Four months after Ford Chairman Henry Ford II fired Iacocca as president of Ford in July 1978, he took up with Chrysler and promptly figured out the automaker was in big trouble. He fired executives...
Damn pronoun confusion, I thought 'he' was Ford, not Iacocca... no wonder that sounded weird to me... thanks, now it sounds familiar. Iacocca took $1 pay ( after cutting everyone else's pay and laying off tons of people, natch, but it was a good gesture ).
Again, I wonder if he was the first to do something like that. Probably not, eh?
And you are making this out to be a bad thing why? Say they buy some small Internet startup that does something, they bring their considerable financial arsenal to bear, make that something do 5 other things and market to 10x more people who buy 7x more of these, don't you think that they would be entitled to sell it for an order of magnitude more than they bought it for, since the value is that much more? And given such a proven track record, that a larger company would value and covet these kind of strategies and execution for their company?
Woah, dude, how did I make that out to be a bad thing ? I sure hope I didn't... that's *awesome*!! That's the friggin' American dream right there ( well, the dream for those who can buy a $10million company, anyway ). Dude, kudos to Steve!
I do have to wonder how much people at Pixar are wiggin' right now, but still... no, I think what Steve did with that little ILM spin-off was really, really remarkable. I was just joking that doing something similar is next on the list for our Google execs, now that they have the private jet, tons of stock, and a $1 salary, since they're taking moves from the Steve Jobs playbook.
So... control of the legislative branch is irrelevant. Either the chief executive was responsible for what he signed, or not. Either Clinton was responsible for the DMCA (since he signed it into law) and Reagan was responsible for 1981-1988 deficit spending (since he signed the appropriations) or neither of them were responsible for what they signed.
Um... not sure I want to get involved in further 'debate' here, but...
It's already been pointed out that the DMCA ( as well as the NET Act ) were passed either unanimously or near-unanimously. You'd suggest Clinton should have vetoed those despite being certain that veto would be overridden ? That's a high political cost with no benefit.
On the other hand, Reagan wanted those appropriations ( especially the larger ones, which were for military spending ), and the executive branch exerts much greater control over spending bills than over other types of legislation.
I'm not about to argue with you that Reagan is *really* more responsible for 80's-era spending increases than Clinton is for the DMCA, but if you were being genuinely honest, I think you'd have to admit there's a big difference between those types of legislation and the power the executive branch has to shape them.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Democrats did a terrible, terrible thing in helping to pass the DMCA. I also think the comparison you've made isn't a terribly good one; Reagan asked for those spending increases. Did Clinton ask for the DMCA in the same manner ?
Four months after Ford Chairman Henry Ford II fired Iacocca as president of Ford in July 1978... lowered his own salary to a dollar a year
Wow, I guess I'm actually a little young to have heard that one ( thanks, it's been a long time since I was too young for *anything* ). I wonder if it was done before that.
In any event, it appears you should call the Gunniess World Records folks and have them issue a correction. I'm not sure but Ford's compensation package might actually have been less than Jobs', even after adjusting for inflation, what with the value of the jet and stock...
Funny, I thought I'd covered the "before computers could talk to each other case"...
Pretty much since computers had a way to communicate with one another... actually, before then, surely someone here has a story of trying to escalate their user privileges on some mainframe system somewhere.
... wow... brilliant... the Steve must be proud... I'll take only $1 in salary... plus stock and corporate jet, thanks...
I mean, it's not like this move hurts them. They look great to their employees, get lots of great press, and don't pay as much in taxes. Later, when they don't have _quite_ as much stock money to thow around, they can ask for a nice salary, and a greatful board will shower them with riches.
I expect the next move from these guys to be buying some small spin-off for $10 million and turning it into a media powerhouse to later sell for $7 billion and a seat on the board of an even larger company...
The original poster did not say what you accused him of saying.
I'm sorry, but he did.
He said "like the DMCA, the NET Act was also signed into law by the Clinton Administration."
