Jackson actually made a good case for that. He pointed out that the battle of the Pellenor Fields is actually taking place while Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are climbing the winding stairs to Cirith Ungol.
He's right. And given that, it's more chronologically faithful to the books to include the climb up the winding stairs and the betrayal of Gollum in RoTK (the movie) so it can be intercut with the battle at Minas Tirith.
"Just because I havent read the books doesnt make me a damned terrorist, folks."
No one said you were terrorist just because you're illiterate. Some of the nicest people I know are illiterate. Of course, they're kind of boring too...
I kind of agree with the above poster, though. Are the DVD's you own the theatrical or the extended versions?
You know, if it's just the theatrical versions, we might have to put you in the terrorist camp after all.
Well, their are several reasons why they're a big deal.
The first one that comes to mind is: length. No one has ever filmed, for the cinema -- TV mini-series don't count -- a 9 1/2 hour epic with a single narrative framework. The only films I know of that come close are The Seven Samurai at 3.5 hours and The Sorrow and The Pity, which if I remember correctly clocks in at 5.5 hours. And the latter was a documentary.
And no, the Star Wars trilogy doesn't count either. The stories are separately coherent.
The second reason is that Jackson has done such a terrific job. Like many here, I disagreed with some of his choices, especially using Gimli almost exclusively for comic relief in The Two Towers. But overall, he's done a fantastic job. In some cases, Boromir in particular, and Aragorn to a lesser extent, the characters actually have more depth than in the books.
Another reason, as mentioned above, is that the books are classics. Tolkien took the techniques of Norse sagas, Anglo-Saxon epic poems and narratives, Celtic myths and fables, and created from that a story compelling enough to create a whole new genre of literature. Sure, a lot of books in the fantasy genre suck. So do a lot of mysteries. The fact that a lot of mysteries suck doesn't in any way lessen the literary contributions of E.A. Poe or Wilkie Collins, who can be considered the creators of the mystery genre in the same way as Tolkien created the fantasy genre.
There are more reasons, of course. But that'll do to start.
Not only that, but CSM have been working with IBM for *years*, and IBM probably keeps them on a very healthy retainer. I doubt there's much financial downside for IBM to prosecute SCO into dust, and maybe some financial incentive to do so, if only to recover their legal fees from SCO.
He's obfuscating the issues on purpose. Notice how he never mentions IBM in the document, but mentions Red Hat over and over?
It's because he wants to associate the GPL with Red. In particular, with Red Commie Un-American Bastards.
Darl's got a real Nixonian / McCarthyite streak in him. He keeps claiming that the "silent majority" is on his side, which is, weirdly enough, what Nixon kept saying up until he resigned in '73.
Actually, it isn't, but not for the reasons Darl proclaims.
The GPL is based on copyright law, thus there is no conflict between supporting copyright and supporting the GPL. No conflict, no middle ground to worry about.
Yes, tragic that was. My eyes teared up at the irony of it all.
Ah, hubris! Ah, hypocrisy!
My own favorite part was where he discovered that Eldred v. Ashcroft affirms Congress's right to extend copyright protection, then morphed it into a sort of "Greed is Apple-Pie and the Founding Fathers" version of Gordon Gecko.
(Reposting from above because it's particularly relevant to this thread)
Just discovered this link in a comment over at Groklaw. Section 1.e. of this document would seem to indicate that MS has already granted the right to use FAT for hardware and operating systems:
(e) Each of the license and the covenant not to sue described above shall not extend to your use of any portion of the [FAT 32/VFAT] Specification for any purpose other than (a) to create portions of an operating system (i) only as necessary to adapt such operating system so that it can directly interact with a firmware implementation of the Extensible Firmware Initiative Specification v. 1.0 ("EFI Specificaation"); (ii) only as necessaary to emulate an implementation of the EFI Specification; and (b) to create firmware, applications, utilities, and/or drivers that will be used and/or licensed for only the following purposes: (i) to install, repair, and maintain hardware, firmware, and portions of operating system software which are utilized in the boot process; (ii) to provide to an operating system software runtime services that specified in the EFI Specification; (iii) to diagnose and correct failures in the hardware, firmware, or operating system software; (iv) to query for identification of a computer system (whether by serial numbers, asset tags, user or otherwise); (v) to perform inventory of a computer system; and (vi) to manufacture, install and setup any hardware, firmware or operating system software.
