So let me get this straight... $1 DVDs are going to be replaced by something that at the moment costs over $5000??? errr... what? DVDs will be old hat by the time solid state even approaches that price.
The life of a CF drive is significantly shorter than a hard disk. RAID is the way to go if you're worried about disk failure. That's why half of it exists;)
So, by your logic, if I had a million dollars and I'd earmarked it for disposal by fire, as it's already been earmarked, it's not a waste burning it?
The fact of the matter is, NASA is eating up billions of dollars. Simple as that. I'm no economist, but I know that billions of dollars can have an immediate effect on the quality of life of many hundreds of thousands of people.
I love space the much as the next guy, but what are we doing on other planets if we can't even sort our own one out? Millions of people around the world are dying. They need help NOW. If you think yourself a decent person, you must have issues with this. You can't possibly defend spending like this.
So you don't think people are entitled to health care? What about poor people? What if you were born into this world to poor parents, and you got ill? Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free? Or, would you rather poor Americans died so rich Americans like yourself can drive around in Hummers praising Bush's incredible tax cuts?
But if I break my leg, I'll go straight to any hospital I can find, and they'll fix it up for free. I don't even have to tell them who I am.
The beauty of Britain and Canada is you can have the same paid-for health care you get in the US, but you are also entitled to emergency care for free.
You can't argue with that. I know where I'd rather break my leg, that's for sure.
If they did that, there'd be no legal music copying going on, just a CD box with 3 identical CDs in it.
This way, they are allowing their fans to actively replicate the CD themselves, which is usually illegal, and pisses off the RIAA something chronic. It's a slap in the face to the RIAA. It's a bit out of date, though - the real deal would be to release the album on Kazaa/edonkey. If there was more legal music on P2P networks, their argument holds less water.
The copyright holder has given you the ultimate legal weapon to copy those CDs - the fabled explicit written permission:)
Basically, they said you could, so you can make 2 copies, legally. You could do it in front of a judge, and he'd just have to sit there, grooving on it.
Who's going to buy a disk of the same make after their first one crashes soon after purchase?? I know I'd not have confidence in the brand any more, that's for sure. This is a mistake, no doubt. It would be like Ford releasing a car that blows up in a huge fireball after a month.
Wasting resources? I've got a windows box here serving a floor of sales consultants, letting them mix-up packages in real-time for customers, and it's currently using 15megs of memory, and about 0.1% cpu time. That's hardly wasting resources, seeing as it's instantly accessible.
Flamebait?? This guy's just posted some great points. None of it is absurd - go read some media (not fox or cnn), and you'll see a lot of it makes sense. Jumping to the conclusion it's flamebait is a bit childish, especially as the topic is rather important to the whole world.
People like power and money. When their power and money is threatened, they do what they can to preserve it. That's what we're witnessing now. These rich and powerful people are doing whatever they can to ensure they stay rich and powerful as long as possible. They're professional politicians, not humanitarian altruists.
Well, the current administration can't even get electronic voting to work using custom hardware, let alone using a public infrastructure. The original post isn't as absurd as you say. He's not blaming the internet's lack of intrinsic security on the bush administration, just their lack of commitment to secure (or even truthful) voting.
Because the powers that be won't let it happen. As they say, "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal". Their very jobs rely on the fact they can manipulate the voting. Once someone comes up with a global, secure, perfect voting system, their jobs are truly down to the public, which they don't want. They want to stay put. I admire your stance, but there are more problems than just technology with this issue.
The votes need to be anonymous - that's the whole point. Imagine if Bush's current trend of neo-fascism continues, you could well imagine the last commercial before election day was "VOTE FOR ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU!" - cut to a scene of Bush killing goats with hand grenades - "REPUBLICAN. OR ELSE.".
I'd be scared to vote for anyone else! I'd know he'd personally have a list of who's been a naughty little commie, and I'd also know he's got no qualms over sending a UAV to visit my house with a nice gift of C4 before the next election.
If that was the case, how could you vote for the other guy? If too many people caved in, Bush would win, and you'd be dead in a week. If you vote for Bush, you'll be alive in a week no matter who wins. That's the whole point. There can be serious repercussions.
If your friend doesn't respect your right to vote anonymously, they're not very nice! Couldn't you just turn around and say "Please look away for 2 secs"? Or do your friends regularly hold you at gunpoint?:-P
Don't forget the politically-correct RICO (racketeering-influenced/corrupt organisation), used extensively to bust drug dealers of south-american origin.