That's a direct quote, and an obvious attempt to deflect criticism of the GOP. If he'd meant to ( correctly ) spread the blame to all deserving parties, he would have said something more along the lines of "the DMCA and NET Acts had full support of the Democrats as well" or something like that.
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired
If you've read my posts and decided I'm a big fan of the Democratic party, the same could be said for your own reading comprehension... but I'm thinking that you are able to understand things that are written quite easily. It may simply be that you choose to ignore that information.
He did no such thing, jackass. He merely noted that the NET Act was "signed into law by the Clinton Administration". He made no claim that it originated solely from democrats, or that republicans are totally innocent-- though it's worth noting that it passed both houses unanimously, so I'd so it neatly tars both parties quite equally. His point is summed up by his last sentence:
Uh, how many times to I have to say I detest both parties ? Is the phrase "signed into law by the Clinton Administration" somehow not meant to cast the blame to Clinton and his party ?
If the guy was trying to be non-partisan, he could have simply said that the bill had support of both parties, and that they're both guilty, and left it at that.
Your knee-jerk hissy fit false accusation frankly paints you as some sort of moonbat Democrat apologist.
Uh... do you ever read what you wrote, and self-critically consider how it makes you sound ? Consider it as an exercise in self-enlightenment sometime. You could learn something about yourself and how others see you.
Funnily enough, like the DMCA, the NET Act was also signed into law by the Clinton Administration. I only point that out to illustrate that selling out your rights to further rapacious corporate profits is not, and never has been, exclusively a Republican trait.
While I agree with you, it's interesting that you point to the "Clinton Administration" when it was congress that wrote the law... a congress controlled by what party now ?
You don't think you're being a little dishonest in your assignment of blame, do you ? Of course not... at least, you're not going to feel like you can publically admit it. That'd be exposing a weakness. But, if you were being really honest, you'd research and give us the names of the sponsors of those bills. Orin Hatch? A senator Fritz seems to like the broadcast flag an awful lot, and I hate to tell you, but those guys are GOP as it gets... who are the Democrats who need to be tarred and feathered for their pro-business-"IP" bills ?
If you want to blame Clinton, go ahead, but your bias is pretty easy to see if that's what you're doing. It's not like the Democrats controlled both houses of congress during the Clinton years... not like the GOP over the past 6 years.
Do I think a Democrat-controlled congress would do any better? Judging by the 'lobby reform' proposed by both parties recently, no. Both parties are on corporation's payrolls, and as soon as you and everyone else stops pointing fingers at the 'opposition' party and realize that all these bums need to be kicked out and we all demand that real reforms be put in place, the better.
Trying to blame this on the Clinton administration alone, though, really, you should be ashamed - doing that makes you part of the problem right there.
Maybe you're not really a GOP appologist, and if not, I'm sorry I was a little harsh on you, but your message really makes it look like you're trying to pin the DCMA and NET Act on Clinton, which is simply wrong.
You are dead on with most of your comments, except...
Since when is hacking a hobby?
Pretty much since computers had a way to communicate with one another... actually, before then, surely someone here has a story of trying to escalate their user privileges on some mainframe system somewhere. For most people who get into what should more correctly be called cracking, it's just something done for fun- trying to do something you aren't supposed to be able to do.
Yea, it may seem to you like breaking into computer systems is a hobby like breaking into houses is a hobby, but really, it's a hobby and it's been a hobby for a long, long time. Not a great hobby, not one that should be encouraged, but it's still a hobby. I'd encourage anyone thinking about picking up that hobby to waste time writing games, creating websites, and reading instead, though... it's best to have a hobby that can't result in jail time.
Really, it's only an Apple story in these parts. In the real world, people are less concerned about what kind of processor is in their computer and more concerned if the computer will do the things they want it to do.
"iMac" gains more traction that the new "HP Pavilion dv1000."
You're right about that... "Inspiron E1705", "Aspire 5670", "Gateway M685-E or NX860", "HP dv1000t", "Compaq Presario V2000T"... the only name in the bunch that's even close to consumer-friendly is "ThinkPad T60 and X60", and even that makes "MacBook Pro" look not so strange by comparison.