It doesn't seem like they could actually sue anyone for using FAT under this covenant, which is copyrighted 2000
Just discovered this link in a comment over at Groklaw. Section 1.e. of this document would seem to indicate that MS has already granted the right to use FAT for hardware and operating systems:
(e) Each of the license and the covenant not to sue described above shall not extend to your use of any portion of the [FAT 32/VFAT] Specification for any purpose other than (a) to create portions of an operating system (i) only as necessary to adapt such operating system so that it can directly interact with a firmware implementation of the Extensible Firmware Initiative Specification v. 1.0 ("EFI Specificaation"); (ii) only as necessaary to emulate an implementation of the EFI Specification; and (b) to create firmware, applications, utilities, and/or drivers that will be used and/or licensed for only the following purposes: (i) to install, repair, and maintain hardware, firmware, and portions of operating system software which are utilized in the boot process; (ii) to provide to an operating system software runtime services that specified in the EFI Specification; (iii) to diagnose and correct failures in the hardware, firmware, or operating system software; (iv) to query for identification of a computer system (whether by serial numbers, asset tags, user or otherwise); (v) to perform inventory of a computer system; and (vi) to manufacture, install and setup any hardware, firmware or operating system software.
It doesn't seem like they could actually sue anyone for using FAT under this covenant, which is copyrighted 2000.
Nope, Linux has its own file system for swap space. I don't know the details, but I assume it's written to facilitate treating the swap space as an extension to RAM, rather than as a file storage area.
Kind of a moot point. The patents MS lists in the notice are related to FAT 32, which is easily the most widely used implemetation of FAT now. FAT 16 only supports up to 2GB, whereas FAT 32 supports 32GB. Anyone who sets up a FAT partition on a dual-boot system as a common file storage area will be using FAT 32.
Those patents were granted in the mid-90's, and short of invalidating them via prior art claims, they won't expire for another ten years or so.
It's not about the code. This is patent we're talking about, not copyright. What's at issue is the FAT technology, ideas, and algorithms. There *could* be issues here, even if the code was written completely from scratch by the Linux coders, if MS can claim that the algorithms used to access FAT are patented.
I can't see how their patents can pertain to any version of FAT except FAT 32 (aka VFAT), but this is the most widely used version of FAT now, especially for dual boot systems and any embedded device that needs to access more than 2GB's of storage space.
XFS is a journaled file system created by SGI. Its primary use is for *huge* files, such as the kind typcially used in multimedia work, and very large databases. It has nothing to do with DRM, and is certainly not suitable for embedded devices or small to medium size files, such as those stored on floppies, usb sticks, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Jackson actually made a good case for that. He pointed out that the battle of the Pellenor Fields is actually taking place while Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are climbing the winding stairs to Cirith Ungol.
He's right. And given that, it's more chronologically faithful to the books to include the climb up the winding stairs and the betrayal of Gollum in RoTK (the movie) so it can be intercut with the battle at Minas Tirith.
Yeah, really. What a prick.
"Just because I havent read the books doesnt make me a damned terrorist, folks."
No one said you were terrorist just because you're illiterate. Some of the nicest people I know are illiterate. Of course, they're kind of boring too...
I kind of agree with the above poster, though. Are the DVD's you own the theatrical or the extended versions?
You know, if it's just the theatrical versions, we might have to put you in the terrorist camp after all.
Well, their are several reasons why they're a big deal.
The first one that comes to mind is: length. No one has ever filmed, for the cinema -- TV mini-series don't count -- a 9 1/2 hour epic with a single narrative framework. The only films I know of that come close are The Seven Samurai at 3.5 hours and The Sorrow and The Pity, which if I remember correctly clocks in at 5.5 hours. And the latter was a documentary.
And no, the Star Wars trilogy doesn't count either. The stories are separately coherent.
The second reason is that Jackson has done such a terrific job. Like many here, I disagreed with some of his choices, especially using Gimli almost exclusively for comic relief in The Two Towers. But overall, he's done a fantastic job. In some cases, Boromir in particular, and Aragorn to a lesser extent, the characters actually have more depth than in the books.
Another reason, as mentioned above, is that the books are classics. Tolkien took the techniques of Norse sagas, Anglo-Saxon epic poems and narratives, Celtic myths and fables, and created from that a story compelling enough to create a whole new genre of literature. Sure, a lot of books in the fantasy genre suck. So do a lot of mysteries. The fact that a lot of mysteries suck doesn't in any way lessen the literary contributions of E.A. Poe or Wilkie Collins, who can be considered the creators of the mystery genre in the same way as Tolkien created the fantasy genre.