Slashdot Mirror
For the last freakin' time, he isn't Sir Bill! You can only be a Sir if you're british!
So let me get this straight... $1 DVDs are going to be replaced by something that at the moment costs over $5000??? errr... what? DVDs will be old hat by the time solid state even approaches that price.
Also, why is it just sports photographers? What makes sport so important? Surely anyone with a camera can benefit from this technology...
You can go away for weeks, and never have to download images.
Well, the photographer could always use lossless compression in his TIFFs :-P
The life of a CF drive is significantly shorter than a hard disk. RAID is the way to go if you're worried about disk failure. That's why half of it exists ;)
The fact of the matter is, NASA is eating up billions of dollars. Simple as that. I'm no economist, but I know that billions of dollars can have an immediate effect on the quality of life of many hundreds of thousands of people.
I love space the much as the next guy, but what are we doing on other planets if we can't even sort our own one out? Millions of people around the world are dying. They need help NOW. If you think yourself a decent person, you must have issues with this. You can't possibly defend spending like this.
Do you watch the Fox News Channel, by any chance? :-P
So you don't think people are entitled to health care? What about poor people? What if you were born into this world to poor parents, and you got ill? Shouldn't you be allowed health care for free? Or, would you rather poor Americans died so rich Americans like yourself can drive around in Hummers praising Bush's incredible tax cuts?
The beauty of Britain and Canada is you can have the same paid-for health care you get in the US, but you are also entitled to emergency care for free.
You can't argue with that. I know where I'd rather break my leg, that's for sure.
I'm not joking - people actually want evolution called that in schools, as apparently "evolution" is a bit of a slap-in-the-face to god.
This way, they are allowing their fans to actively replicate the CD themselves, which is usually illegal, and pisses off the RIAA something chronic. It's a slap in the face to the RIAA. It's a bit out of date, though - the real deal would be to release the album on Kazaa/edonkey. If there was more legal music on P2P networks, their argument holds less water.
Basically, they said you could, so you can make 2 copies, legally. You could do it in front of a judge, and he'd just have to sit there, grooving on it.
- "I work in a business on main street".
- "What does it do?"
- "It's made of bricks."
- "fool."
Who's going to buy a disk of the same make after their first one crashes soon after purchase?? I know I'd not have confidence in the brand any more, that's for sure. This is a mistake, no doubt. It would be like Ford releasing a car that blows up in a huge fireball after a month.
Idiot.
Wasting resources? I've got a windows box here serving a floor of sales consultants, letting them mix-up packages in real-time for customers, and it's currently using 15megs of memory, and about 0.1% cpu time. That's hardly wasting resources, seeing as it's instantly accessible.
People like power and money. When their power and money is threatened, they do what they can to preserve it. That's what we're witnessing now. These rich and powerful people are doing whatever they can to ensure they stay rich and powerful as long as possible. They're professional politicians, not humanitarian altruists.
Well, the current administration can't even get electronic voting to work using custom hardware, let alone using a public infrastructure. The original post isn't as absurd as you say. He's not blaming the internet's lack of intrinsic security on the bush administration, just their lack of commitment to secure (or even truthful) voting.
Because the powers that be won't let it happen. As they say, "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal". Their very jobs rely on the fact they can manipulate the voting. Once someone comes up with a global, secure, perfect voting system, their jobs are truly down to the public, which they don't want. They want to stay put. I admire your stance, but there are more problems than just technology with this issue.
Anyway, from what I understand, the Pentagon is looking into ways for its meatheads, I mean soldiers, to vote from abroad.
I'd be scared to vote for anyone else! I'd know he'd personally have a list of who's been a naughty little commie, and I'd also know he's got no qualms over sending a UAV to visit my house with a nice gift of C4 before the next election.
If that was the case, how could you vote for the other guy? If too many people caved in, Bush would win, and you'd be dead in a week. If you vote for Bush, you'll be alive in a week no matter who wins. That's the whole point. There can be serious repercussions.
How DARE you post a sensible solution using Palladium! this is slashdot! :-P
If your friend doesn't respect your right to vote anonymously, they're not very nice! Couldn't you just turn around and say "Please look away for 2 secs"? Or do your friends regularly hold you at gunpoint? :-P
Who said the US wasn't racist? :-P