Good luck to folks working at Pixar!
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
If it looks like Disney's paying attention to what the Pixar people tell them, then I'll be buying Disney shares this summer. The real key for Disney Animation is John Lasseter. If they put him in charge, expect great movies.
Um, would that mean John has to move ? Or would Disney relocate resources to the SF bay area?
What would this mean for people working at Pixar ? How much are they freaking the hell out right now ?!?
Would Steve really have that much sway at Disney with 7% of the company's stock ?
Either there's more to this deal than is reported here ( Chairman of the Board Steve Jobs, anyone? ) or I'm having a really hard time processing this. I mean... Steve is, really, the kind of guy who already has more cash than he wants to think about. He just enjoys being a mover and a shaker. What good is 7% of Disney to him if he can't decide it means Disney has to license everything for the iTMS or something like that ??
Of course, OS X runs on Intel hardware now, I suppose Steve really *is* capable of doing anything...
I can see how you missed the joke. He didn't get the British accent quite right.
Actually, he got the quote a little muddled, too, it goes more like this:
.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
What would this mean for Pixar ?!?
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
The real question I want to know is... what would this mean for Pixar ?
Just how much is everyone down in Emeryville freaking out right now?
As someone who was seriously considering working there, I really do want to know...
it's called "It's a Small World"...
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
Steve Jobs will begin designing rides at Disneyland. You know there will be an acid trip ride, something Alice and Wonderland style. I can't wait.
actually, have you ever been on ANY of those rides? Especially the older ones, I have to say... Pirates, the Peter Pan ride... nice blacklights, dude! Woah!
See, that's what Steve would do to Disney. Return control to the creative types, and make Disney a force to rule the world !
Then and only then will Steve be safe to land the mothership.
shaving production costs in an industry where production is king is meaningful
You appear to have the movie industry confused with some other industry. IMAGE, aka marketing, is king.
The difference between a 1 cent disc and a 5 cent disc, even in quantities, isn't going to matter when the end product is selling for over $30. Really, it's not even enough of a difference to give HD-DVD a price advantage at the register, which is where it'd really matter.
I'm with you, though. I don't care. I don't even have an HD display. I'm not buying a player, unless it's in PS3 form, and that won't even happen for years to come, I'm sure.
See above - I'm not sure I'd even try to defend it...
No, that's actually very, very cool of you. I'm quite happy to have the submitter of the story so much as admit that the story itself is a troll... it really justifies my reaction to it.
It's interesting to me that you don't mind having submitted such a story for whatever reason, but that's your choice. You get to do what you want, just don't ask me to approve or be happy about your "getting away with such an attack".
I'm just here to point out that your actions in submitting trolls-posing-as-stories are seen as anti-social, and that they have negative consequences - even if they aren't maybe negative for you, perhaps - guys like you help to ruin slashdot for guys like me.
Yeah, I meant "as". Sony backed blueray. Sony backed Betamax. History repeats itself.
Yea, but it's not _just_ Sony this time. They learned from that mistake. It's Sony and a whole mess of companies, the most notable to me is Samsung... although all of those companies are good, Samsung seems like it's firing on all pistons these days. Anyway, a big part of Sony's problems with Betamax supposedly were caused by the proprietary nature of the format, and that Sony was the only one making players and promoting the format... for Blu-ray, it wouldn't be just Sony losing to HD-DVD, it'd be Sony and Samsung and Pioneer and LG...
plus the manufacturing costs for HD-DVD are less, the manufacturing time is shorter, and it seems that more recording studios - the real manufacturers of media - seem to support HD-DVD. At least last I checked.
Um, yea, you might want to check that again... right now, it looks like HD-DVD has non-exclusively Paramount, Warner Bros, and Universal... while Blu-ray has those plus Disney, Fox, Lion's Gate, and of course Sony and MGM... some of those exclusively.
