerk, and say 'Hey, this stranger just paid me $20 to deliver this package.'
1. Everyone with a GMail account emails themself 1GB of usenet posts
2. Write new web interface to retreive posts from GMail accounts
3. ???
4. Profit!!
Did you see how AOL just got hit for a $750 million fine for the funny accounting they used to justify sending out all those CDs?
A) You're paying $50, but that's retail. The company has to get the game in the hands of the players, and electronic distriubtion isn't (quite) here yet (the install for EQII came on 2 DVDs and was 6-7GB). So it has to go through the retail chain, and everybody along the way has to make money off of the transaction.
B) First-month attrition is fairly large. This makes it non-cost-effective to distribute boxed copies for free in anticipation of recouping the expense in subscription fees.
C) 'I shouldn't have to pay to buy it and then pay per month' is a specious argument against playing these games. Either you feel you get your money's worth in entertainment value, or not. How the expense is chunked is irrelevant. If you anticipate not liking the game enough to justify the initial expense, wait several months and most games have 7 or 14 day trials available for download.
D) From an accounting standpoint, you want the inital investment in development recovered as quickly as possible, and the monthly fees to cover overhead, future development, and profit.
No, it doesn't, necessarily. In this case, it's recognition that while you may have a good movie, it's based on a niche market that you hope to expand (in this case, fans of Firefly, who weren't significant enough to keep a TV show from being cancelled.) You move bad movies to October/November, or February/March.
Releasing two weeks before a movie that's bound to do $300 million domestic and appeals to the same broad demographic is bad. What's worse is the inevitable media coverage and advertising flood that will accompany Episode III, and that will be peaking right at the time you are trying to convince people to see your movie.
I just bought Everquest 2 on DVD (two DVDs, actually). So maybe we'll start seeing more of that instead of games with 6 or 8 CDs.
Sorry. I gave my Mom a gmail account. This pretty much ruined the chance of anybody getting 'geek street cred' from having one.
My apologies to all concerned.
This sends a good message. Future defendants will be much more willing to plea bargain for a lesser sentence, fines, etc. if they know they might get serious jail time.
Obviously I'm not privvy to any negotiations between the defense and the prosecutors, but it's a fair bet they were offered a deal in exchange for a guilty plea. They probably figured a they'd get a fine and a suspended sentence and go back to business.
Fine. Allow me a rebuttal. Here's why I voted for George Bush. * Allowing a moderate approach to stem cell research. Want to use federal funds to do stem cell research? Fine. Fill out the paperwork and the goverment will provide you with existing stem cell lines. Not good enough? Fine. Use your own money and pursue whatever research you want. People who are morally opposed to the harvesting of stem cells don't have to see their tax dollars being used for it, and people who are committed to stem cell research can pursue it on their own dime. * Invading Iraq. We deposed a dictator responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, who committed acts of environmental terrorism on a grand scale, who invaded his neighbors, and who paid to support suicide bombers whose sole purpose was the killing of civilians. Not to mention the debt we owed the Iraqi civilians who had to suffer under his thumb because we used Saddam to counter the Iranians. Or the debt we owed them for showing unfortunate mercy during the first Gulf War and allowing him to exact his revenge on those that opposed him. * For telling the U.N. to piss off. The only organization in the history of the world with a worse track record than the UN was its predecessor. The UN is riddled with corruption (Oil for Food, anyone), incompetence, military ineptness on a grand scale, and is so single-minded in its multiculturalism that it appointed Pre-invasion Iraq to head the global disarmament committee and Libya to chair human rights. The UN was unable to prevent ethnic conflict in Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Burundi, Rwanda, or any other place on the planet. * Gay Marriage Amendment. Ignore for a second the opinion that a small minority of the population should not be allowed to appropriate and denigrate the cultural and religious beliefs of the majority. Instead, focus on the fact that, because of the 'full faith and credit' clause in the Constitution, that without a Consitutional amendment, you could very well end up with either a liberal judge in Vermont deciding what marriage was for the entire country, or having internicine fights and situations where people might become unmarried when they took a vacation or moved to take a new job. * For appointing someone to be in charge of the Defense department that was capable of making a decision and promoting change. Clinton's SecDefs were a disgrace, and woefully unequipped to deal with a changing military and recalcitrant Joint Chiefs. Whether you agree with what Rumsfeld has done or not, at least the United States military isn't paralyzed by a complete lack of leadership at the top, and we won't be handicapped for decades to come by a military that is still equipped and training to fight the Cold War. Disagree with me on any of these points. That's the beauty of a democracy, and something the people of Afghanistan and Iraq have a better chance to experience now than they did four years ago. But do not presume that you are more educated or better informed than I, or that I am some religious zealot, homophobe, racist, or whatever label the left wishes to use in place of rational discourse.
You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
There was a story published in Omni magazine in '79 called 'The Mickey Mouse Olympics' by Thomas Sullivan. The Soviet and USA Olympic teams consisted of genetically engineered freaks that the respective teams tried to sneak past the judges. There was a swimmer with a blowhole who didn't have to lift his head out of the water to breathe, a wrestler with alligator skin ('just a really bad case of eczema'), etc.
Another reason why the government shouldn't be involved in the arts. PBS subsidies this year were $380 million, not counting the free use of public airwaves. In exchange for this, they are expected to adhere to the same standards as broadcast network television. Where's the controversy? Would Dreyfus and the rest be out there whining if ABC told them to cut out the profanity? This isn't any different.
The fact is that anyone using public funds is (and should be) accountable to the government and held to stricter standards. If you find those standards unacceptable, don't accept the funding or the other freebies. And if you as an individual feel that the FCC is exceeding its bounds, feel free to express your displeasure in any of the many ways provided to you. Better yet, tell the government to stop wasting your money funding unwatched television stations and artists whose only visible talent is shock-mongering and obtaining NEA grants.
Remember that next time you are bitching about the slow boot times in Windows, because you are starting IE at the same time. Try putting Firefox or Opera in your 'Startup' folder (Not really, I'm joking) and compare that way.
Kinda of a pointless complaint most of the time, though. Even on my slow laptop, Opera loads in under 30 seconds (and it has to read in the several hundred MB of email, too). Unless you are reboot constantly, load times for your browser shouldn't be much of a concern.
And I'd like to thank you on behalf of the rest of us for not running any anti-virus programs, because our primary concern is your computer.
If you have a computer connected to the internet that is capable of communicating to other computers, either directly, via email, whatever, you have an obligation to take basic precautions to not inadvertantly fuck someone else up. Security through obscurity doesn't work; neither does security through obliviousness.
IE is many things, but 'fast' is not one of them. I've started rolling out Firefox to my users' desktops, and while many of them may never wean themselves from IE's teat, *every* last one of them has said 'Wow, that's fast.' when I'm giving them the nickel tour.
BTW, if anyone can point me to a good 'How To' on deploying a customized 'default' install of Firefox to Windows desktops, I'd appreciate it.
IANALORAPFTM (...or a pilot for that matter). I was think more of 135.25 regarding whether the vehicles had the right certifications.