There are more reasons, of course. But that'll do to start.
Hmm, I think the phase "If it's any consolation..." should probably read, "If there's any way for me to save face..."
Actually, it looks like CAIDA is
Not only that, but CSM have been working with IBM for *years*, and IBM probably keeps them on a very healthy retainer. I doubt there's much financial downside for IBM to prosecute SCO into dust, and maybe some financial incentive to do so, if only to recover their legal fees from SCO.
And your expectations weren't met how?
He's obfuscating the issues on purpose. Notice how he never mentions IBM in the document, but mentions Red Hat over and over?
It's because he wants to associate the GPL with Red. In particular, with Red Commie Un-American Bastards.
Darl's got a real Nixonian / McCarthyite streak in him. He keeps claiming that the "silent majority" is on his side, which is, weirdly enough, what Nixon kept saying up until he resigned in '73.
"I think it is possible to be in the middle."
Actually, it isn't, but not for the reasons Darl proclaims.
The GPL is based on copyright law, thus there is no conflict between supporting copyright and supporting the GPL. No conflict, no middle ground to worry about.
Not really. The image of Darl getting ass-fucked is really just too nauseating to contemplate with any satisfaction.
I'll take scraping pennies off the floor at BK, thanks.
Yeah, especially since the 1976 Copyright Act was most famous for extending Disney's rights to Mickey Mouse.
Ok, that's brilliant. One of the funniest one-liner's I've read in months.
Pity I haven't got any mod-points.
Yes, tragic that was. My eyes teared up at the irony of it all.
Ah, hubris! Ah, hypocrisy!
My own favorite part was where he discovered that Eldred v. Ashcroft affirms Congress's right to extend copyright protection, then morphed it into a sort of "Greed is Apple-Pie and the Founding Fathers" version of Gordon Gecko.
Oh, the surreality of it all.
Yeah, you'd better check that again. Either that or you're headed towards some serious data corruption. I'll say it again, FAT32 supports up to 32 GB.
You're probably running NTFS.
Good question. I don't know. It might be possible for them to revoke it going forward, but I can't see how they can do so retroactively.
IANAL. I don't *think* it would possible for them to revoke it going forward either, but I don't know.
(Reposting from above because it's particularly relevant to this thread)
Just discovered this link in a comment over at Groklaw. Section 1.e. of this document would seem to indicate that MS has already granted the right to use FAT for hardware and operating systems:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/download/hard
It doesn't seem like they could actually sue anyone for using FAT under this covenant, which is copyrighted 2000
Just discovered this link in a comment over at Groklaw. Section 1.e. of this document would seem to indicate that MS has already granted the right to use FAT for hardware and operating systems:
It doesn't seem like they could actually sue anyone for using FAT under this covenant, which is copyrighted 2000.
Oops, VFAT not FAT32. You're right. Although, it seems rather pointless to implement FAT 32 without VFAT.
Agreed. I was simply explaining that the patents cover FAT 32, and that FAT 32 is widely used.
Nope, Linux has its own file system for swap space. I don't know the details, but I assume it's written to facilitate treating the swap space as an extension to RAM, rather than as a file storage area.
Kind of a moot point. The patents MS lists in the notice are related to FAT 32, which is easily the most widely used implemetation of FAT now. FAT 16 only supports up to 2GB, whereas FAT 32 supports 32GB. Anyone who sets up a FAT partition on a dual-boot system as a common file storage area will be using FAT 32.
Those patents were granted in the mid-90's, and short of invalidating them via prior art claims, they won't expire for another ten years or so.
It's not about the code. This is patent we're talking about, not copyright. What's at issue is the FAT technology, ideas, and algorithms. There *could* be issues here, even if the code was written completely from scratch by the Linux coders, if MS can claim that the algorithms used to access FAT are patented.
I can't see how their patents can pertain to any version of FAT except FAT 32 (aka VFAT), but this is the most widely used version of FAT now, especially for dual boot systems and any embedded device that needs to access more than 2GB's of storage space.
XFS is a journaled file system created by SGI. Its primary use is for *huge* files, such as the kind typcially used in multimedia work, and very large databases. It has nothing to do with DRM, and is certainly not suitable for embedded devices or small to medium size files, such as those stored on floppies, usb sticks, etc.
It probably is patented already. IBM used a similiar technique for its Extended Attributes in OS/2.
But IBM wouldn't go after you for patent infringement these days, unless you *really* pissed them off (e.g. SCO).