This is far from over and far from predictable. While Toshiba shocked everyone with their sub-$500 player at CES, Sony's PS3 should meet that ( and be a everyone-is-waiting-for-it killer game machine )... not that the players are the important bit, it's the media here, and I really, really, really don't think that the cost of making a Blu-ray disc vs an HD-DVD disc is going to matter when they're charging $50 a movie... but this battle is far from over. We'll see, but my point is that a blanket "it's Sony, history is repeating itself" statement is ignoring a whole lot of ways that this is totally unlike Betamax vs VHS.
Assuming you mean "as" rather than "and"... could you explain why you think so ?
Looking at the content providers in this HD disc format war, it really does seem that Blu-ray is getting more support, even if you aren't looking at those covered by this story. It seems a little early to me to call Blu-ray the Betamax. Besides, didn't Betamax come out first?
A dupe is when no one notices it's been reported before. An article that cites an earlier one is not a dupe, by definition, and by definition it has been considered whether there's sufficient new information to make it worthwhile.
Don't take it personally, Barry... but the editor mentioned the previous article, not you. I guess on second or third glance the story isn't as much of a dupe as I thought it was, but I'm still really, really annoyed and disappointed in you for repeating that "2-3 times faster" claim without including the word "SPECint".
Please explain to me how that's not trolling, since you've successfully argued it's not a dupe.
This story is not a dupe - it's a different set of measures.
Does that really make it a different story? Sorry, I'm a little focused on this whole "but Steve said 2-3 times faster!" crap. Everyone knows he said SPECint, or should, and unless the story is talking about SPECint, I'm focused on the story being wrong about that claim. Just like the previous story.
why don't you go to Digg?
Because the reason I look at slashdot at all, rather than just scan through the entire internet for information myself, is that it provides a smaller number of stories, supposedly just "Stuff that matters". Maybe my memory is just rosy, but I seem to recall a time when there were more stories that mattered, and fewer dupes of stories with basic information all wrong. Let me be clear that I don't mind dupes too much ( I'm happy for all of the SCO stories we can get ) but when one story gets something wrong 80% of resulting threads correct that error... I don't think it's too much to want to see the next story on the subject avoid that error.
And, as you point out, Digg doesn't really get better stories to the top of it's pile... it's really the same stuff all over, just more of it. Check out the rant in my sig if you like.
If your parser of the XML is correctly standard conforming it will not work with these feeds (assuming the article is correct), if yours does file a bug report.
Um, you have an XML parser that does not handle something like a date being formatted incorrectly, and the bug is where?
Sorry, parsers don't work like that. In the real world, data is entered by humans sometimes, and sometimes it's screwed up. At worst, your perfectly-conforming parser should return a set of data missing the dates. Otherwise, there's a bug in the parser, as well as in the XML stream.
But yes, this error in the XML could result in a standards-conforming parser not getting the date information from the stream. That's the extent of it, though, if I understand the problem correctly.
Slashdot actually is a blog of links to articles somewhere else
Of course it is. There's a big difference between "somewhere" and "everywhere", though. Slashdot often covers stories that will not likely make it to Yahoo News or be covered by the Wall Street Journal. That's a good thing.
The problem occurs when stories repeatedly show up that purposefully ignore facts and have misleading headlines just to generate page views, and then those stories are duplicated repeatedly.
We had a story on the exact same subject just days ago, and the vast majority of the ( informed ) posts pointed out that *in the keynote* Steve Jobs said that the new machine is 2-3 times faster *using the specINT benchmark*, and that other parts of the system were identical to the G5 iMac. Ignoring that qualification, while focusing on the 2-3 times statement, is simply dishonest... i.e. it's something you wouldn't ignore unless doing so made your story more sensational.
Funny, most of the posts on this story make exactly that point. Crap stories like this remove a lot of the value from reading slashdot. Maybe I'll start looking for my "stuff that matters" elsewhere.
I'm going to encourage everyone to start replying to crap stories with "mod STORY down" comments. I've had enough. If we all start doing this, I can quickly check the comments for a long list of 0-moderated "mod STORY down" comments and just skip the story. We'd be doing each other a favor. The 'editors' are going to kill slashdot with this kind of crap. Surely there's some actual news, or even some interesting tech-related web page to look at somewhere, instead of this rehashed garbage?
