Human beings have been fighting and killing each other forever. When men first went to the Americas, they didn't become more harmonious back home in Spain or England.
There are also a group of new businesses coming up
that might be best termed "fearless entrepreneurs".
They don't buy things because "no-one got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft". They buy things at the best value, because the people making the buying decisions are spending their own money.
These people look for value. I know some small entrepreneurs who are using OpenOffice.org because the £200 license for Office is a fair slab of their business.
People often host small sites on LAMP. Over time, some of these small businesses are going to get larger.
I'm starting to see activity on jobs in PHP occurring now (this also co-incides with a noticable trend towards people building more and more browser-based apps).
Some people need some perspective. Or, to quote William Shatner "Get a Life".
It's no bones to me that someone wants to live like this, but really, anyone doing this maybe needs to sit down and think about where their life is going.
and I'm already seeing wifi hotspot prices drop. That's right, we're past the "early adopter" stage of wifi, and it's going more and more mainstream.
In the space of about 3 years, the UK has gone from a couple of hotspots to a couple per market town. People can open them up for next to nothing, make a few bucks. It will get to the point where it will be used not as a money maker, but an incentive to get people to stay at your hotel/drink your mocha frappucinos.
The problem is that if the private company still gets money channeled by a monopoly (government) it has little reason to compete in a hard way.
Well, maybe they'll compete for the government deal on price (but government will add in all manner of their own social beliefs, not yours), and then you'll end up with under-the-counter bribes and the like.
Leave it to the free market. Here's hoping the market can create wireless before government starts thinking it's a project they can do and cock it up.
No-one settles dumb cases who has a reasonable amount of money. They fight them for one reason - to put off anyone thinking of doing likewise.
Sometimes companies will settle to avoid embarrassing cases, but in this instance, I'd imagine the scientists at NASA would love to see astrology get a kicking!
I've heard that the rate of psychological crimes like mass murder is basically flat, or the statistics so low that you can't actually show any patterns (if 1 happens 1 year, and 2 the next year, a news report may say "100% rise" but no statistician would work with this as data).
To be frank, it's hard to know what influences these cases.
My own theory is that video games/movies may give people ideas about how to hurt someone, but the reason why they want to hurt someone is a lot deeper.
The thing is, some of those investors probably think it's a scam too.
But, what they really care about is how much they can sell it to someone else. That (and to a lesser extent) dividends are all that matters.
There's a lot of companies out there that I think are overpriced. It doesn't matter as long as you sell them before the world wakes up (a lot of buyers of stock are sheep).
Because so much of it is high-concept piggy-backing slop ("based on the old 60's TV serial", "starring the hot couple of the moment", "video game spinoff", "comic book", "starring singing sensation") that gets killed very quickly by word-of-mouth.
This is often why some films are so massively hyped now, and open on screens everywhere. To maximise the income on the short time between the promise of the trailer/past experience of TV series you loved and everyone telling their pals what a dud it was.
A long time ago, this wasn't the model. The model then was that movies were released at a few cinemas first, and if popular, would go out to the regions. This still happens with smaller movies (often known as sleepers) - films made on smaller budgets often starring people you've not heard of. They grow by word-of-mouth.
I read a book about a film star once, and how the studio realised they had a dud on their hands, but decided to blitz it on a big holiday weekend. And yes, it sank pretty quick, but actually made a small profit on people going to see him in a short window.
Oh, and anytime you hear that there were no press previews on a movie, the reason is nearly always that it's a real stinker, and they don't want the press writing reviews to scare people off.
Replace stuntmen. Replace old effects. Achieve the impossible. Alter shots that normally couldn't be (like removing 20th century features from shots of Venice).
I've seen some CG shots in film that don't look right and would have been done better 30 years ago with real effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Human beings have been fighting and killing each other forever. When men first went to the Americas, they didn't become more harmonious back home in Spain or England.
They don't buy things because "no-one got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft". They buy things at the best value, because the people making the buying decisions are spending their own money.
These people look for value. I know some small entrepreneurs who are using OpenOffice.org because the £200 license for Office is a fair slab of their business.
People often host small sites on LAMP. Over time, some of these small businesses are going to get larger.
I'm starting to see activity on jobs in PHP occurring now (this also co-incides with a noticable trend towards people building more and more browser-based apps).