Of all the people who have submitted stories, there has to be *one* that isn't a dupe, right?
Or should I cynically assume that this story ( and others ) are duplicated based on the number of posts/pageviews they generate ?
In fairness -- relative to last week's "iTunes is malware!" nonsense, this one at least has a germ of sense behind it.
No, no it does not. Steve Jobs was very specific about 2-3 times faster being for the specINT benchmark. Ignoring that and talking focusing on the 2-3 times claim is dishonest, plain and simple. Sure, the 2-3 times faster marketing claim is equally dishonest... I'm sure we'll get Apple to stop that kind of marketing when everyone else in the world does the same. Duh.
This article is not only a dupe, it's a dupe of a troll. It's not news, it doesn't matter, and repeatedly seeing such crap really, really has me ( a VERY avid and longtime slashdot reader ) seriously considering not reading slashdot.
I mean, really, if I have to sort through repeated, lame, uninformative news stories, I can scan Yahoo news, Digg, or any other number of sources. Articles like this are just here to stoke the fires of people who know they're crap. I can only assume the reason we're seeing this article is that the last one on the same subject generated a large number of posts... most of them saying the article is crap.
Slashdot's value lies in interesting tech stories not covered everywhere else, with the number of stories being filtered and small, along with insightful commentary by informed readers. I didn't mind too much the first iteration of this story, but the dupe is just so much trolling for pageviews. Really, it may be time for slashdot to consider some sort of article-moderation. Or maybe we should all start voting ourselves, with lots of "Mod Article Down" posts on crap articles like this. Heck, I might just start doing it myself... my Excellent karma is likely to die, but like I care anymore...
Slashdot Mirror
Look at what the OP wrote :
Damn pronoun confusion, I thought 'he' was Ford, not Iacocca... no wonder that sounded weird to me... thanks, now it sounds familiar. Iacocca took $1 pay ( after cutting everyone else's pay and laying off tons of people, natch, but it was a good gesture ).
Again, I wonder if he was the first to do something like that. Probably not, eh?
Woah, dude, how did I make that out to be a bad thing ? I sure hope I didn't... that's *awesome*!! That's the friggin' American dream right there ( well, the dream for those who can buy a $10million company, anyway ). Dude, kudos to Steve!
I do have to wonder how much people at Pixar are wiggin' right now, but still... no, I think what Steve did with that little ILM spin-off was really, really remarkable. I was just joking that doing something similar is next on the list for our Google execs, now that they have the private jet, tons of stock, and a $1 salary, since they're taking moves from the Steve Jobs playbook.
Um... not sure I want to get involved in further 'debate' here, but...
It's already been pointed out that the DMCA ( as well as the NET Act ) were passed either unanimously or near-unanimously. You'd suggest Clinton should have vetoed those despite being certain that veto would be overridden ? That's a high political cost with no benefit.
On the other hand, Reagan wanted those appropriations ( especially the larger ones, which were for military spending ), and the executive branch exerts much greater control over spending bills than over other types of legislation.
I'm not about to argue with you that Reagan is *really* more responsible for 80's-era spending increases than Clinton is for the DMCA, but if you were being genuinely honest, I think you'd have to admit there's a big difference between those types of legislation and the power the executive branch has to shape them.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Democrats did a terrible, terrible thing in helping to pass the DMCA. I also think the comparison you've made isn't a terribly good one; Reagan asked for those spending increases. Did Clinton ask for the DMCA in the same manner ?
Wow, I guess I'm actually a little young to have heard that one ( thanks, it's been a long time since I was too young for *anything* ). I wonder if it was done before that.
In any event, it appears you should call the Gunniess World Records folks and have them issue a correction. I'm not sure but Ford's compensation package might actually have been less than Jobs', even after adjusting for inflation, what with the value of the jet and stock...
Funny, I thought I'd covered the "before computers could talk to each other case"...
I guess we get to agree on this one :-)
I mean, it's not like this move hurts them. They look great to their employees, get lots of great press, and don't pay as much in taxes. Later, when they don't have _quite_ as much stock money to thow around, they can ask for a nice salary, and a greatful board will shower them with riches.
I expect the next move from these guys to be buying some small spin-off for $10 million and turning it into a media powerhouse to later sell for $7 billion and a seat on the board of an even larger company...
I'm sorry, but he did.
He said "like the DMCA, the NET Act was also signed into law by the Clinton Administration."
That's a direct quote, and an obvious attempt to deflect criticism of the GOP. If he'd meant to ( correctly ) spread the blame to all deserving parties, he would have said something more along the lines of "the DMCA and NET Acts had full support of the Democrats as well" or something like that.
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired
If you've read my posts and decided I'm a big fan of the Democratic party, the same could be said for your own reading comprehension... but I'm thinking that you are able to understand things that are written quite easily. It may simply be that you choose to ignore that information.
Uh, how many times to I have to say I detest both parties ? Is the phrase "signed into law by the Clinton Administration" somehow not meant to cast the blame to Clinton and his party ?
If the guy was trying to be non-partisan, he could have simply said that the bill had support of both parties, and that they're both guilty, and left it at that.
Your knee-jerk hissy fit false accusation frankly paints you as some sort of moonbat Democrat apologist.
Uh... do you ever read what you wrote, and self-critically consider how it makes you sound ? Consider it as an exercise in self-enlightenment sometime. You could learn something about yourself and how others see you.
While I agree with you, it's interesting that you point to the "Clinton Administration" when it was congress that wrote the law... a congress controlled by what party now ?
You don't think you're being a little dishonest in your assignment of blame, do you ? Of course not... at least, you're not going to feel like you can publically admit it. That'd be exposing a weakness. But, if you were being really honest, you'd research and give us the names of the sponsors of those bills. Orin Hatch? A senator Fritz seems to like the broadcast flag an awful lot, and I hate to tell you, but those guys are GOP as it gets... who are the Democrats who need to be tarred and feathered for their pro-business-"IP" bills ?
If you want to blame Clinton, go ahead, but your bias is pretty easy to see if that's what you're doing. It's not like the Democrats controlled both houses of congress during the Clinton years... not like the GOP over the past 6 years.
Do I think a Democrat-controlled congress would do any better? Judging by the 'lobby reform' proposed by both parties recently, no. Both parties are on corporation's payrolls, and as soon as you and everyone else stops pointing fingers at the 'opposition' party and realize that all these bums need to be kicked out and we all demand that real reforms be put in place, the better.
Trying to blame this on the Clinton administration alone, though, really, you should be ashamed - doing that makes you part of the problem right there.
Maybe you're not really a GOP appologist, and if not, I'm sorry I was a little harsh on you, but your message really makes it look like you're trying to pin the DCMA and NET Act on Clinton, which is simply wrong.
Since when is hacking a hobby?
Pretty much since computers had a way to communicate with one another... actually, before then, surely someone here has a story of trying to escalate their user privileges on some mainframe system somewhere. For most people who get into what should more correctly be called cracking, it's just something done for fun- trying to do something you aren't supposed to be able to do.
Yea, it may seem to you like breaking into computer systems is a hobby like breaking into houses is a hobby, but really, it's a hobby and it's been a hobby for a long, long time. Not a great hobby, not one that should be encouraged, but it's still a hobby. I'd encourage anyone thinking about picking up that hobby to waste time writing games, creating websites, and reading instead, though... it's best to have a hobby that can't result in jail time.
Funny, I seem to remember more than one article about new Core Duo laptops being introduced at CES.
Really, it's only an Apple story in these parts. In the real world, people are less concerned about what kind of processor is in their computer and more concerned if the computer will do the things they want it to do.
"iMac" gains more traction that the new "HP Pavilion dv1000."
You're right about that... "Inspiron E1705", "Aspire 5670", "Gateway M685-E or NX860", "HP dv1000t", "Compaq Presario V2000T"... the only name in the bunch that's even close to consumer-friendly is "ThinkPad T60 and X60", and even that makes "MacBook Pro" look not so strange by comparison.