It's no bones to me that someone wants to live like this, but really, anyone doing this maybe needs to sit down and think about where their life is going.
In the space of about 3 years, the UK has gone from a couple of hotspots to a couple per market town. People can open them up for next to nothing, make a few bucks. It will get to the point where it will be used not as a money maker, but an incentive to get people to stay at your hotel/drink your mocha frappucinos.
Well, maybe they'll compete for the government deal on price (but government will add in all manner of their own social beliefs, not yours), and then you'll end up with under-the-counter bribes and the like.
Leave it to the free market. Here's hoping the market can create wireless before government starts thinking it's a project they can do and cock it up.
Considering things I've seen from the USA like 24, The Sopranos, Nip/Tuck, Six Feet Under and others, I'd say he's got a point.
The game is never over. Eternal vigilence and all that.
No-one settles dumb cases who has a reasonable amount of money. They fight them for one reason - to put off anyone thinking of doing likewise.
Sometimes companies will settle to avoid embarrassing cases, but in this instance, I'd imagine the scientists at NASA would love to see astrology get a kicking!
Like the medium act that starts out with "Is there a john, or maybe a jane here. I'm picking up a J". And then someone shouts "I'm Jacob".
And people are staggered at the mediums powers (odds of at least one person in the audience having a name starting with "J"?).
But targetted product boycotts can make a difference to corporate behaviour. Lots of times. Sometimes, this can change small things.
I've played around with a mac in a shop and apart from the Unix core, I just get to the "sorry, what's the big deal with a Mac".
I have it installed, I don't do it because it doesn't work with Firefox.
I recall that Microsoft and the supermarket agreed that it was fine as long as the supermarket didn't use the name to go into the software business.
All the PCs I've built have fun nearly flawless over 7 years. It's much easier than people think. The first rule is - buy good quality components.
Having worked in companies with and without it, ISO9001 means nothing.
To be frank, it's hard to know what influences these cases.
My own theory is that video games/movies may give people ideas about how to hurt someone, but the reason why they want to hurt someone is a lot deeper.
I think he was talking about good inventions for the positive progression of mankind, not you murdering Born to be Wild ;)
But, what they really care about is how much they can sell it to someone else. That (and to a lesser extent) dividends are all that matters.
There's a lot of companies out there that I think are overpriced. It doesn't matter as long as you sell them before the world wakes up (a lot of buyers of stock are sheep).
You think this analogy's going to make sense to most slashdotters?
But what's exciting is the cost of market entry now. DV cameras, PC editing systems. With music - a laptop, some software.
It still takes talent, but we're already seeing interesting indepdent films (mostly documentaries right now).
The film brats of the 70s were helped by the development of lighter, smaller cameras. I hope that DV gives us a new breed of film makers.
Yeah, because all those films funded by the National Lottery were such a big success, both critically and commercially.
They aren't. Or else they're just finance geeks.
Because so much of it is high-concept piggy-backing slop ("based on the old 60's TV serial", "starring the hot couple of the moment", "video game spinoff", "comic book", "starring singing sensation") that gets killed very quickly by word-of-mouth.
This is often why some films are so massively hyped now, and open on screens everywhere. To maximise the income on the short time between the promise of the trailer/past experience of TV series you loved and everyone telling their pals what a dud it was.
A long time ago, this wasn't the model. The model then was that movies were released at a few cinemas first, and if popular, would go out to the regions. This still happens with smaller movies (often known as sleepers) - films made on smaller budgets often starring people you've not heard of. They grow by word-of-mouth.
I read a book about a film star once, and how the studio realised they had a dud on their hands, but decided to blitz it on a big holiday weekend. And yes, it sank pretty quick, but actually made a small profit on people going to see him in a short window.
Oh, and anytime you hear that there were no press previews on a movie, the reason is nearly always that it's a real stinker, and they don't want the press writing reviews to scare people off.
Replace stuntmen. Replace old effects. Achieve the impossible. Alter shots that normally couldn't be (like removing 20th century features from shots of Venice).
I've seen some CG shots in film that don't look right and would have been done better 30 years ago with real effects.
Use .com. Use .co.uk. Use your country's domain.
Trust me, People react pretty badly to such a threat.