Um, would that mean John has to move ? Or would Disney relocate resources to the SF bay area?
What would this mean for people working at Pixar ? How much are they freaking the hell out right now ?!?
Would Steve really have that much sway at Disney with 7% of the company's stock ?
Either there's more to this deal than is reported here ( Chairman of the Board Steve Jobs, anyone? ) or I'm having a really hard time processing this. I mean... Steve is, really, the kind of guy who already has more cash than he wants to think about. He just enjoys being a mover and a shaker. What good is 7% of Disney to him if he can't decide it means Disney has to license everything for the iTMS or something like that ??
Of course, OS X runs on Intel hardware now, I suppose Steve really *is* capable of doing anything...
Actually, he got the quote a little muddled, too, it goes more like this:
Just how much is everyone down in Emeryville freaking out right now?
As someone who was seriously considering working there, I really do want to know...
actually, have you ever been on ANY of those rides? Especially the older ones, I have to say... Pirates, the Peter Pan ride... nice blacklights, dude! Woah!
See, that's what Steve would do to Disney. Return control to the creative types, and make Disney a force to rule the world !
Then and only then will Steve be safe to land the mothership.
You appear to have the movie industry confused with some other industry. IMAGE, aka marketing, is king.
The difference between a 1 cent disc and a 5 cent disc, even in quantities, isn't going to matter when the end product is selling for over $30. Really, it's not even enough of a difference to give HD-DVD a price advantage at the register, which is where it'd really matter.
I'm with you, though. I don't care. I don't even have an HD display. I'm not buying a player, unless it's in PS3 form, and that won't even happen for years to come, I'm sure.
No, that's actually very, very cool of you. I'm quite happy to have the submitter of the story so much as admit that the story itself is a troll... it really justifies my reaction to it.
It's interesting to me that you don't mind having submitted such a story for whatever reason, but that's your choice. You get to do what you want, just don't ask me to approve or be happy about your "getting away with such an attack".
I'm just here to point out that your actions in submitting trolls-posing-as-stories are seen as anti-social, and that they have negative consequences - even if they aren't maybe negative for you, perhaps - guys like you help to ruin slashdot for guys like me.
Yea, but it's not _just_ Sony this time. They learned from that mistake. It's Sony and a whole mess of companies, the most notable to me is Samsung... although all of those companies are good, Samsung seems like it's firing on all pistons these days. Anyway, a big part of Sony's problems with Betamax supposedly were caused by the proprietary nature of the format, and that Sony was the only one making players and promoting the format... for Blu-ray, it wouldn't be just Sony losing to HD-DVD, it'd be Sony and Samsung and Pioneer and LG...
plus the manufacturing costs for HD-DVD are less, the manufacturing time is shorter, and it seems that more recording studios - the real manufacturers of media - seem to support HD-DVD. At least last I checked.
Um, yea, you might want to check that again... right now, it looks like HD-DVD has non-exclusively Paramount, Warner Bros, and Universal... while Blu-ray has those plus Disney, Fox, Lion's Gate, and of course Sony and MGM... some of those exclusively.
This is far from over and far from predictable. While Toshiba shocked everyone with their sub-$500 player at CES, Sony's PS3 should meet that ( and be a everyone-is-waiting-for-it killer game machine )... not that the players are the important bit, it's the media here, and I really, really, really don't think that the cost of making a Blu-ray disc vs an HD-DVD disc is going to matter when they're charging $50 a movie... but this battle is far from over. We'll see, but my point is that a blanket "it's Sony, history is repeating itself" statement is ignoring a whole lot of ways that this is totally unlike Betamax vs VHS.
Assuming you mean "as" rather than "and"... could you explain why you think so ?
Looking at the content providers in this HD disc format war, it really does seem that Blu-ray is getting more support, even if you aren't looking at those covered by this story. It seems a little early to me to call Blu-ray the Betamax. Besides, didn't Betamax come out first?
Don't take it personally, Barry... but the editor mentioned the previous article, not you. I guess on second or third glance the story isn't as much of a dupe as I thought it was, but I'm still really, really annoyed and disappointed in you for repeating that "2-3 times faster" claim without including the word "SPECint".
Please explain to me how that's not trolling, since you've successfully argued it's not a dupe.
Does that really make it a different story? Sorry, I'm a little focused on this whole "but Steve said 2-3 times faster!" crap. Everyone knows he said SPECint, or should, and unless the story is talking about SPECint, I'm focused on the story being wrong about that claim. Just like the previous story.
why don't you go to Digg?
Because the reason I look at slashdot at all, rather than just scan through the entire internet for information myself, is that it provides a smaller number of stories, supposedly just "Stuff that matters". Maybe my memory is just rosy, but I seem to recall a time when there were more stories that mattered, and fewer dupes of stories with basic information all wrong. Let me be clear that I don't mind dupes too much ( I'm happy for all of the SCO stories we can get ) but when one story gets something wrong 80% of resulting threads correct that error... I don't think it's too much to want to see the next story on the subject avoid that error.
And, as you point out, Digg doesn't really get better stories to the top of it's pile... it's really the same stuff all over, just more of it. Check out the rant in my sig if you like.
Um, you have an XML parser that does not handle something like a date being formatted incorrectly, and the bug is where?
Sorry, parsers don't work like that. In the real world, data is entered by humans sometimes, and sometimes it's screwed up. At worst, your perfectly-conforming parser should return a set of data missing the dates. Otherwise, there's a bug in the parser, as well as in the XML stream.
But yes, this error in the XML could result in a standards-conforming parser not getting the date information from the stream. That's the extent of it, though, if I understand the problem correctly.
Of course it is. There's a big difference between "somewhere" and "everywhere", though. Slashdot often covers stories that will not likely make it to Yahoo News or be covered by the Wall Street Journal. That's a good thing.
The problem occurs when stories repeatedly show up that purposefully ignore facts and have misleading headlines just to generate page views, and then those stories are duplicated repeatedly.
Funny, most of the posts on this story make exactly that point. Crap stories like this remove a lot of the value from reading slashdot. Maybe I'll start looking for my "stuff that matters" elsewhere.
I'm going to encourage everyone to start replying to crap stories with "mod STORY down" comments. I've had enough. If we all start doing this, I can quickly check the comments for a long list of 0-moderated "mod STORY down" comments and just skip the story. We'd be doing each other a favor. The 'editors' are going to kill slashdot with this kind of crap. Surely there's some actual news, or even some interesting tech-related web page to look at somewhere, instead of this rehashed garbage?
Of all the people who have submitted stories, there has to be *one* that isn't a dupe, right?
Or should I cynically assume that this story ( and others ) are duplicated based on the number of posts/pageviews they generate ?
No, no it does not. Steve Jobs was very specific about 2-3 times faster being for the specINT benchmark. Ignoring that and talking focusing on the 2-3 times claim is dishonest, plain and simple. Sure, the 2-3 times faster marketing claim is equally dishonest... I'm sure we'll get Apple to stop that kind of marketing when everyone else in the world does the same. Duh.
This article is not only a dupe, it's a dupe of a troll. It's not news, it doesn't matter, and repeatedly seeing such crap really, really has me ( a VERY avid and longtime slashdot reader ) seriously considering not reading slashdot.
I mean, really, if I have to sort through repeated, lame, uninformative news stories, I can scan Yahoo news, Digg, or any other number of sources. Articles like this are just here to stoke the fires of people who know they're crap. I can only assume the reason we're seeing this article is that the last one on the same subject generated a large number of posts... most of them saying the article is crap.
Slashdot's value lies in interesting tech stories not covered everywhere else, with the number of stories being filtered and small, along with insightful commentary by informed readers. I didn't mind too much the first iteration of this story, but the dupe is just so much trolling for pageviews. Really, it may be time for slashdot to consider some sort of article-moderation. Or maybe we should all start voting ourselves, with lots of "Mod Article Down" posts on crap articles like this. Heck, I might just start doing it myself... my Excellent karma is likely to die, but like I care anymore...